NationStates Jolt Archive

First communism isn't bad. It's just some people execute it totally wrong. First of all I would like to correct Karl Marx. You do not need a violent revolution to get what you want. Mahatma Ghandi overcame the British Empire without raising a fist against anybody. But the idea that we all run a country ourselves is good. For one you don't have to put up with politicians. The thing I don't like about the democratic society is that you have leaders. Aren't all men and women created equal? This person has complete and utter control over you for four years and you don't find that a little oppresive? One thing I would also like to comment on is that Marx was wrong about religion. You should not get rid of it. Let people believe whatever they want to believe. Eventually they will come to terms to the fact that religion does seperate people and we don't need that at all. There is just a few thoughts to get you going.

socialism.

personally, im a die-hard anarchist/idontknowwhatthefcukist but communism is a good shield to hide behind.

Communism is a flaw, motivated by good ideas. All people are equals, but not all are leaders. Does religion seperate people? Maybe. But we do not all have to be exactly alike for society to function. I don't know where that idea that anything that sets some people apart or makes people different is bad comes from but it is crap.

Communism promotes the following:

1. Equal pay for unequal work.

Why should a doctor be paid the same as a labourer? There is no incentive then to become a doctor. Why not simply be a labourer?

Let us all be simple labourers. This results in a significant decline in skilled labour.

2. Two class society

There are only two classes in a communist society:
(a) Party favourites
(b) Poor

Marxism promotes the concept of a proletariat, a one class system. But even this mild form of communism fails to recognise human nature. Mankind is ambitious, greedy and for the most quite selfish (whether this is bad or not is irrelevent here). Equality can never come about because there will always be socio-economic groups battling for a higher living standard than others.

Hence, we saw in places like the USSR, there was a well-to-do upper class group who enjoyed the trappings of the old Tsarist aristocracy (even the Kremlin is lavishly decorated. Compare this to the Moscow slums). Even in revolutionary France, Robespierre set himself up in palaces etc and wore the finest clothes...whilst the nation starved.

Equality is a mere illusion. What happens under communism is that the power and wealth shifts from the conservative upper classes to the middle class reactionaries who take over.

Interesting this. Most communist revolutionaries were not poor, but middle class. e.g. Castro was born into a well-to-do family and even Robespierre was a lawyer by trade.

3. Poor Economy

The high level of poverty created by communism stems from its anti-incentive philosophy (see #1). Few people are voluntarily going to take on more responsibilities (e.g. management positions) for the same pay as before.

This results in lower productivity levels and ultimately poor growth (if at all!). This is coupled with high levels of economic corruption when the very few control government (totalitarianism).

I could go into more detail, but this post is already long enough. But you get the idea.

You work for everyone, everyone works for you. Thats it.

My point is that communism is not a good idea and the flaws are seen before it is practiced. So why do some support it?

I would state that communists are self interested men and women who seek personal glory, power and wealth. The same can be said of fascists. Except facism is in fact more equitable than communism (due to traditionally strong economic conditions).

The principle concept of communism is that by giving everybody equal ownership of industry, people will basically benefit from the economy in accordance with the amount of work that they do. Marx hated capitalism because he saw it as, basically, people taking money for other people's work. What Marx falied to realize is that in the same way as a stock based corporation or mutual fund works, ownership doesn't necessarily mean power, and it is power, not ownership that humans desire. Second of all, people who take risks and are willing to work hard should be able to live better than someone who just does enough work to get by, which is all that commmunism would require. Also, I'm going to have to disagree with you about the idea that the president has "complete and utter control" over me for any amount of time. Anarchy is not the natural state of humanity, government is the result of humanity's natural inclination to form communities, and if government is executed well, as I tend to believe it is in America, it is beneficial. I find it humorous that you claim that the leader of the most free democracy in the world controls our life, and then turn around and promote the most oppressive style of government possible. And no, I'm not just talking about the history of so called "communist" nations like the U.S.S.R. and China, but the idea of communism requires it to be oppressive. As for the whole "violent revolution" and Ghandi idea, it's completely wrong. Granted, Ghandi's ideas of passive resistance are great and all, but overthrowing all the governments in the world and using passive resistance and economic boycotts to get a colonial occupier to leave are two vastly different things. Also, religion DOES separate people, because the smallest of differences can set off "us" vs. "them" feelings. If you'll look at the research of Sherif, you'll find this to be quite true.

Sherif's Research (http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/)

Communism cannot work because you work under the same illusion as the US Constitution in that "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL"

Rubbish.

Not all men or women are created equal and it would be a damn dull futile existence if they were!

"From Each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs". More rubbish.

So the able and skilled people work all day and the useless members of society just take?! If you were able and skilled why the hell would you bother? Unless they forced you, in which case how does Communism differ from slavery?!

God Save Us From Idealists! The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

:twisted:

God Save Us From Idealists! The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Thats the main problem with Communism- it's a noble ideal but unworkable in real life. Perfect communism and perfect anarchy would provide utopian societies but the problem is you'd need an utopian society to implement either policy in the first place.

Until we progress to a level of technology that allows us unlimited resources (ever read the Culture novels by Iain M. Banks?) perfect communism will be unachievable.

In the end I believe that capitalism combined with social democracy offers people the best chance for a better quality of life.

Thats the main problem with Communism- it's a noble ideal but unworkable in real life. Perfect communism and perfect anarchy would provide utopian societies but the problem is you'd need an utopian society to implement either policy in the first place.

I'd beg to differ. I don't believe that complete homogeny is utopian at all, nor do I particularly like the idea of being denied the right to gain luxuries through work and risk. Utopia is a place of universal luxury, yet communism only promises enough for everyone to get by. Marx was smart enough to realize the obvious, that we couldn't all live like the upper class. I however, don't view a utopian society as one so fatalistic as communism.

Perfect communism and perfect anarchy would provide utopian societies

These are one in the same, as communism by definition eventually leads to a complete absence of government, or anarchy.

Communism and capitalism are both flawed forms. It is how you balance the two that matters; erego my support for socialism.

Communism and capitalism are both flawed forms. It is how you balance the two that matters; erego my support for socialism.

Communism is both "government" and economy, whereas capitalism is solely an economic style. Pure democracy is the obvious counterexample to pure communism, although they are not exact opposites, they work well. Socialism however is by no means a "balance" of capitalism and communism, as socialism is much further to the communist end of the spectrum. I have no respect for socialsim, as it is just impossible, whiny idealism that claims that those who work ought to care for those who won't. The combination of a democratic republic and impure capitalism that we have in America is about as good as its going to get. Any further left, and you crush aspiration, any further right, and you disenfranchise the lower classes.

Except facism is in fact more equitable than communism (due to traditionally strong economic conditions).

Omg your kidding right? :shock:

Anyway capitalism is essentially flawed as inequality is inherent within such a system, at least Communism attempts to deal with such inequalities in its basic principles, not that I totally agree with either system. Also the idea of constant economic growth to create jobs and increase prosperity relies on the presumption that extracting and consuming large amounts of resources is a good thing and that such resources are infinate. Well guess what people... THEY'RE NOT!!!

Why should a doctor be paid the same as a labourer? There is no incentive then to become a doctor. Why not simply be a labourer?


Given the choice of being a doctor or a labourer for the same wage I would prefer being a doctor nethertheless. Obviously doing something for the good of others does not feature in your way of thinking.

