Quote Originally Posted by Raistlin
My source is irrelevent, as are all conclusions in a debate. Tell me, what is communism, then? What's wrong with my reasons? Is communism not "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?" Does communism not put the "good of the people" and the "good of the community"(where it gets its name from) above the individual? Does communism not demand that each individual contribute "his fair share" to the community? Please, tell me where I'm wrong.
It took centuries for Enlightment to develop through Europe, it took a lot to bring German idealism and romanticism, intellectual revolution, social revolution through Europe and opression in Prussia. All of that brought Marx to write his theory. To justify his philosophy, Marx and Engels wrote thousands and thousands of pages: the Manuscripts, the Capital, etc. After that, it took another century and a half on extensions on this theory, other points of view, etc. I haven't read all of The Capital, I haven't read all of Marcuse, or Schiller, or Fromm. I can't explain communism in a post because it is a very complex theories that go far beyond the cheap simplifications often exposed. In fact, I can't even claim to understand communism as a whole, because I admit my ignorance around many topics touched by Marx and followers (and predecesors). If I was to explain what I know of communism- and it would take a lot of typing, even if I am not that well read on the issue- you would probably still find many parts lacking. However, I can claim to understand at least the main parts of the structure of the theory, and it's nothing close to what you are saying...in fact, what you are saying is explicitly- and it matches, point by point- what Fromm called the "sad manipulation of Marx". That's why I asked the source, if I could check the source- provided it was a book or website- I could attempt to show you where the wrong points are.

You keep on with your points and seem to refuse to admit the possibility of being wrong, as if I was here just to try to cheat you or something. I am just telling your understanding of marxist theory has nothing to do with the actual theories, that your source is wrong. I may be wrong on many things on communism, but I am fairly sure I am right when I say your idea of communism is probably taken from a manipulated view of the actual theory. Are you sure your source is correct? Have you actually attempted to look at other sources? Marx and Nietzsche are two very dangerous philosophers, because the first was taken as avatar by Stalinism and the second as a symbol of Nazism. That's why it's risky to talk about them, because history has manipulated them. For example, never look at Russell's book on the issue, because his text on Nietzsche was wrote on 1943, and I think Russell was jewish and English, so he had enough reasons to charge against the avatars of nazism, even though his views of Nietzsche were completly unfair. Even worse were the nazi interpretations of Nietzsche. And your readings of Marx are as close to Marx as Russell's writings on Nietzsche. And I could go on with this, but it's nearly 5 am and I don't want to get more pedantic.