noemon wrote:
As I said in my previous post, communists propose total global domination as a solution to resource conflict. But that applies to any ideology and not just communism with either small or big 'c'. One single global government renders conflict moot.
It should be obvious to you that a system that can only work under these circumstances is not actually a system at all because it offers no solution to any socio-economic group. Noone can be successfully communist unless the entire planet is communist is not a valid proposition for a political ideology. It renders the ideology itself moot.
And yet here we are *today*, with *capitalism* being global, along with its superstructure, the world's bourgeois governments / nation-states, that *uphold* this global economic system. It's a *class* system, and it privileges those who have the most *equity* values, everyone else be damned.
I'll also remind that 'global domination' is currently what *corporations* and *nation-states* do, for the very reason that you're specifying -- a 'solution' to resource conflict, by nationalist-corporatist hegemony, as over mining in Africa.
Nations, corporations, and households all currently displace market exchanges *internally*, through 'politicization' / hierarchies, but then the dynamics are *that*, the social-ladder, and in-group / out-group thing, which is *also* kinda shitty.
noemon wrote:
I'm sorry but I found your pamphlet as nonsensical, moreover it is quite evident that your "communism" is merely a rebellious reaction to your American "anti-communist" upbringing rather than a sincere belief grounded in rational thinking.
I also find the US's "anti-communism" as tiring and annoying, the refusal of Americans to admit their failure in health care and other things they deem "socialist" in an attempt to maintain the status quo. It is quite annoying indeed, but wanting health-care reform to a more European liberal style is one thing, jumping head first in a rather ridiculous communist ideology just to stick it to your conservative parents or friends is another.
I've been *around* (only-revolutionary) politics since I was in school, in 1990, due to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and related protests against it:
Labor credits Frequently Asked Questions
by Chris Kaihatsu, ckaihatsu@gmail.com, 10-17
Introduction
When I was initially 'radicalized', the constant, dependable political culture of the revolutionary side of the spectrum was a real and definite *benefit* to my political consciousness. It was far more comprehensive than what I was used to for that subject matter, and it *superseded* the trite anti-communist perspective that had been drummed into my head during my time of growing up and maturation within the nuclear family, with the disinformation called 'news' that was provided through the three major television channels that was the norm back then in the early '80s.
I realized, marching with newfound comrades down the major street of the campus where I was studying, that all it took was the combined, collective willpower of thousands of people to effect public actions, to directly influence the politics of the day to stop the U.S. invasion of Iraq at the time, in 1991.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338