Except facism is in fact more equitable than communism (due to traditionally strong economic conditions).

Omg your kidding right? :shock:

Looks like we have another closet facist in our midst...

Anyway capitalism is essentially flawed as inequality is inherent within such a system, at least Communism attempts to deal with such inequalities in its basic principles, not that I totally agree with either system. Also the idea of constant economic growth to create jobs and increase prosperity relies on the presumption that extracting and consuming large amounts of resources is a good thing and that such resources are infinate. Well guess what people... THEY'RE NOT!!!

Why should a doctor be paid the same as a labourer? There is no incentive then to become a doctor. Why not simply be a labourer?


Given the choice of being a doctor or a labourer for the same wage I would prefer being a doctor nethertheless. Obviously doing something for the good of others does not feature in your way of thinking.

You simply have taken two small quotes from what I wrote. You have ignored the fundamental fact about humans:

Humans are:

1. Greedy
2. Self interested
3. Ambitious

Humans also have emotions. Without serious brainwashing (which goes against basic civil rights) communism can never work. Human nature simply does not allow for it.

You may want to be a doctor, but the majority of people would expect more money for a higher skilled job.

Your point on finite resources? Tell that to Mr and Mrs Jones who want a new DVD player or Widescreen TV.

Communism can never work.

Communism can never work. I'm not sure on how to translate it onto a large scale, but it has already been proven successful various times on a small scale, thus makingthis statement erroneous at best.

You work for everyone, everyone works for you. Thats it.

...and that is distinct from slavery...how?

My life is mine and mine alone. I can CHOOSE to work for someone else, but I am under no obligation to. And that person can CHOOSE to work for me, but he is under no obligation to.

Given the choice of being a doctor or a labourer for the same wage I would prefer being a doctor nethertheless. Obviously doing something for the good of others does not feature in your way of thinking.

That could be because people like us subscribe to a school of though known as "realism", which has proven itself a much better indicator of human action than idealism. Simple psychology will tell you that given the choice, humans will almost always do as little as possible to reach a given outcome.


Omg your kidding right?

Looks like we have another closet facist in our midst...

Anyway capitalism is essentially flawed as inequality is inherent within such a system, at least Communism attempts to deal with such inequalities in its basic principles, not that I totally agree with either system. Also the idea of constant economic growth to create jobs and increase prosperity relies on the presumption that extracting and consuming large amounts of resources is a good thing and that such resources are infinate. Well guess what people... THEY'RE NOT!!!

Yeah, right...by pointing out the obvious, that fascism is more economically beneficial than communism, he's obviously attatched himself to its principles. Good one. Also, nobody said the resources were infinite. Capitalism, because of its incentive for private institutions to research, provides a much better environment for technology to advance, and technology will constantly heighten efficiency, thus less resources, both human and material will be necessary, eventually allowing us to rely totally on renewable resources. Also, a capitalist economy does not have to be constantly expanding, its expansion and performance is just required to keep up with the population curve, whether that be positive or negative.

Communism can never work.
I'm not sure on how to translate it onto a large scale, but it has already been proven successful various times on a small scale, thus makingthis statement erroneous at best.

I'd like to see these studies, because I've never heard of such thing, and like I said before, Sherif's experiment shows that the smallest of things can set off "us" vs. "them" feelings, and thus the cohesion required for communism to succeed is impossible. Either way, I still want to see these studies, because I frankly don't believe they exist, and I've heard of studies that work as counterexamples.

Communism can never work. I'm not sure on how to translate it onto a large scale, but it has already been proven successful various times on a small scale, thus makingthis statement erroneous at best.

Please, give us some examples.

Please, give us some examples.

The most improbable seeming element of communism, free distribution, occurs in too many places to count.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Please, give us some examples.

The most improbable seeming element of communism, free distribution, occurs in too many places to count.

Free distribution of what and to whom exactly?

communism is not directly linked to the government (no more than capitalism actually).
democracy and communism are not mutually exclusive (no more than capitalism and democracy).

Communism promotes the following:

1. Equal pay for unequal work.

Why should a doctor be paid the same as a labourer? There is no incentive then to become a doctor. Why not simply be a labourer?

Let us all be simple labourers. This results in a significant decline in skilled labour.

Well, I have relatives who lived in the USSR, and displaced during WW2. Now in the period before that, (We'll leave the totalitarian government out of this because it is not something I support, clearly) they experienced leaps and bounds in education. They became doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, etc. because they could. The pay was not a concern. They cared and wished to become these things because they had the opportunity which had previously not been available to them before, having come from rural agricultural backgrounds. Think of a young child "When I grow up, I want to be a fireman" (lol, bear with me here) Now, when that child is older, of course he will have grown out of that fantasy, but part of that growing up was society ingraining into him that there are better, higher paying jobs out there and he should aim to be one of those instead. In the USSR, you didn't have this. What was important was "each according to his abilities"- those who had the intelligence to learn medicine and contribute to society that way were no less important than those who contributed by building the hospital that he practised in. It is not necessarily unequal work, as you call it...have you tried bricklaying? Labourers are often treated as inferior for doing the work they do, because they either A. Did not inherit the money to go into the business world or B. Did not posess the study abilities which would enable them to study something greater. When in actual fact, they work a lot harder and are under a lot more pressure than most people give them credit. It is the simple desire to fill a need through society by doing the best that you are capable of that motivated the people in these countries.

2. Two class society

There are only two classes in a communist society:
(a) Party favourites
(b) Poor

Marxism promotes the concept of a proletariat, a one class system. But even this mild form of communism fails to recognise human nature. Mankind is ambitious, greedy and for the most quite selfish (whether this is bad or not is irrelevent here). Equality can never come about because there will always be socio-economic groups battling for a higher living standard than others.

We are taught to be selfish by society. Take a look around. It's consumer culture, and we are constantly barraged with encouragement to own more than the person nextdoor.

Yet, humans have proven countless times capable of vast acts of selfless kindness. I won't go into examples, because I am sure that you would already be aware of many of them.

Also, calling all humans ambitious and greedy is wrong. There are people who are content living out their day to day lifestyles without concern for gaining power or wealth. Ambition and greed are again western consumerist subcultures.

Hence, we saw in places like the USSR, there was a well-to-do upper class group who enjoyed the trappings of the old Tsarist aristocracy (even the Kremlin is lavishly decorated. Compare this to the Moscow slums). Even in revolutionary France, Robespierre set himself up in palaces etc and wore the finest clothes...whilst the nation starved.

Such corruption did undoubtebly occur in the USSR, and comes with authoritarian bureaucracy, unfotunately. As I am opposed to this however, I personally do not see it as relevant to my version of socialism.

By the way, The Kremlin was a Tsarist palace. It wasn't built or decorated by the Reds. Its actually a historical landmark from the 15th century (I think. Could be earlier or later. But note the design is middle eastern and inspired by the culture of the Khanate of the Golden Horde).

And as for Robespierre...well, he wasn't communist. He was a wealthy bourgeois and the revolution was a Capitalist one, what else do you really expect....

Equality is a mere illusion. What happens under communism is that the power and wealth shifts from the conservative upper classes to the middle class reactionaries who take over.

Interesting this. Most communist revolutionaries were not poor, but middle class. e.g. Castro was born into a well-to-do family and even Robespierre was a lawyer by trade.

