IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Rage= Communists?, In an article..
SOULonICE
post Feb 5 2004, 10:00 AM
Post #16


Activist
**

Group: Activist
Posts: 111
Joined: 15-January 03
Member No.: 166



[B]IF COSMIC WOULD WRITE A BOOK, NO MATTER WHAT IT WAS ABOUT I WOULD READ IT. I'VE READ THAT LAST POST ON THIS TOPIC LIKE 8 TIMES ALREADY. IT'S FLUID. COSMIC THAT'S YOUR HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT; WRITE A BOOK.


--------------------
"Powerpuff girls come to the rescue!"

"I can barely afford to pay the internet bill let alone chuck up dosh like that for audioslave!"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Banksy
post Feb 8 2004, 08:28 AM
Post #17


Freedom Fighter
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 2,270
Joined: 1-February 04
From: U.K, Manchester, Wigan
Member No.: 1,603



You can't really group people into a political thinking there is no right or wrong side they just see what they think is wrong and try to make the problem public so others as well as themselves can do as much as they can to help the people. they've done more for people in issuses than you will ever do. I also see you like system of a dowm well tom morello is a good friend of serj they do a radio show with each other called axis of justice radio network which HELPS poeple there doing smoething good fro the world. www.axisofjustice.org go on if you want. you can personaly email him ytourself see what he has to say.


--------------------
Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong.
Oscar Wilde
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amalie
post Feb 17 2004, 03:04 PM
Post #18


Junior Activist
*

Group: Activist
Posts: 6
Joined: 15-February 04
From: england
Member No.: 1,674



firstly rage arent communist i havent heard one song saying there communists. The fact that they have certain views on the world and politics desnt automatically make them a commmunist understand. Just because some has certain books also doesnt make them a dam communist books on che guevara or revolution doesnt make them a communist to be honest even che wasent a communist Castro is and was a communist but che just wanted better treatment and lifestyle for the people fo cuba so just because of what someone reads or sings or writes or god dam preaches doesnt make them a communsit i have never come across rage calling themselves communist and i thikn you should think about what you say cause its totally rediculous.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Feb 17 2004, 03:15 PM
Post #19


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (amalie @ Feb 17 2004, 11:04 PM)
be honest even che wasent a communist Castro is and was a communist but che just wanted better treatment

If you don't think Che was a Marxist-Leninist, you need to read up on him a little more. He supported Stalin and Mao (to an extent) and their revolutions based on proletariat freedom. He purged members of his army and helped develope a Leninist state. To say Che wasn't a communist is simply ignoring history.

By the way, my friend spoke to me of Tom from Rage wearing a Mao shirt, does anyone know if he's Maoist?

To say that Rage is "contradicting" itself by flourishing under Capitalism is a fallacy. They are flourishing but in doing so, sparking political uprising. They make great music and (even though they disagree with my political movement) are great friends to the proletariat youth of today.

Rage is simply succeeding in the capitalist market, while acknowledging that there are many flaws in the system. Who would listen to Rage if they were a bunch of poor commies living on the streets? How many people could they really reach? Maybe some, but not AS MANY as they are/were reaching.

This post has been edited by Dataika: Feb 17 2004, 03:19 PM


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mute
post Feb 18 2004, 12:33 AM
Post #20


Activist
**

Group: Activist
Posts: 81
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 1,389



QUOTE (brutal @ Jan 28 2004, 02:21 AM)
first off, all im going to say is


you're gonna think what you're gonna think......


marxist?
lenninist?
communist?
socialist?
fascist?
capitalist?
anarchist?





who cares
its music, and its meant to be interprited anyway you want it to. thats the beauty of expression. just because rage had politics (without politics, of course....its just a stupid label) doesnt mean it doesnt imply to them.

i support what rage stood for, because im a fan of the music and the words.
im not some overanalytical dumbfuck who thinks he can narrow their message down to a point.



just fucking listen.
develop your own message.





