Commies

活跃讨论

Rotten_NOFXer 就以下内容发表了评论 “Heavy metal communist?” (35)   2011年 11月

Rotten_NOFXer 就以下内容发表了评论 “communist punk bands?” (46)   2011年 11月

BlackTasartir 就以下内容发表了评论 “Logical Integrity” (1)   2011年 6月

evildani 就以下内容发表了评论 “Political Compass” (164)   2011年 6月

Superperas 就以下内容发表了评论 “Spanish Communist Ska/Punk Bands? ” (1)   2011年 5月

• Slovanka 说：
  星期三上午

  That was not just Albania, though in other countries anti-long-hair laws were enforced for different reasons. It was pretty much in all Eastern Bloc countries (in this case is Yugoslavia exluded) and it was meant to counter the cultural influence of Western Europe and the USA. Long hair symbolized the West (especially since 1960's). /// In that case, it might be political. But if you separate market and politics, then the fact I choose iPhone over other mobile phones is not political and has no political consequences, but merely market consequences. But since the state politicize market, it might be, indeed, considered political. But personally, I am against such an idea.

  给 Slovanka 留言

• paddypunx 说：
  星期五下午

  The leader sing of exploited is a friend of england national front and friend of member of skrewdriver. See the picture of exploited on last. Stay red 4EVER!!!

  给 paddypunx 留言

• eddiehiggins 说：
  上周

  That was Albania, and it was to curtail the influence of Islam. Anyways, the statement that "all things are political", doesn't mean that there is always a conscious political intent behind our actions. Rather, it means that there are political forces that push into choosing one action or another, and there are political consequences that come about from our actions. I can think of a lot of examples where the correlation between the two is so vague that it makes envisioning this connection superfluous - such as, choosing which toothpaste to use, which beverage to purchase, etc. Even in those cases there are political consequences; purchasing an iphone instead of some other phone will affect the market for phones, etc. This is sort of a nonsensical debate though, since the way I'm using the proposition "all things are political", ends up making it a tautology.

  给 eddiehiggins 留言

• Slovanka 说：
  上周

  But if you give up on forcing your ideas on others, then you give up on political power. The difference now is that there are multiple parties forcing their ideas on us. Anyways, not everything is political. Or is my possesion (be it a computer, an iPhone or a car) a political issue? Hardly. Is the fact, that I dye my hair a political issue? It's not politically motivated, therefore it's not political. And even if I dyed my hair for political reasons, most people would not see it that way, it'd not be political for them. Funnily enough, communists in some countries made even hairdressing a political issue (it was forbidden for men and boys to have long hair), this is not an issue now, it's not political anymore. Well, too bad, if you see politics everywhere. On the other hand you've clearly given very political examples as a prove, that everything is political. Or are you going to tell me now, that even hair dying is every single time a political issue?

  给 Slovanka 留言

• eddiehiggins 说：
  上周

  If I write a song about my national heritage, and record it on an album full of mystical/occult/pagan symbols, it's still political even if I refuse to admit it is. If I draw only pictures of working class/poor people it's political. If I use the term undocumented immigrant instead of illegal immigrant it's political. I don't see what's the point in debating this though, because you are going to end up saying that ultimately "real communists" would argue that they should completely enforce their political interpretations on to others, which is something I disagree with.

  给 eddiehiggins 留言

• eddiehiggins 说：
  上周

  I wouldn't call those examples obscure, nor would I call them short-term. Furthermore, critiquing them simply on the fact that they didn't last indefinitely (or for whatever length of time you determine is "long-term") is sort of ridiculous. Primarily, because every example I mentioned wasn't brought down by internal contradictions but by outside force.

  给 eddiehiggins 留言

• Slovanka 说：
  上周

  Well such obscure examples are irrelevant, since they didn't make it through in long-term. No, not everything is political. Not in a current state of affairs, at least, when it comes to the Balkans (never was and hopefully never will be). You might personally politicize whatever you want, but others might not see it that way. But once you get in power, you can force that politicization (integration into the party and into the state) on people and that's what happened in Eastern Bloc with various degrees of success. Politicization, as I use it now, is a term used in political science. Total (absolute) politicization is one of the basic definitions (traits) of totalitarianism and is opposed to authoritarianism (depolitization, demassification of politics). Of course total politicization was never achieved, but they were trying. I am not sure, if there was a country in South-Eastern Europe that achieved Communist Party membership to be at least 50% of citizens.