I don't have time to list many, but you may be surprised as to the backgrounds of many of the leaders of the USSR, China, and others. Khrushchev, for example was born into a poor Ukrainian peasant family and rose to the leadership position.

As for most revolutionaries being middle class, it makes sense if you think carefully about it. Who else had access to the literature? Who else would be able to actually READ it? The poor certainly didn't, being hugely illiterate. The upper class did, but very few that would go against their vested interests (Kropotkin springs to mind...an example of selfless behaviour by giving up his noble title and becoming a revolutionary...and that was in the 1870's, so any comment about him acting in his own interests that I can predict coming is hogwash). Furthermore, many of them were totally ignorant and unaware about the true nature of the poor in their countries. However, the middle class have access to the poor, as well as the literature from which they learn about the socialist ideology.

By the way, a bit of trivia... Fidel Castro didn't start out communist, but as a nationalist at the time that he gained power. It was the influence of his brother Raoul and eventually Che Guevara that converted him.

3. Poor Economy

The high level of poverty created by communism stems from its anti-incentive philosophy (see #1). Few people are voluntarily going to take on more responsibilities (e.g. management positions) for the same pay as before.

This results in lower productivity levels and ultimately poor growth (if at all!). This is coupled with high levels of economic corruption when the very few control government (totalitarianism).

I could go into more detail, but this post is already long enough. But you get the idea.

Communism doesnt create poverty. If you look at the nations that Communism has taken a hold on, all of them were already dirt poor before Communism came into the equation. Through higher literacy and education, it helps them in the long run...provided of course that they aren't invaded and have huge amounts of the population hung from trees and roasted in bonfires (USSR of course), or are politically and geographically isolated so that a trade embargo is completely crippling (Cuba).

And I'll finish up by saying again that socialism does not have to be the totalitarian hellhole that you seem to think it will be.

Contrary to the popular belief, capitalism is not freedom or absence of government. On the contrary, the government needs to guarantee the value of capital by enforcing with an iron fist the rules of property. It translates into sending people to jail for standing in a land which is not their property.

Secondly, Capitalism is not giving incentive to work. The rule of capitalism is that the capital works for the owner. It means that the capital does create more value than work, so that the worker will have to share the benefit of his work with the owner of his work (the man who has the capital). The worker is exploited while the fat ass is uselessly abusing his capital.

On the other hand, if you share the ownership between all the people, they will take full benefit from their work, and that doesn't mean they all have to receive equal share. You can even have a market. But the capital must not bring back wealth, only work must.

Communism promotes the following:

1. Equal pay for unequal work.

2. Two class society

There are only two classes in a communist society:
(a) Party favourites
(b) Poor

1. not necessarily. it can quite reasonably promote a flattened system of rewards. or a non-wage system where distribution of wealth is directly determined by those involved.

more importantly, how does one go about measuring the equality of work? work is a socially embeded thing - we usually work together and always rely on past the work of others in order to do anything. we don't have scales that can properly measure the real value of someone's contribution. prices certainly don't tell us anything (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secC1.html).

2. only the case in marxist systems that rely on the dictatorship of the party. this is one of the oldest fights in the socialist camp. it split the first international, with marx and his supporters kicking out bakunin and his allies. bakunin remarkably called what would happen in a country under the dictatorship of the vanguard of the proletariat decades before it was tried.

Interesting this. Most communist revolutionaries were not poor, but middle class. e.g. Castro was born into a well-to-do family and even Robespierre was a lawyer by trade.

that may be the case for the leaders and thinkers. but it is clearly false for the general revolutionaries and activists.

I agree that communism is a good idea, which is why I (try to) employ it in my country, since every system on NationStates works. In the real world, though, communism works best in a close, tightly knit community where everyone knows where the fruits of their labor is going. You're much more likely to provide for people's needs if you know and like them. However, once the system is brought on an entire country, it seems other incentives aside from love of work and provision for others are needed. An unfortunate fact... Thus, the seeming need for a strong government to get the people to do anything. I don't agree with this path, though, and it can't be what Marx intended.

Good words, Kanabia. I liked that post a lot :)

Humans are:

1. Greedy
2. Self interested
3. Ambitious

Humans also have emotions. Without serious brainwashing (which goes against basic civil rights) communism can never work. Human nature simply does not allow for it.

One question: Are you God?
Who the hell gave you the right to pronounce what 'human nature' is and isn't?

Have you observed people who have somehow remained untouched by the commodity fetishistic, obsessively consumerist and superficial wealth centred capitalist society?

Capitalism conditions all those who exist within it to be greedy, self interested and ambitious because those are the virtues required from a good capitalist. Such is capitalism's cultural hegemony people claim these qualities are 'human nature' when they are nothing of the sort. There are innumerable cases of selfless behaviour which would just not exist if your statement were true.

Moreover, you seem to have a very dim view of humanity's ability to think rationally, instead painting us all as no more than slaves to our primal urges. God help us all if that's true. Fortunately, I believe it isn't.

Humans are:

1. Greedy
2. Self interested
3. Ambitious

They are also social and dislike forced work, such as that caused by needing money to buy food.

Humans also have emotions. Without serious brainwashing (which goes against basic civil rights) communism can never work. Human nature simply does not allow for it.

There have been cultures that considered fatness attractive. How can you assume that western culture is human nature?

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

The principle concept of communism is that by giving everybody equal ownership of industry, people will basically benefit from the economy in accordance with the amount of work that they do.

guess what? u';ve got the definition of communism all wrong. Its not based on how much work u do. thats capitalism. its based on how much you need. You get exactly what u need.

so if ur big, healthy, and rich, u get notta.

Another thing: all men and women are not created equal, its just that certain factors like race and gender say nothing about intelligence or ability. Some people are born naturally intelligent, or able to memorize stuff easier, or with an inclination towards the athletics. Face it; we're not born "tabula rasa"s, and nature isnt the only thing that contribiutes to the individual that we become.

Now, should certain ppl be punished simply because they have the ability to produce more, to be stronger? Why are the strong responsible for feeding the weak? Why must the strong and competent suffer and lose, and see the paragon of stupidity and incompetence be rewarded for being stupid?

You see, communism is counterproductive. It advances ideals that are horrible. it enshrines mediocrity. Wouldn't you rather belong to a society where ability is rewarded? where people respect the strong, and not the beggar who lives down the street?

Communism persuades ppl to stop striving, because they won't get their hard work's worth of meat. it advocates laziness and incompetence and inability.

i forget who said this, but:

"Communism doesnt work because people like to own stuff"

I agree that communism is a good theory but it is flawed because it is to utopian. You see in communism everyone has to be calm, normal, perfect people but that does not work since humans have emotions and since everyone is diffrent and everyone has needs and wants so it would conflict. People will take advantage of each other if they see a window of operitunity. Also with communism it does not work and requires anarck which does not work because the place will fall apart due to a simple a fight like over a pen. Also since communist believe in Darwen since we are animals we all have basic animal instincs and since we would be left alone we would turn into savages. So in short communism is unrelistic.

Several communist sympathisers have attempted to claim history is false and that humans are caring and compassionate. That they would work for virtually nothing, because they are doing society good.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

...10 minutes later...

Now my original post is factual and history has proven me correct. My comments on human nature are quite commonsense. Take a look around you. We are now bigger consumers than ever before. Society wants more. To add to this, most people like to know they have more than the person next to them.