(yes, i know my post is a bunch of cliche's, but they are for a reason, and that reason is that they are true. fuck the bullshit people.)

why'd you include fascist in that list?


--------------------
"There can be no justice as long as we live under conditions which enable one person to take advantage of another's need, to turn it to his profit, and exploit his fellow man." Alexander Berkman

DID YOU F*CKING GET IT?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Owen
post Feb 18 2004, 04:14 AM
Post #21


Junior Activist
*

Group: Activist
Posts: 1
Joined: 22-December 03
Member No.: 1,414



rage against the machine communists?
4 questions....
yeah?
and?
so?
what?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cosmic
post Feb 18 2004, 02:28 PM
Post #22


Magneto, alpha(E/H)^2
Group Icon

Group: ZDLRNet Admin
Posts: 5,960
Joined: 29-November 02
From: L.A., CA
Member No.: 1



^ yea, if it was definately so, but they arent.


--------------------


Classic
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amalie
post Feb 18 2004, 03:14 PM
Post #23


Junior Activist
*

Group: Activist
Posts: 6
Joined: 15-February 04
From: england
Member No.: 1,674



che was not a communist he fought for what he believed in and fought for a better country that he lived after he saw what a state it had got to. Just because he was helping a communist goverment gain power didnt mean he was, i am not ignoring history im just telling it how i see it if che had been a communist and wanted to become part of a communist nation then why did he go to bolivia to help normal people fight. These are just my views!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Feb 22 2004, 12:33 PM
Post #24


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (amalie @ Feb 18 2004, 11:14 PM)
These are just my views!

Che was a Leninist. What makes him a Marxist? Read his writings. Read his writings on Stalin, Mao and other LENINIST LEADERS.

Hell, Che Guevara signed his letters STALIN II, and swore that capitalists would be annhialated. If that's not Marxist and Leninist in thinking, I DONT KNOW WHAT IS.

The reason he went to Bolivia is because, if you knew anything about Communist theory, he wanted to reform LATIN AMERICA. In Leninist ideology, socialism must spread from country to country until the world is Socialist. After this is accomplished, then Communism can begin. Che wanted a UNITED SOCIALIST Latin America so that Cuba wouldn't have to depend on the Revisionist USSR Government (after Stalin) and would be able to be a self-sufficient socialist bloc of Latin American countries.

He thought that Bolivia was ripe for revolution. The revisionist USSR told him it was to get rid of him. He was causing tension between socialist ideology and western powers, and they viewed him as a threat. Besides "helping normal people" is the name of the game in communist/leninist ideology.

Regardless, he still wanted a Communist/Socialist BLOC of nations to block imperialism. Che Guevara was a Communist.

Again, to ignore this, (you can believe what you want) is to just ignore the history of what Che lived and died for.

This post has been edited by Dataika: Feb 22 2004, 12:35 PM


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
devoid
post Mar 19 2004, 08:16 AM
Post #25


Junior Activist
*

Group: Activist
Posts: 1
Joined: 16-March 04
Member No.: 1,835



The underlying argument here is that communism is undesirable. While I admit that communism has been rather detrimental to the people of these so-called “socialist” states, I must point out that Marx’s doctrines of a Utopian, classless society were fundamentally different from Lenin’s or Mao’s interpretation. The failures of these socialist regimes could be blamed on the lack of specific instructions from Marx on how these governments were to function. He made no attempt to forecast the actual institutions or the working of the coming classless society—he regarded such attempts as necessarily vain exercise of Utopian speculation. His concern was with the struggle to arrive at the new society, not with the use to which men would put their emancipation when they had achieved it. When, after the revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks set to work to build up the institutions of the new Russia on Marxian foundations, Marx’s Capital furnished them with hardly any indications of what they should do, beyond the general imperative that they should proceed as rapidly as possible to socialize the means of production and to order their use under the direction of a comprehensive plan. How to do these things they were left to find out for themselves by painful experience, which included in many respects finding out first how not to do them and involved them in furious controversies over such questions as the right pace of industrialization, the treatment of the peasants, and the scope to be allowed for a shorter or a longer time for continued private trading under the new economic policy. On none of these issues could they get any clear guidance from Marx’s writings: Lenin, and after him Stalin, were left to devise their own interpretations with the aid of no more than a few broad hints from some of Marx’s more occasional writings, such as his Critique of the Gotha Programme, which was invoked to justify the maintenance of highly unequal rewards for unequal services after unearned incomes from property had been virtually abolished.

