TulipO

I guess what I was trying to ask is. If we cannot own property, what stops random people form entering "my" house and staying indefinitely? What stops them from eating my food and wearing my clothes?

Contrary to popular belief personal property will not be abolished. Private property is different--specifically the means of production--they will be seized and held in common. However, your stuff is your stuff. Luxury items like mansions, thousands of acres of waterfront property, massive jets, yachts etc will also be held in common. So the idea is you get to keep your private space to live in, all your stuff PLUS you get to use super nice stuff like that. The difference is no one person or small group of people is able to hoard all the good stuff and the people control how we produce things.

Good Read: The Family Private Property and The State by Friedrich Engels

In a communist utopia, what would stop me from going next door and shitting in my neighbours toilet, without asking for permission...for the rest of my life?

Common decency? Or perhaps they wouldn't mind as our values would change over time from values that are based on private life into a system where public life is more valuable? Or perhaps in your community you would have public facilities built that fulfilled the needs of said community? It would really be up to you. We cannot prefigure what the needs of society will be under socialism, but we can guess that there probably won't be shit police.

Good Read: "Their Morals and Ours" by Leon Trotsky

More guns, obviously.

I don't know about more guns--I mean there is quite a stockpile already that will certainly be appropriated by the revolution, but they would probably be held in a public armory controlled by the people in case of counter-revolution.

Good Listen: http://wearemany.org/a/2010/06/is-violence-necessary-to-change-society

The terms socialism and communism are often conflated in the public's mind. How are they related, and how do they differ?

Originally the term "Communist" was coined by Marx and Engels to differentiate themselves from the Utopian Socialists of the time. Marx and Engels were the founders of Scientific Socialism which differs from utopian in that it relies on dialectical materialism as its main tenet. In modern times people use the term "socialist" to refer to the transitional period between a revolution that overthrows capitalism and "communism" to refer to the period after several generations of socialism where the state is no longer a neccessary entity.

Good Read: Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Friedrich Engels

No dreaded page 7. In addition, I probably won't be issuing lucky numbers and secret fortunes in this thread.

We just don't have enough "Ask Me" threads. We really don't. I can't believe that I haven't done this thread yet...

So ask me questions about communism.

I win! I win! I can't wait until the Admin elections! I'm a shoe in!

Hari Kondabulu is awesome.

I hates eggs! No eggs!

Stop making me feel old! Going to see this tonight...

As always my votes are SUPER negotiable.

I'm going to see it again tonight. Maybe that will help... Also, it is definitely the kind of movie you see twice. Its so mesmerizing that I think you definitely miss some things the first time.

I'm reading the book now. Also going to see it again Friday night. SO. AWESOME.

Ahaha! Stress free reading this is not Haku. Keep reading my friend. Keep reading.

Seriously I just watched the trailer and got all misty eyed.

I can't wait to go see it again. I would go tonight if it weren't for this stupid hurricane!

This is possibly the best movie I have ever seen. Wow. Even at 3 hours I didn't want it to end--and we contemplated going to grab some dinner and catching the late show after. Seriously, awesome artistic direction, the plot was moving without being manipulative, every detail mattered. It was like every film genre in one movie. I have never seen anything so complex so brilliantly executed. A-MA-ZING!

Haku! You're in the middle of book 3?!?!?! Holy shit holy shit holy shit (its the best one!!!)

I hate waiting!!!!

I LOVE Sifl and Olly!!! Miss this show...

I saw 2 really good movies recently: Margaret--with Anna Paquin and an all around all star cast in a very understated film about a teenage girl who is involved in a horrible accident. I'm not sure I understood it 100% but it was extremely compelling. Definitely needs a second viewing to really grasp it. It wasn't hyper-intellectual, but it was definitely allegorical in a more complex way than most films. Its one of those movies where you realize that every shot is important. Also, Paquin is A-MA-ZING. Her acting chops in this film are simply incredible.

Midnight in Paris: I'm fairly new to Woody Allen movies, but I thought this one was great. He has finally handed over the reins of the underappreciated, neurotic artist role to some one else, and Owen Wilson was really great. Cool story too. Love the Hemingway character.

Lol! I feel ya man. I know that the circles I run in have been analyzing this shit to death. Honestly, I know that the entire concept of Batman doesn't fall into my particular worldview, but it entertains me anyway. That being said:

Wow--that wasn't even me who neg'd you. Whatever. I still maintain that you are either not reading my actual responses, or you are not comprehending them and you're blaming me for your inability to do so. Additionally, you pre-judge me based on a number of assumptions you make about the left in general. Then with your opinion already formed and half-cocked you launch in to a snide response--that are barely coherent and lack any understanding about the issue at hand.

The wordier posts tend to get skipped I find.