If people cared, wouldn't we ALL devote some of our incomes to charities and organisations which seek to do good around the world?

Most people care about themselves. It is a fact the communist ideology fails to recognise.

As a result of the communist ideology of equal pay for unequal work, well you will find many Russians and those under other oppressive communist regimes tried to flee. You will also find that not a single communist economy prospered. They all failed. (China is not a communist economy btw - it has a communist government and a capitalist/semi socialist economy)

Because they lacked incentive. Why work harder for nothing?

You might like to believe people care, love one another and want to go out into the world and help the needy. Truth be told, most people wouldn't even know where the Gold Coast was. Some might say in Queensland Australia, but what I am referring to is West Africa - a poor region indeed.

Where is the equality for the Third World? Under the USSR money was poured into Africa for arms and munitions. It should have been food and medicine if the communists were supposedly spreading equality.

And now, with all those educated people...where is Russia today? A transition economy whose government cannot even afford the basic services for its people. You'd think will all those graduates Russia would be thriving. Clearly not.

Humans are not charitable by nature. History and present prove this. We war, we plunder and we use more than we need. That is the way of the human race. You don't need to be God to figure this out. Just use some commonsense.

...

Several communist sympathisers have attempted to claim history is false and that humans are caring and compassionate. That they would work for virtually nothing, because they are doing society good.

They would be working for something other than money. Perhaps pride, respect, or enjoyment, even. Surely you do productive activity for reasons other than getting rich.

Now my original post is factual and history has proven me correct. My comments on human nature are quite commonsense. Take a look around you. We are now bigger consumers than ever before. Society wants more. To add to this, most people like to know they have more than the person next to them.

Perhaps because capitalism encourages consumption. Everyday, commercials tell you to buy something. Everyday, you come home from a job that has left you exhausted. People consume so much because they generally lack happiness. They don't even necessarily consume that much, anyway. I see plenty of examples of people not taking more than they need.

If people cared, wouldn't we ALL devote some of our incomes to charities and organisations which seek to do good around the world?

Most people care about themselves. It is a fact the communist ideology fails to recognise.

Most people don't like being forced to work or starve. That's something that capitalism fails to recognize. In anarcho-communism, work in the sense that you think of it is generally gone.

Even then, money isn't the only motivator.

As a result of the communist ideology of equal pay for unequal work, well you will find many Russians and those under other oppressive communist regimes tried to flee. You will also find that not a single communist economy prospered. They all failed. (China is not a communist economy btw - it has a communist government and a capitalist/semi socialist economy)

Ignoring the fact that communism is an economic system and not a government, you obviously have the definition of communism wrong. Money doesn't exist in genuine communism.

Also, CEOs get paid up to 500 times more than the lowest paid workers. Are we to believe they work 500 times harder?

Humans are not charitable by nature. History and present prove this. We war, we plunder and we use more than we need. That is the way of the human race. You don't need to be God to figure this out. Just use some commonsense.

If that were totally true, we would have died out by now. We have both qualities of greed and charity. Capitalism rewards the greedy with insane power. Communism rewards the charitable with respect and admiration.

"Communism doesnt work because people like to own stuff"

They obviously fail to see that there is a big difference between owning a shirt and owning a transnational corporation.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Interesting...

A system without reward; where satisfaction and universal happiness reigns.

You proved my point very well thanks. :lol:

Communism ignores human nature. Simple as that. You will never change this.

Interesting...

A system without reward; where satisfaction and universal happiness reigns.

You proved my point very well thanks. :lol:

Communism ignores human nature. Simple as that. You will never change this.

...

A system without reward; where satisfaction and universal happiness reigns.

As though capitalism rewards people. The average person spends hours a day taking orders.

Once again, you fail to understand that rewards can come in forms other than money.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

A system without reward; where satisfaction and universal happiness reigns.

As though capitalism rewards people. The average person spends hours a day taking orders.

Once again, you fail to understand that rewards can come in forms other than money.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

A system without reward; where satisfaction and universal happiness reigns.

As though capitalism rewards people. The average person spends hours a day taking orders.

Once again, you fail to understand that rewards can come in forms other than money.

LOL under communism people were told what they could and could not do.

Watch the film Dr Zhivago...very accurate.

Making people share a home, sending you off to "voluntary labour" (slavery) etc.

The commies sure know how to reward people alright. The lucky ones got shot!

LOL under communism people were told what they could and could not do.

Watch the film Dr Zhivago...very accurate.

Making people share a home, sending you off to "voluntary labour" (slavery) etc.

The commies sure know how to reward people alright. The lucky ones got shot!

To compare authoritarian socialism and anarcho-communism is even worse than comparing the Republican party to fascism. There are vast differences between Marxism and anarchism.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Interesting to see how much one can speculate on human nature. However, I do not think that there is something one could call "human nature". You get some 6 billion people in the world and most probably some 12 billion human natures. Some are beneficial, some lazy, some hard working, some greedy.
The big problem about communism is that no matter how good the theory behind it might be, and how well it might be working for those who draw their motivation from their will to contribute to society, only few who do not think so and are greedy etc. destroy the whole system. Thus, in "communist" nations these "enemies to the society" were shot (unless they happened to become leaders). It would be interesting to have a more or less small island where all those who fervently believe in communism could build up their all-equal socialist society with everybody falling from Marx VOLUNTARILY leaving it on the minute of realization...

Another big problem of communism has not been raised in this forum yet (unless my tired eyes just could not see it): Marx lived in London, the centre of the most industrialized country in his time and - if I understand him right - he was talking about the future. Communism then, however, was first introduced in a country that had not even been industrialized - I do not think that Marx himself would have believed that this might work out... so in my eyes, communism the way Marx saw it has not even been tested anywhere in the world yet and if we dare take a bleak look into an even bleaker future: Maybe due to a near-ecological collapse of this planet, people will rise against the factory-owners and will work together without classes, because it might be the only chance to survive ...

Most people care about themselves. It is a fact the communist ideology fails to recognise.

not my (anarchist) ideology. of course people care about themselves. that's part of the point of communism. we are being robbed and enslaved and made to fight against each other for the crumbs that fall from our masters' table. by rising and standing together we can retake our lives so that each of us individually may be better off. it isn't about absolute selflessness. enlightened self-interest is where its at.

As a result of the communist ideology of equal pay for unequal work, well you will find many Russians and those under other oppressive communist regimes tried to flee. You will also find that not a single communist economy prospered. They all failed. (China is not a communist economy btw - it has a communist government and a capitalist/semi socialist economy)

Because they lacked incentive. Why work harder for nothing?

which is just historically inaccurate. russia, for example, had multiple pay scales and different wages in different industries. what really messed things up was unequal pay based on political power and status. people up in the party hierarchy got all sorts of benefits and privileges; people who weren't got bread lines. they didn't lack incentives, their incentives were just perverse.

I find it amusing that critics of communism always seem to drift in and out of criticising the hard theory and the brutal parody that was USSR. The Soviet Union was state-capitalist, OK? No one here who defends communism defends the actions of stalin et al.

Perhaps it would also be beneficial for Benicius to point out that (in leninism anyway) the doctrine during the transition from capitalism to communism was "To each according to his Work" and not to his need. Rendering your parroted argument "equal pay for unequal work" null and void, I'm afraid. The "To each according to his Need" doctrine is instituted in the final stage of communism/anarchism when work ceases to the unpleasant, to-be-avoided-at-all-costs chore capitalism has made it. At which time, the quantity of work done is irrelivant seein as everyone gives according to their ability.

