[Attila The Nun]

Simple, it said that the US was shelling the North Korean border (The exact opposite), that it invaded North Korea (opposite of what happened), and that just because North Korean troops were in South Korea by a very large number (certainly enough to know that the North was invading the South) it did not mean North Korea went to war with South Korea (false, North Korea was obviously invading).

All these things proven false in my articles. Provide some more evidence of your claims.

[Ixa]

After all, communism is only another religion that is defended by "true believers,"

Marxism is a scientific world outlook. people who say it is a religion are religionists or people whose mind is often occupied with religious questions, people who in consequence are only able to think in religious terms. not infrquently they see history as a struggle between religions (instead of between classes, nations, races, or whatever), and see darwinism as a religion and science as having a religious character. They think almost wholly in religious terms, and see communism as a religion.

[Truth-a-naut]

Triggerhappy. A war was bound to happen, or at the very least some extremely pro-active unification movement.
Why?

Russia and America divided up the country because Japan used to occupy it... some foriegners come in and divide up the country.

Too bad they failed in uniting.

[Der Freiheitsucher]

I voted no.

As Marx believed the bourgeosie would not simply give in.

Well yes. That's exactly it. This question is asking for an opinion on something that is already a fact.

Marx made it very damn clear that the revolution would be a violent overthrow of the burgeois class. That's a fact. That's how communism is. There's no question about it.

Anybody who voted that the road to communism was compatible with pacifism is clearly in no way familiar with Marx.

[smashthestate]

Anybody who voted that the road to communism was compatible with pacifism is clearly in no way familiar with Marx.

But that's why I made the poll.

Not all Communists are Marxists, DF.

[Der Freiheitsucher]

...

You do know who "invented" Communism, right?

Can you explain to me how a communist may disaprove the communist manifesto?

[smashthestate]

Of course, but since that time many types of Communism have evolved from the original, and they are just as legitimate as Marx's original version.

[Truth-a-naut]

No Smash they are not.
Communists tend to call these people revisionists.

Marx outlined specific methods inregards to Communism.

[Der Freiheitsucher]

Yeah smash, and they all - with no exception - follow the communist manifesto.

All of them.

[smashthestate]

No Smash they are not.
Communists tend to call these people revisionists.

I understand that, but just because Marx coined the term does not mean other people can expand on his idea and call theirs Communism as well, or some hyphenated version of it.

It really doesn't matter what Marx wrote or didn't write. The fact is there are different types of communism (different from Marxism). Marxists may call these forms revisionists, but I'm not a Marxist, and I can call them Communists.

Marx outlined specific methods inregards to Communism.

That also has nothing to do with it. A while back I gave a very specific defintion of what capitalism was, yet there are many types of it, regardless of what I said. Even if I had the term capitalism and the definition of the term, it doesn't mean that other people could slightly change the definition and proclaim it as capitalism. Would they be wrong? No, they can call it whatever they want. It may not be the original capitalism that I invented, but they named it capitalism, and so that's what it is.

Marx didn't copyright the word Communism, and so it can be used for any kind of definition. Marx may have invented the term, but he doesn't hold legal rights or something to the word. Marxists can call them revisionists all day long, or I could call them idiots all day long, it changes nothing.

[Truth-a-naut]

That also has nothing to do with it.

Dialectic Materialism has everything to do with it.

[Seán Himmelb(L)au]

I voted yes, communism is compatible with pacifism.

In my eyes communism is any form of government that takes the power from the bourgouise and gives more power to the common man than at present. This can effectively just be socialist, as in, just the privatisation of key industries, because with the basic needs fulfilled any person in a society effectively can do what they want in a liberal communist government.

If any of that made sense, hope you enjoyed it.

[Truth-a-naut]

Himmel, I don't want to sound rude.

But I don't think you understand Communism...

[Seán Himmelb(L)au]

No, you're right, I probably don't.

[Der Freiheitsucher]

Ahahahaha. What a response I could expect from himmel(b)lau.

Communism isn't what you want it to be. Communism isn't something for you, communism is, period.

I suppose Marx lacked such an clever companion like you to help him with his theories?

If you believe Communism can be achieved with Pacifism you either have no clue what Communism is, or haven't even bother reading the manifesto. In both cases your opinion can be disregarded.

Heh, what am I talking about... In any case your opinion can be disregarded.

[Ixa]

Russia and America divided up the country because Japan used to occupy it... some foriegners come in and divide up the country.

Russia was not involved in the division. Read what I wrote.

[Attila The Nun]

Yes it was, or else there'd be no division.

By the way, I already proved that article false, unless you can provide more things proving it is true?

[Vivisekt]

Is pacifism compatible with communism?

No fuckin way.

The strength of greed and the fear of change can not be understated. People will cling to their wealth and opulent lifestyles with a deathgrip that is second to none. Even if they had an example of a communist system working well - reason will often take a back seat to egocentricity. And then once you've got a communist state established, you'll still have die-hard greed ridden capitalists running underground black markets. Those would probally have to be put down with force.

[The Immortal Goon]

Depends on what you mean.

The Communist is for a final revolutionary struggle, resulting in peace.

"Land, bread, and peace."

Do the ends justify the means?

-TIG

[jaakko]

There have been non-Marxist communists. Many utopian communists were pacifists. But that doesn't make pacifism compatible with communism. If the question is about creating communist society in real world, that prerequires class struggle and eventually the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and its state. While in some cases feudals could make a compromise with the revolutionary bourgeoisie, retaining some of their priviledges, the last exploiting class has nothing to gain in socialism and will resist it by all means possible. Pacifism is a dogmatic stance and isn't any more strategically effective than ultra-left militarism. Succesfull revolutionaries aren't dogmatics, but use all methods, both peacefull and violent, legal and illegal, wisely and creatively according to situation and stage of struggle.

To sum it up, pacifism is harmfull to the goal of communism, as is any irrational fixed dogma.