Yet, in retrospect, one could say that the Bolsheviks were doomed to failure from the beginning: Marx had stated explicitly in his writings that Revolutionary Proletarian Socialism (Communism) can only be successfully implemented in a highly-developed capitalistic society. Lenin, however, believed that capitalism as a stage on the road towards the coming epoch of socialized production and classless social relations could be shortened, if not skipped altogether. Thus did he doom millions to the misery and suffering that followed the downfall of the Romanov monarchy. Stalin after him was no more than a despotic megalomaniac, power-hungry and a totalitarian in all senses of the word. Mao based his theories on Marxist-Leninism, though was less pure ideologically than Lenin. He simply took power and established an authoritarian state, claiming to be socialist. All of these leaders implemented a one-party state that deteriorated into tyrannical, repressive regimes as they became senile and paranoid. Socialism, as stated by Marx, is supposed to be a democratic system that serves the people of the working class, not a dictatorial establishment that suppresses the masses. One cannot assume that communism is “evil” simply because of these cases of past failures, just as one cannot assume that democracy is evil because of Bush.


--------------------
There is no spoon...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Mar 20 2004, 09:48 AM
Post #26


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (devoid @ Mar 19 2004, 04:16 PM)
The underlying argument here is that communism is undesirable. While I admit that communism has been rather detrimental to the people of these so-called “socialist” states, I must point out that Marx’s doctrines of a Utopian, classless society were fundamentally different from Lenin’s or Mao’s interpretation.

Even though I agree with some of your post I have to take issue with somethings said.

Lenin, Stalin and Mao did not claim to have a "communist" society nor that it was classless or stateless. Lenin, Stalin and MAO both wanted this to be the end result of their socialistic transition. However, since Marx said that the working class needed to harnass a centralized form of government in order to oppress and sweep the bourgeois under the rug, Leninists were able to mold this anyway they wanted.

QUOTE
The failures of these socialist regimes could be blamed on the lack of specific instructions from Marx on how these governments were to function.


Couldn't agree more.

QUOTE
Lenin, however, believed that capitalism as a stage on the road towards the coming epoch of socialized production and classless social relations could be shortened, if not skipped altogether. Thus did he doom millions to the misery and suffering that followed the downfall of the Romanov monarchy.


This is true, but there were reasons for this way of thinking. One is that capitalism has an inherent property (indeed its highest stage) which was imperialism. Imperialism was infecting the country, and thus Lenin claimed that capitalism was already all over Russia just not in terms of "production" or the "means of production." Thus, it was viable to start a revolution in a imperialistic "colony."

QUOTE
Stalin after him was no more than a despotic megalomaniac, power-hungry and a totalitarian in all senses of the word. Mao based his theories on Marxist-Leninism, though was less pure ideologically than Lenin. He simply took power and established an authoritarian state, claiming to be socialist.


I don't agree with your assessment on Stalin nor Mao. Stalin and Mao were LENINISTS. They followed Lenin with the same fevor as everyone before them. Mao just concentrated on the peasants. If you want to say LENINISM is totatlitarian then I will agree with you. But to say that Stalin and Mao molded it into totalitarianism is NOT TRUE. They merely built on Leninism.

QUOTE
All of these leaders implemented a one-party state that deteriorated into tyrannical, repressive regimes as they became senile and paranoid.