Perhaps it would also be beneficial for Benicius to point out that (in leninism anyway) the doctrine during the transition from capitalism to communism was "To each according to his Work" and not to his need. Rendering your parroted argument "equal pay for unequal work" null and void, I'm afraid. The "To each according to his Need" doctrine is instituted in the final stage of communism/anarchism when work ceases to the unpleasant, to-be-avoided-at-all-costs chore capitalism has made it. At which time, the quantity of work done is irrelivant seein as everyone gives according to their ability.

That's right. Anarcho-communism seeks to skip the dictatorship of the proletariat and vanguard party thing by empowering the people themselves.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

That's right. Anarcho-communism seeks to skip the dictatorship of the proletariat and vanguard party thing by empowering the people themselves.
All true and noble, but do you not think most people are still too ridden with the capitalist commonsense about human nature that Benicius displays to suddenly find themselves in tue socialism? Would people conditioned by greedy consumer culture not allow a free market do develop?

Don't get me wrong, I am more an anarchist than a marxist, but I think revolutions are not to be trusted, if history has taught us anything it is that. I would favour a more gradual, but determined development of society into anarchy, like Proudhon suggested.

Another thing: all men and women are not created equal, its just that certain factors like race and gender say nothing about intelligence or ability. Some people are born naturally intelligent, or able to memorize stuff easier, or with an inclination towards the athletics. Face it; we're not born "tabula rasa"s, and nature isnt the only thing that contribiutes to the individual that we become.

That is true. People are intelligent in different ways. They can each contribute to society in a way no others can. Isn't that what Marx promoted?

Now, should certain ppl be punished simply because they have the ability to produce more, to be stronger? Why are the strong responsible for feeding the weak? Why must the strong and competent suffer and lose, and see the paragon of stupidity and incompetence be rewarded for being stupid?

The vast majority of people in the world see fending for the weaker among them as a moral thing to do, whether they live by that moral or not (as is usually the case). That's an easy one to answer. Communism encourages such a moral. Imagine a society where people were rewarded for being selfish and greedy...oh, wait, there are already several... :evil:

You see, communism is counterproductive. It advances ideals that are horrible. it enshrines mediocrity. Wouldn't you rather belong to a society where ability is rewarded? where people respect the strong, and not the beggar who lives down the street?

It did in many of the societies that called themselves "communist", indeed. But true communism, I believe, encourages work because one is doing it for the love of one's work, and the desire to aid others, rather than things such as money and power. Most people, even (or rather, especially) in capitalist society realize that money and the power that comes with it are corrupting forces that are unhealthy in the long run.

Communism persuades ppl to stop striving, because they won't get their hard work's worth of meat. it advocates laziness and incompetence and inability.

Yeah, fending for the weak is horrible and immoral :roll: (see above). Ideals are hardly ever lived up to in society, but that doesn't mean we should trash them for that reason. Most people believe that we should strive for the ideal even if we know we cannot reach it. Most religions teach this in one way or another.

I don't know about you, but I have never believed there is or should be a practical purpose for everything. Some things deserve to just be of their own merit. It is for that reason that I can never be a true capitalist. As their name implies, they must capitalize on everything; all goods need to be used for something. This consuming desire to use may well wreak havoc for us all.

Edit: I accidentally lumped my statements in with Ondeelbarlibertland's quotes...stupid me... :roll:

Da zdravstvuet sotsializm!

All true and noble, but do you not think most people are still too ridden with the capitalist commonsense about human nature that Benicius displays to suddenly find themselves in tue socialism? Would people conditioned by greedy consumer culture not allow a free market do develop?

That's certainly a danger. I think that by the time anarchism appears, people will have largely unlearned it, though, otherwise they wouldn't be working towards anarchism.

Don't get me wrong, I am more an anarchist than a marxist, but I think revolutions are not to be trusted, if history has taught us anything it is that. I would favour a more gradual, but determined development of society into anarchy, like Proudhon suggested.

I personally agree, though this view seems to be in the minority. In my opinion, anarchism should be achieved by ordinary people creating anarcho-communist alternatives to the status quo.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I find it amusing that critics of communism always seem to drift in and out of criticising the hard theory and the brutal parody that was USSR.

and when they slip into talking about the ussr, they don't even know much about it and they often wind up just making shit up.

why is it that other socialists and communists tend to have much more coherent criticisms of the soviet union than capitalist supporters?

*sigh* The human nature argument. How passé.

Human nature is not fixed. Since we evolve and adapt to new ways and new surroundings, we cannot claim there is a single human nature that is fixed, unchanging and immutable. While it is stupid to say, as some Marxists claim, that the human nature is completely malleable and easily manipulated, it is also equally as false to claim it is as fixed as time itself.

We can see, that over the years, human nature has changed, what we view as perfectly reasonable and rational has changed. In Ancient Greece, homosexuality was the highest form of love. In Victorian Britain, it was an abomination. A thousand years ago it was natural to own slaves, or that one person was ordained by a higher power to rule over a people. Now we view it as natural that people have basic fundamental human rights, and that the people have a say in who runs the country. Things change. Human nature changes, to an extent.

You claim that all people are greedy. I agree. But we are not all always greedy all of the time. People are not just one-dimensional, they have multiple facets, they can be, at turns, greedy and generous, aggressive and meek. If we were all as you claimed, would such an idea as socialism ever have come about? Or even lesser ideas like charity, or even democracy? You cannot just claim people are anything, when people can make amazing changes of judgement merely through their own experiences. Some people care about animals without giving a toss about the homeless or the elderly, and vice versa. The world is full of people who are not just greedy. Nobody is perfect, that is true, but you exaggerate the bad points of a person and downplay the good points.

And if all people are greedy, then capitalism is against human nature. Whenever a boss slashes a wage, and then the press scream at the trade unionists, why? They are merely acting out human nature, you claim, and therefore capitalism keeps the greed of the few at the expense of the greed of the many. To claim that to be greedy is human nature beyond fact is to ignore that capitalism exists out of the fact that it cannot allow most of the population to be greedy. Workers have to accept lower pay, or higher working hours, or reduced conditions, for the good of the company. Does that sound like greed to you?

what would a modern communist state of ...say....250million citizens... look like? how would it be different from what we have in the united states now and how would it be similar?
i have a hard time taking the marxist notion of "workers owning the means of production" or the basic realization that value comes from the worker and translating that into how a real economy would run.
no one wants a state run economy like the ussr used to be (do they?)
could it all be democratically run and still keep a semblance of economic equality or would that have to be mandated by the government?

how do you think it would really work on the scale of a country as large as the united states or the UK? could the flaws be overcome in such a way as to make it a really good way of life?

marxism, the concept that comunisism is based on is a good idea. comunisism is a bad idea. too much corruption and wealth in the government and little everywhere else.

what would a modern communist state of ...say....250million citizens... look like? how would it be different from what we have in the united states now and how would it be similar?
i have a hard time taking the marxist notion of "workers owning the means of production" or the basic realization that value comes from the worker and translating that into how a real economy would run.
no one wants a state run economy like the ussr used to be (do they?)
could it all be democratically run and still keep a semblance of economic equality or would that have to be mandated by the government?

how do you think it would really work on the scale of a country as large as the united states or the UK? could the flaws be overcome in such a way as to make it a really good way of life?

that's kind of a big question. how about i toss you a helpful link to an anarchist faq?
Section I - What would an anarchist society look like? (http://infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html)
it covers most things and is reasonably close to my particular ideas.

of course, this is just one particular conception of things. others would have different ones.