  给 Slovanka 留言

• eddiehiggins 说：
  上周

  Marx distinguished between personal and private property. Private property is the means of production, where as personal property is your toothbrush, your car, etc. The point about communism is that private property should be abolished, not personal property. On another note, I don't understand what you're getting at by asserting that communists politicize everything, since everything is already political. Finally, I think it's slightly dishonest to take one example of communism and claim it represents the ideology as a whole. Sure, most Marxists believed in Marxist-Leninism, but there are plenty of examples of non-Marxist-Leninist communist societies, such as Anarchist Catalonia, the Ukranian Free State, Autonomous Shinmin, etc.

  给 eddiehiggins 留言

• Slovanka 说：
  上周

  It's funny, when people start implying or putting words in my mouth. Communist regimes were and are totalitarian, because they want to create a new man, new uniformity, new thinking, new religion etc., they politicize everybody and everything and as such it is total. As well as it requires monopolization of power by the Communist Party, another trait of totalirianism and very little pluralism within the Party (democratic centralism). People can indeed be private property, but I said, that people shall have privacy and shall have some sort of private property, people want to own things. Be it a house, a car, money etc... Of course in Yugoslavia people were allowed to own those little things (in spite of official ideology), even small entreprises, but the ones that mattered were big factories and big business, and those were nominally a common property, that is the property of the total state (everyone within the state, noone without the state). Practice is what matters, not theory.

  给 Slovanka 留言

• Tea_4_One 说：
  上周

  @Slovanka. Communism isn't a totalitarian ideology at all, it's freedom. There is no state to oppress nor spy on you. You can hold ideas and such as your own, private property is property not of mind or body but systems and results of production. You're implying that people are private property, so in your mind they should be owned like a building. This is very sick way of thinking.

  给 Tea_4_One 留言

• Slovanka 说：
  上周

  Because simply, people want privacy and want something they can call their own. This includes immaterial objects (ideas, religion, philosophy of life etc.). Of course, once a communist does that, (s)he ceases to be a factual communist, since communism is a totalitarian ideology and privacy has little or no place in total state. So, Tito was a realist communist (leader of the Communist party) knowing that privacy is inevitable. And that's the reason I adore him, beside some other reasons, such as unification of Yugoslavia.

  给 Slovanka 留言

• eddiehiggins 说：
  13 天前

  she's a fascist

  给 eddiehiggins 留言

• Tea_4_One 说：
  14 天前

  @Slovanka I'm guessing by you stating that "Stalin and Tito were great men" that you're a lefty? So why do you prefer Tito for respecting private property? The very thing we, as communists, are opposed to.

  给 Tea_4_One 留言

• PRLwroc 说：
  上月

  *secured

  给 PRLwroc 留言

• PRLwroc 说：
  上月

  stalin is fucking murder. green = mother earth nature conservation/recured Real Left always green Red & Green Unite And Win

  给 PRLwroc 留言

• Slovanka 说：
  上月

  Left is left. Nor red, nor green (considering colours of that political compass). But Communists are red. If you're "green" and call yourself a communist, you should be ashamed of yourself. I think that both Stalin and Tito were great men. Tito was more charismatic though and unlike Stalin he somewhat (to a certain degree) respected private property, therefore Tito > Stalin.

  给 Slovanka 留言

• PRLwroc 说：
  上月

  @Slovanka what do you mean? Tito was good. Stalin is a lousy murderer. True left is always green! Cheers to BH Fanaticos! Fuck USA!

  给 PRLwroc 留言

• PRLwroc 说：
  上月

  Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь!

  给 PRLwroc 留言

• Slovanka 说：
  上月

  Sznupi & Invictus_Sol might be the best idiots, but paddypunx is indeed the worst idiot. Also the political compass forum topic is funny, real communists would be in the red field, not in the green one like most stupid people (of the West) posting there :D. Hoxha, Ceaușescu, Stalin, Gottwald, Tito were the Communists, not you.

  给 Slovanka 留言

• Dyerzen 说：
  上月

  ños, hermano. de postmos hasta nazbols, pero de mls cero patatero xD.

  给 Dyerzen 留言