If by paranoid you mean of opposing capitalist forces then yes they were "paranoid." One-party states is Leninism. A SINGLE PARTY OR REVOLUTIONARY VANGUARD TO RUN THE COUNTRY IN THE INTEREST OF THE PROLETARIAT. This is what Leninism states. As I said before, they were FOLLOWING Lenin. If you think Leninism is totalitarian that's one thing, but it doesn't appear as if you are.

QUOTE
Socialism, as stated by Marx, is supposed to be a democratic system that serves the people of the working class, not a dictatorial establishment that suppresses the masses.


No, Socialism was to be a way of "dictatorship of the proletariat." Which means harnassing the state to supress the bourgeois. SUPPRESSION was an all too re-occuring theme in Marx's ideology. Of course the Leninist states disintegrated into this no matter who you ask (yes Leninists admit it after Mao and Stalin [or Lenin if you are a Trotskyist]).

QUOTE
One cannot assume that communism is “evil” simply because of these cases of past failures, just as one cannot assume that democracy is evil because of Bush.


I agree. Communism isn't "evil." But the ideology has been shown to be oppressive of the proletariat.

Overall, good post, I just felt like I had to respond to various points.


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JBandit
post Apr 16 2004, 06:19 PM
Post #27


WalkEvilTalk
***

Group: Activist
Posts: 276
Joined: 26-March 04
Member No.: 1,886



In the song "People of the sun", RATM was singing about the zapatista revolution to overthrow their current government and setup a democracy...yes...a DEMOCRACY. People really neeed to listen to more than one song to rant about something.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post May 2 2004, 01:04 AM
Post #28


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (JBandit @ Apr 17 2004, 02:19 AM)
In the song "People of the sun", RATM was singing about the zapatista revolution to overthrow their current government and setup a democracy...yes...a DEMOCRACY. People really neeed to listen to more than one song to rant about something.

And what makes you think Communism doesn't involve a democracy? Put aside what capitalists and Leninists tell you Communism is.


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Renegades
post May 2 2004, 02:24 AM
Post #29


Estou perdido...
****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 4,778
Joined: 30-November 02
From: SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE...
Member No.: 20



A government is just people ruling over people - and communism allows these top dogs to control everything without question - in most democracys around the world it's a lot harder to do this...


--------------------
"Do not be afraid of death so much as an inadequate life” - Bertolt Brecht

"I don't listen to what art critics say. I don't know anybody who needs a critic to find out what art is."
- Jean-Michel Basquiat
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Erik
post Sep 29 2004, 02:53 AM
Post #30


Junior Activist
*

Group: Activist
Posts: 6
Joined: 29-September 04
From: the Netherlands
Member No.: 2,794



QUOTE(Dataika @ May 2 2004, 01:04 AM)
QUOTE(JBandit @ Apr 17 2004, 02:19 AM)
In the song "People of the sun", RATM was singing about the zapatista revolution to overthrow their current government and setup a democracy...yes...a DEMOCRACY. People really neeed to listen to more than one song to rant about something.

And what makes you think Communism doesn't involve a democracy? Put aside what capitalists and Leninists tell you Communism is.
[right][snapback]98631[/snapback][/right]


I myself am a marxist. I was a party-militant for a long time but I left the party because of two reasons:

1. Communism wants democracy. The power shouldn't be seized by a (communist/socialist) party, or the elite of that party, but a class; the working class.

2. I'm still a young man but I'm not stupid. In Holland young people do not join political partys, especially working class youth. Though they might not have a lot of money; they have a great streetculture. This streetculture hides the germ in capitali$m wich we will call socialism in the future.

What i'm trying to say is that 'Marxist', 'Leninist' or whatever are all just words.
RATM wants to give a message to anyone who fights for justice & equality.

Words are midgets, deeds are giants!


--------------------
Ain’t it funny how the factory doors close
Round the time that the school doors close
Round the time that the doors of the jail cells
Open up to greet you like the reaper

...Kill the rich...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 9th February 2010 - 12:16 AM