Every communist regime in the history of mankind has been totalitarian, brutal and murderous.

Explain how that is good.

Also notice a pattern. All communist states have been totalitarian. Wonder why...the communist ideology forces it upon people. Communism is essentially the restriction of human rights.

History never lies.

And of course you know what a good idea with many flaws is called, right? A bad idea! :P

Every communist regime in the history of mankind has been totalitarian, brutal and murderous.

Explain how that is good.

Also notice a pattern. All communist states have been totalitarian. Wonder why...the communist ideology forces it upon people. Communism is essentially the restriction of human rights.

History never lies.

You are confusing "communism" with "dictatorship". The fact that a dictatorial regime hides behind the communist banner obviously doesn't make them communist.

Every communist regime in the history of mankind has been totalitarian, brutal and murderous.

Explain how that is good.

Also notice a pattern. All communist states have been totalitarian. Wonder why...the communist ideology forces it upon people. Communism is essentially the restriction of human rights.

History never lies.

You are confusing "communism" with "dictatorship". The fact that a dictatorial regime hides behind the communist banner obviously doesn't make them communist.

So you deny communist governments ever existed?

Someone better tell all those scholars the world over with Phds and Masters degrees that they are WRONG! :lol:

Please...lol

Every communist regime in the history of mankind has been totalitarian, brutal and murderous.

Explain how that is good.

Also notice a pattern. All communist states have been totalitarian. Wonder why...the communist ideology forces it upon people. Communism is essentially the restriction of human rights.

History never lies.

You are confusing "communism" with "dictatorship". The fact that a dictatorial regime hides behind the communist banner obviously doesn't make them communist.

So you deny communist governments ever existed?

Someone better tell all those scholars the world over with Phds and Masters degrees that they are WRONG! :lol:

Please...lol

Yes, they better.

Let me add to that:

LPB: Because they say it it-must-be-true!! *jumps into the Ziegheil salute*

Indeed, please... lol

Oh your intelligence overwhelms me :roll: Thanks for proving my point. :D

Oh your intelligence overwhelms me :roll: Thanks for proving my point. :D

Thats your best cyber-shot? :lol:

BTW Thanks for proving my point as well :)

Also, Ziegfried, instead of wasting your time on feeble attempts at humor, you might want to consider actually studying the communist manifest, I bet you never did, I did though, and then you can conclude on your own that all attempts to realize the communist ideal as put forth by Marx, have thus far failed. Meaning? Meaning that since the communist ideal has never been realised there cannot have been a communist state. There have been, however, and still are, some dictatorial regimes, Cuba, China, SU, just to name a few, who have been posing as communist regimes and, rather suprisingly, fooled most of the world into actually buying their sales pitch as them being communists. :(

Several communist sympathisers have attempted to claim history is false and that humans are caring and compassionate. That they would work for virtually nothing, because they are doing society good.

No, they are claiming they would work for equal pay, knowing that everyone else around them would also be working for the same amount.

Now my original post is factual and history has proven me correct. My comments on human nature are quite commonsense.

Again, no. Your comments are an observation of people living in a consumer society. Unless I'm mistaken and you've completed an exstensive study, interviewing the entire human race?

Take a look around you...

...at this capitalist system.

We are now bigger consumers than ever before. Society wants more. To add to this, most people like to know they have more than the person next to them.

Well done, you've identified capitalism and how it works, keeping people consuming and relying on money.

If people cared, wouldn't we ALL devote some of our incomes to charities and organisations which seek to do good around the world?

No, because we live in a capitalist system and would therefore not survive.

As a result of the communist ideology of equal pay for unequal work, well you will find many Russians and those under other oppressive communist regimes tried to flee. You will also find that not a single communist economy prospered. They all failed. (China is not a communist economy btw - it has a communist government and a capitalist/semi socialist economy)

Well as no true communistic societies have existed, we cannot say they are defunct.

You might like to believe people care, love one another and want to go out into the world and help the needy. Truth be told, most people wouldn't even know where the Gold Coast was. Some might say in Queensland Australia, but what I am referring to is West Africa - a poor region indeed.

Yes, because not knowing your world geography equates to not caring for people. :roll: Outstanding logic here.....

Where is the equality for the Third World? Under the USSR money was poured into Africa for arms and munitions. It should have been food and medicine if the communists were supposedly spreading equality.

And now, with all those educated people...where is Russia today? A transition economy whose government cannot even afford the basic services for its people. You'd think will all those graduates Russia would be thriving. Clearly not.

As many have said before, the USSR was not a communistic society, it was a dictatorial regime. You cannote point at the USSR's failings and hold communisim responsible. Blame Lenin and Stalin.

Humans are not charitable by nature. History and present prove this. We war, we plunder and we use more than we need. That is the way of the human race. You don't need to be God to figure this out. Just use some commonsense.

No, people wage war because they live in a world where people with resources and capital have power. Therefore they wage war. Try and name a modern conflict that can't be attributed to resources, land or "defending our freedom", ie protecting capatalism.

Your arguments basicaly come down to:

1. People in a consumer society buy stuff and want more. Therefore the entire human race is greedy.

2. Russia failed. Therefore communism failed.

2. Russia failed. Therefore communism failed.Oh yeah, Russia is certainly doing better now that it is capitalist. crime rate sky rocketting, mafia taking control of the government, loss of superpower status, colapsing economy ...
Ask the people in Uzbekistan how their economy has improved since the fall of communism.

what would a modern communist state of ...say....250million citizens... look like? how would it be different from what we have in the united states now and how would it be similar?
i have a hard time taking the marxist notion of "workers owning the means of production" or the basic realization that value comes from the worker and translating that into how a real economy would run.
no one wants a state run economy like the ussr used to be (do they?)
could it all be democratically run and still keep a semblance of economic equality or would that have to be mandated by the government?

how do you think it would really work on the scale of a country as large as the united states or the UK? could the flaws be overcome in such a way as to make it a really good way of life?In the UK they should first re-nationalize their train system and we'll talk about the next things to do.

IMO actually the next steps are to remove the private property laws on big properties like land, intellectual property and factories.

Every communist regime in the history of mankind has been totalitarian, brutal and murderous.

Explain how that is good.

Also notice a pattern. All communist states have been totalitarian. Wonder why...the communist ideology forces it upon people. Communism is essentially the restriction of human rights.

History never lies.

Hmm, that's amazing. When someone actually comes up with a counter to the "human nature" argument, you ignore it completely, and go back to the old "communism = totalitarian" argument. Nice.

One thing; why do you tar all of us leftists with the same brush? The ideas of the left are as varied and diverse as any other part of the political system, yet you seem to only be concentrating on the idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", whereas there are other ideaologies who reject that particular style of governance. To claim that Marx is the be-all and end-all of the left is like claiming Adam Smith is the be-all and end-all of economic liberalism; they are important, no doubt, but they do not reflect the whole of that school of thought.

