Guevarista wrote: I aint even gonna dignify that
You and I both and likely everyone on this forum would agree with Marx that we have to evolve beyond those notions I'm sure.

I would think it fair to expect a revolution aimed at removing an oppressive class based system to sort out issues of class and inequality from day one yes. Though I do accept that may not be a fundamental flaw of Marx's thoughts but rather a flaw of those who were inspired by him. Although isn't it true that Marx and Engels were up for leaving capitalists in place as and when it suited?
Here's a chance for you to impart some of your knowledge on the subject. For the sake of removing any possible confusion about the term, "dictatorship", shall we perhaps refer to the D of the P as summat like "worker power" from now on in this thread? What process did Marx and Engels envisage for the people to get from day one of the revolution to a currency/banker free society?

dubmeup wrote:

dubmeup wrote:
Marxism's flaw lies in not addressing money.
Total epic fail.

andyh wrote:
If you Google 'bottle of twats'(NSFW!) as well as getting distracted from what I was there for, this image appears linking to this thread

My type of commonism would have to be a luddidic, Amish type journeyman, helping others to help themselves to help me, feed me and cloth me for the knowledge, who was it that said, land is no longer being made only borrowed while we walk upon it.

The true manifestation of life, is its rythm, where what goes around comes around with the golden rule of mankind, step outside of the paradigm and nature always dictates the outcome.

I desire to own no land nor anything I can't take with me, only that which I can make to ease my passage and share with others to do the same. What else really matters.

Knowledge is to be won, not imparted, this is not some hierarchy where somebody holds keys unavailable to others, you can read in their own words what they were talking about you should definitely read about the Paris commune, it essentially fell to a counter revolution
Engels and Marx considered many Anarchists infantile and counter revolutionary as they sought to remove the state (The Weapon) but in so doing relinquished their very ability to abolish the distinctions, inequalities etc that give rise to misuse of the state, removing the weapon only creates the opportunity for dominant classes to institute/produce a new weapon.

What we live in is the dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, they use the State as a weapon of exploitation against those who don't have any wealth or material wealth other than their labour power, the dictatorship of the Proletariat is when we assume control of the State and introduce radical socialist policies like full Nationalization of key infrastructure/industries, so profits are collected and distributed to maintain key services and their free availability, progressive tax policies on the wealthy, removal of restrictive trades union laws in the army and police etc etc etc, so on this you'd read more Trotsky/Lenin who actually enacted these types of socialist reforms in post Feudal Russia than Marx Engels who more critiqued various "Communist/Socialist" revolutionary movements of their time, scientifically analysed, refined and perfected theoretical socialism/sociology and never really took part in a Revolution per se

If you read the Paris Commune stuff you'll see what the Dictatorship of the Proletariat physically was, where it was succesful and where/why it fell to counter revolution

I'll certainly read up on the Paris Commune. It's summat I know nowt about

You didn't answer my question about how it was envisaged to achieve a currency free society...for some reason you just talked about the inadequacy of Anarchists.
I am genuinely interested in what you have to say about that process, which is why I asked.

dubmeup wrote:
Me neither. I wonder what they did for medical aid

oioioi wrote:
I just did google it and have to say that the results didn't include this thread....they did however include some stuff that may keep me away from here for quite a while

dubmeup wrote:
Google images?

Yes, I wanted to see what a bottle of twats might look like.

oioioi wrote:
Ah yes, on images that pic is the first one
I'll stick to the web links I think though.........

dubmeup wrote:
The power of SZ!

dubmeup wrote:
Well tbf I went as far as I can sincerely go without leaping into realms of idealism or utopianism.
I told you why Engels and Marx critiqued Anarchism; as being theoretically and physically ineffective in creating the material conditions in which the transcendence of monetary exchange as the fundamental human interaction would become possible, that would be through generations of Dictatorship of the Proletariat:
You can only realistically talk about abolition of the exchange medium when you have made irrelevant the idea of financial exchange, ie when labour power serves labour's interests/requirement, when people have the freedom, and means to produce what is needed required for themselves, they will have rendered profit motivation a redundant and outdated concept, Capitalism mode of production has provided the material basis for humanity to transcend purely financial, property based relations, where there is enough for everyone, but the mode of production serves the same interests that benefit from ideological Conservatism and dominate politics/corporate lobbying, financial backing etc, so until we hold the power and production serves communal requirements it's idealism and material conditions come before that.

In my view you work with what's available so fundamentally you back the interests of the working class wherever they are and whatever form that takes, agreed?

Some of us have already "made irrelevant the idea of financial exchange", theoretically at least, without state intervention, quite the opposite in fact.

Guevarista wrote:
Ooops mondragon :p

oioioi wrote: Exactly theoretically, you'll need a power equivalent a deterrent or control of a state to achieve that in practice on anything resembling a meaningful scale, surely you can't provide everything you need, thus I assume you barter or perhaps cooperate with various producers of diverse range of products?

You see what I mean?

Essentially you need access to things, a material basis which Capitalism and the State under the direction of profit motivation has created, why dispose of this very useful tool that has created such wealth for so few when it could be used to create a safe environment for everyone?

Or patience.

Guevarista wrote:
Here you go again embracing capitalism while at the same time decrying mondragon for running to make a profit.
You're a joke Gue.

Capitalism did not create access to things. People did.
They did it for a motive, that motive being false.
In the end a few have access to everything, the majority do not.

That exact same access to everything can be created without money, it can be created without strife and without unions or any of that crap. Its called the appliance of science and today we have it in abundance.
Its not profitable to apply it. How do you expect to change something if its not profitable while at the same time embracing a profit paradigm?

Guevarista wrote:
Fuck me I thought I could write a long sentence! Although tbf yours is only as long cos of it's bad punctuation

See I wouldn't consider it an idealistic comment to say that we could literally consign all forms of currency to the bin, today. I personally think there is no need to wait around for conditions such as "when labour power serves labour's interests/requirement, when people have the freedom, and means to produce what is needed required for themselves". In fact I consider that arse about face. Ditching money would create the conditions for those things to be more possible.

No, I don't agree. I see that kind of thinking as just perpetuating class based mentality. My head is coming at it from a place way beyond class. Class is an illusion. An illusion that class based thinking maintains.