Hitler only got that power because the horrible state the German economy was in following world war one. To put this a bit more on the nose he was the hero Germany needed, not the one they deserved. It's why they followed him so blindly into the transition from "we're on our way back" to "Hey lets round up everybody that's not white and take over the world!" I could go into the whole "One man's revolutionary hero is another man's terrorist speech" or point out that every person who kills a whole bunch of people is "entirely justified" but one of us wants to make folk heroes out of murderers and I think that's just a point we're never going to see eye-to-eye on.

This misinterpretation of the lead up to Hitler is proof we need a history forum.

The problem with Magneto is that he's responsible for easily 60% of the hatred that mutants have in his own universe because, you know, he keeps trying to kill humans and stuff. It's a big oroborus with him because any footing that sane and practical mutants manage to get through years of lobbying and having bricks thrown at their head is ruined every time he pops up on TV to put his oppressors in their place. And he quite literally wields power, between his army of strong-armed thugs that can destroy entire city blocks in the blink of an eye, or his abilities which are quite ridiculously powerful as well. Just because he's not the president of something doesn't mean he doesn't wield power, he just establishes his power through fear.

And so the battle continues because Prof X and his band of reformists keep allowing Stryker to pull his shadow bullshit and advocates of mutant "cures" to continue what they are doing--and no amount of lobbying will stop it.

But that's beside the point, we were talking about Bane. Bane is not a revolutionary, he does advocate the "cleaning of the petri dish" mentality and he just seems to enjoy the suffering of others in general. It wasn't enough to blow up Gotham, he had to sow the seeds of chaos, and he used people like yourself to do it by pretending to care about wealth and privilege which is pretty laughable considering the whole second half of the movie is mainly dedicated to how fucked over a bunch of poor homeless kids now that somebody let all the people in the prison out into the streets and now polices it with tanks killing anyone who tries to make the situation any less horrible and miserable. So you saying "I'm with Bane" is more troubling than that time AliveSheCried said Travis Bickle was his role model.

I'm with Bane as opposed to the Gothan police and Batman. We are talking about a piece of fiction that is written from the perspective of Frank Miller, who has an incredibly dismal view of humanity and is a proponent of facist order and the Great Man Theory of history. I agree entirely with your points about Bane as they apply in real life. The problem here is that people who think that the corporate elite are the problem are painted as mindless idiots who follow someone like Bane withouth question, and the rich along with the police are the only ones who can save us all. When I say "I stand with Bane" its a joke about the way I feel about the perspective of the film. I know that doesn't translate well over the internet in the first place--nor to someone who pre-judges my politics without understanding them. However, I am also saying that I do not agree that a revolutionary situation involves the chaos that Bane creates, nor do I agree that the cops are a force for good. Slave catchers and strike breakers. This heroification is entirely unwarranted.

Tu, you can't seriously believe that Hitler took the measures he did because their hooked noses were blocking his light when he was trying to catch some rays. Hitler genuinely believed he was doing what was best for his people & that the Jews were oppressors(from what I've read). Not justifying or advocating, simply pointing out that evil is a very subjective term

Its not so much about good and evil as it is about who wields power. Hitler was in control of the state therefore whatever he may or may not have believed, he was the oppressor. He had all the power of the state behind him and used it to wield supreme power of life and death over a group of people he percieved as less than him, dangerous to his beliefs, and who could act as a scape goat for the problems Germany faced economically. His feelings do not enter in to it.

Now with Magneto, his position is very clear. You cannot dispute it. He does NOT wield state power over the majority non-mutant. You can dispute his methods--no doubt. But his position is not comprable to Hitler's or any other head of state in the real world or the X-Men universe. I do want to point out that I think Logan's example is pretty accurate--although I'm sure that will lead some people to draw negative perspectives on Malcolm X which is not my inent.

But check this out: If he worked at it Magneto could move the fucking moon. He could crash it into earth, or he could alter the tides to create a massive tsunami. He could move the plates in the very earth. But he doesn't do any of this stuff. If he is so intent on wiping out humanity then why doesn't he? Sure his plans do often mean that some people will die and he doesn't think much about that, but they do not mean that all people or even most will die.

In a more general sense though and this is a serious question Tu- At what point would you consider cleaning the petri dish and starting over? How badly does humanity have to fuck itself and it's home planet before you'll concede that genocide is an admittedly cheap, but ultimately effective solution? Because that's Ra's whole deal and it's why he's one of my favourite villains.

I don't know if I can conceive of a scenario where I would advocate mass genocide. I mean it when I say that I like being alive, and I like most people. Also, I don't see the problems of humanity as created by the masses--but rather by the system and those who wield power. Therefore genocide would never be an option because it would solve nothing in my view. I did like the show trials of the Wall St guys in DKR--it was very cathartic. But again, its a movie-- not real life and that is a situation eliminating a small group of people that oppresses the rest of us--not a mass killing of regular humans.