And anyway, what people fail to realise is that Marx barely ever wrote about communism. Marx, principly, wrote about the problems of capitalism... the book isn't called "Capital" for nothing, you know. Marx, first and foremost, highlighted the dangers and problems of capitalism and set forth the ideas of historical materialism and the dialectic formed from the ideas of Feuerbach and Hegel.

1248B, there's a lot of misinformation about Cuba. Yes, it isn't the greatest place in the world, but it is not merely a dictatorship under Castro's thumb. Remember, the western press tried to claim that the democratically elected president of Venezuala, Chavez was actually an unpopular dictator during the failed coup of 2002, despite clear evidence to the contrary. And all because Chavez dared to nationalise the oil industry and upset the rich of Venezuala by actually *gasp* caring about people. My, isn't that terrible?

I'm not a fan of nationalisation. It's a step in the right direction, certainly, and the rail industry was certainly better off under it, but it really is the state control of the industry, rather than any sort of worker control. Still, better a state controlled NHS than a morass of private companies taking over.

Not just that, it's a morass of private companies taking over, failing miserably, (in the case of railways, causing deaths) then getting bailed out by government using taxpayers money.

I'm not a fan of nationalisation. It's a step in the right direction, certainly, and the rail industry was certainly better off under it, but it really is the state control of the industry, rather than any sort of worker control. Still, better a state controlled NHS than a morass of private companies taking over.

But healthcare and railways are diferent from average industry in the private sector. Health deals with life and death, which tends to drive prices to whatever the doctors/hospital managers want. Rail cannot real compitition. I'm sure some can (and probably has) explain it better, I'd better get back to revising.

One thing; why do you tar all of us leftists with the same brush?

Left? Communism goes beyond left.

Left wing ideologies and beyond ignore reality.

The state does not owe you a living.

The state does not owe you a living.nor does it owe you a death

The state does not owe you a living.nor does it owe you a death

oh wow :roll:

Oh yeah, Russia is certainly doing better now that it is capitalist. crime rate sky rocketting, mafia taking control of the government, loss of superpower status, colapsing economy ...
Ask the people in Uzbekistan how their economy has improved since the fall of communism.

That doesn not in any way mean that communism was in any way better (how very nicely put). It only means that - like in so many postcom countries - almost the same people "try" to make the "new" governing work, and they fail miserably, because they just do not do their jobs well. They can not and they do not want to.

Do not praise a failed wrong system because one does not know how to make the better one work like it should.

The state does not owe you a living.
Quite right! The state owes me nothing and I owe the state nothing. Hence anarchy :D

Left? Communism goes beyond left.

Left wing ideologies and beyond ignore reality.

The state does not owe you a living.

Yup, well done, still ignoring most of what I say, never actually managing to address any points, just continually sputing your supposed idealogue.

And what, after all, is reality? Like I said, our idea of reality changes. If you'd said in 1985 that the USSR would collapse in 4 or 5 years, people would have claimed that you were ignoring reality. Before slavery was abolished in America, people who were anti-slavery were dismissed as ignoring reality. Reality changes. Deal with it.

Yes...slavery.

Well all good things come to an end they say?

I haven't read the whole thread, but has anyone mentioned Bologna? It's been run by democratically-elected communists for over 50 years now, and is one of the richest -- if not the richest -- cities in Italy, with few social problems and a contented population.

Edit -- just to demonstrate, here's a quote from an entirely non-political source: www.allhotelsitaly.com (http://www.allhotelsitaly.com/bologna/):

"Politics excites a good deal of passion in ‘Red Bologna’, famous for being the first city to elect a Communist council. When the Bolognese professor and former prime minister, Romano Prodi, lead the Olive Tree coalition to victory in the 1996 elections, he gave the Communist Party their first legitimate role in government. The PDS have long been considered the least corrupt local government in Italy."

and

"Progressive, wealthy and cosmopolitan – with an excellent quality of life akin to Sweden’s – the city is one of Italy’s leading centres of industry and business."

The debate about communism is a slippery slope idea if I am poor you should be poor, a good example of this is the Kahmer Rouge in Cambodia. They closed doen the cities under Pol Pot and even the hospitals to create a fully rural population. Another flaw in a communist government is that most of the communist governments that have existed have been or a currently in place have poor ecomomies outside the special economic zones and used or use the military to put down anti-government opinions of any type. A better median is socalism having the wide spread social policy but not the repressive aspects of a communist system. A good example of this is Norway they have a great economy and are socalist not communist.

The debate about communism is a slippery slope idea if I am poor you should be poor, a good example of this is the Kahmer Rouge in Cambodia. They closed doen the cities under Pol Pot and even the hospitals to create a fully rural population. Another flaw in a communist government is that most of the communist governments that have existed have been or a currently in place have poor ecomomies outside the special economic zones and used or use the military to put down anti-government opinions of any type. A better median is socalism having the wide spread social policy but not the repressive aspects of a communist system. A good example of this is Norway they have a great economy and are socalist not communist.

The debate about communism is a slippery slope idea if I am poor you should be poor, a good example of this is the Kahmer Rouge in Cambodia. They closed doen the cities under Pol Pot and even the hospitals to create a fully rural population. Another flaw in a communist government is that most of the communist governments that have existed have been or a currently in place have poor ecomomies outside the special economic zones and used or use the military to put down anti-government opinions of any type. A better median is socalism having the wide spread social policy but not the repressive aspects of a communist system. A good example of this is Norway they have a great economy and are socalist not communist.
You obviously have quite a bit of difficulty in defferentiating between communism and the state-capitalist dictatorships who claimed falsely to be socialist. None of the governments you mention were truly socialist, least of all the psychotic Khmer Rouge. You also wrongly define socialism as social democracy, a kind of capitalism.
"If I am poor you should be poor" Is a very poor description of the motives behind communism. It is more about how common ownership of the means of production can produce a fairer and more humane society.

2. Two class society

There are only two classes in a communist society:
(a) Party favourites
(b) Poor
As you are even aware, this is not ideally the case; ideally, there is one class. Some cultures have come closer to this than others.

However, we may compare this to the tradititonal capitalist model; there are several classes, all treated unequally, by occupation:

Menial workers (who work in "low status" jobs.)
Blue collar workers
White collar workers ("professional" jobs.)
Management
Executives (who run corporations.)
Capitalists (who simply own things and get rich therefrom.)

Alternatively, we could classify traditional capitalism by another system, based on social class rather than economic. This also correlates very strongly to the unequal treatment therein.

The marginalized poor.
The working poor.
The middle class.
The upper middle class.
The upper class.
The "new" rich.
The "old" rich.

In no case of a socialist, communist, or attempted communist society is there this sheer amount and stratification of distinct classes. I could even subdivide this further, but the general and distinct classes are good enough. Clearly, if class division marks the failure of a society, and attempts at communist societies have yielded two classes, this is thrice the success of capitalism, and the class mobility in such societies even appears greater.

I, too, see the incentives to become a doctor, a scientist, or a manager in a society when all are "paid" the same for the same amount of work. If you cannot, then you have been blinded by materialism. Those whose primary incentive is material wealth and "keeping up with the Joneses"- or, more appropriately, keeping ahead of them - are poorly suited to communism. It is the greed of such that has pushed communist revolutions to failures, and the greed of such that causes "free" market systems to engage in ruthless economic oppression of the poor.

A case in point on the example given: Cuba has one of the world's highest ratios of doctors to population.

that's kind of a big question. how about i toss you a helpful link to an anarchist faq?
Section I - What would an anarchist society look like? (http://infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html)
it covers most things and is reasonably close to my particular ideas.

of course, this is just one particular conception of things. others would have different ones.
uh before i go there....
whats anarchy got to do with communism?

I haven't read the whole thread, but has anyone mentioned Bologna? It's been run by democratically-elected communists for over 50 years now, and is one of the richest -- if not the richest -- cities in Italy, with few social problems and a contented population.

Edit -- just to demonstrate, here's a quote from an entirely non-political source: www.allhotelsitaly.com (http://www.allhotelsitaly.com/bologna/):

"Politics excites a good deal of passion in ‘Red Bologna’, famous for being the first city to elect a Communist council. When the Bolognese professor and former prime minister, Romano Prodi, lead the Olive Tree coalition to victory in the 1996 elections, he gave the Communist Party their first legitimate role in government. The PDS have long been considered the least corrupt local government in Italy."

and

"Progressive, wealthy and cosmopolitan – with an excellent quality of life akin to Sweden’s – the city is one of Italy’s leading centres of industry and business."

yeah it reminds me of the suggestion,
if you are communist why would you go to russia when you can go to denmark?

that's kind of a big question. how about i toss you a helpful link to an anarchist faq?
Section I - What would an anarchist society look like? (http://infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html)
it covers most things and is reasonably close to my particular ideas.

of course, this is just one particular conception of things. others would have different ones.
uh before i go there....
whats anarchy got to do with communism?

all anarchists are anti-capitalists of one sort or another. the majority of anarchists are communists.

so in your opinion a modern communist state would have to be an anarchy?

reading

An actual communist state would always have been an anarchy. Marx defined communism as the final stage of socialism where the state falls away. Anarchy and communism are the same thing really, always have been, just different strands.

I believe that communism is a good idea.

But only as an idea. It doesn't work in real life.

so in your opinion a modern communist state would have to be an anarchy?

yeah, pretty much. a classless society (and communism is definitionally classless) is anarchistic by necessity. if it is not, then it is not classless - if some rule over the rest, then you have a ruling class and a ruled class. which also means that a classless society will be radically democratic and strive towards consensus in collective projects whenever possible.

ok i looked at the introduction
you KNOW i dint read the whole thing
dint help much
i certainly dont see how, without some kind of govt intervention, people wouldnt tend to develop hierarchies within every social, economic, religious, etc group that they formed.

we havent been non hierarchical since the egyptians invented civlization.

in neolithic times people did all the work they needed for themselves and their own families and kept the proceeds of their work for their own benefit. (kinda like the people in that movie "the gods must be crazy") and i suppose they traded the proceeds of their work to others as they felt the need to do so.

i don't think there IS a future coming where that will come back. marx had a good analysis of the world he was living in but i dont see any reason to believe his predictions of the future, he wasnt a prophet.

Anyway capitalism is essentially flawed as inequality is inherent within such a system, at least Communism attempts to deal with such inequalities in its basic principles, not that I totally agree with either system. Also the idea of constant economic growth to create jobs and increase prosperity relies on the presumption that extracting and consuming large amounts of resources is a good thing and that such resources are infinate. Well guess what people... THEY'RE NOT!!!


That sure hits a spot with me, we have been thaught it seems that more for more people is the best, now we have to learn to do with less if we are not to commit a collective suicide. I read reports about our forest, waterlife, saying how all natural resources are about to become extinct.
Heck, even Kaviar is to be depleted because we indulge in our lifestyles of pampering the body and social habits "look at me, me, me".

I am not so proud on what we do, how we behave toward others and even ourselves. I think we deserve pay.

Maybe that will give a dent on our inflated self esteem, petty feelings such as self pity and the like. We just think we are the most important, a comfy idea to me. We kill for all kind of reasons, justifications, ignorence, indulgence, greed, idiocy, stupidity, jealousy...you name it, we do it.
The more the better.

If you know this drill, you know where this is going.

End is near

Apocalypse now.

A case in point on the example given: Cuba has one of the world's highest ratios of doctors to population.

Yet thousands upon thousands of Cubans try to fleet Cuba each year. With such a fantasic health system, why would anyone WANT to leave?

Truth is humans are as I have said greedy. We are materialistic. You might like to claim that this is not so, but the vast majority of people disagree.

Equality is an illusion. Communism doesn't work.

Besides what is wrong with inequality? There seems to be an idea that we must all be equal and that is good. Inequality is natural - equality goes against the natural world.

e.g.

Weather is inequitable. we have changing weather patters, storms, hurricanes etc. that is not equal.

In the animal world there is inequality as the strong survive and the weak are hunted.

There is also inequality on Earth. No country has the same quantity of resources as another. Hence there is trade. There are countries with vast resources and some with very little.

The idea of equality is a human invention and goes against natural inequalities. There is no denying that equality is an inorganic ideal. It therefore cannot work.

A case in point on the example given: Cuba has one of the world's highest ratios of doctors to population.

Yet thousands upon thousands of Cubans try to fleet Cuba each year. With such a fantasic health system, why would anyone WANT to leave?

Truth is humans are as I have said greedy. We are materialistic. You might like to claim that this is not so, but the vast majority of people disagree.

Equality is an illusion. Communism doesn't work.

Besides what is wrong with inequality? There seems to be an idea that we must all be equal and that is good. Inequality is natural - equality goes against the natural world.

e.g.

Weather is inequitable. we have changing weather patters, storms, hurricanes etc. that is not equal.

In the animal world there is inequality as the strong survive and the weak are hunted.

There is also inequality on Earth. No country has the same quantity of resources as another. Hence there is trade. There are countries with vast resources and some with very little.

The idea of equality is a human invention and goes against natural inequalities. There is no denying that equality is an inorganic ideal. It therefore cannot work.

Perhaps I'm the only one who remembers, "It's the economy, stupid!"

I'm sick and tired of taking the "Idealism doesn't work" VS. "At least I don't kill kittens" debate. Mostly because everyone who disagrees with me kills kittens times infinity. So there.

I'd like to point out the inherently dangerous aspects of Communism from an economic standpoint.

See, central planning has a big flaw. Imagine this not improbable scenario:

Somewhere in the Kremlin:

Politburo Member#1: Comrade Mikahil, regarding the Widget plant south of Moscow, how many Widgets do you think we need to produce?

Politburo Member#2: I have no freaking idea. 800?

#1: We're not going to sell 800.

#2: 800 it is! Just make them!

And...scene!

The free market does a darn fine job of distributing goods and services- a better job than Communism can because only the free market can really gauge prices.

There is no such thing, really, as true value. Your product is only worth as much as I am willing to pay for it.

See, central planning has a big flaw. Imagine this not improbable scenario:

Actually, it would be more like this:

Somewhere in an anarcho-communist society:

Syndicate worker 1: My local commune has been complaining of a lack of widgets.
Syndicate worker 2: We will need to contact the plastic making confederation.
Syndicate worker 3: Then it's agreed. We will send someone to arrange a meeting with them.

The free market does a darn fine job of distributing goods and services- a better job than Communism can because only the free market can really gauge prices.

Too bad it rewards cutting back on pollution controls and lowering working conditions.

The idea of equality is a human invention and goes against natural inequalities. There is no denying that equality is an inorganic ideal. It therefore cannot work.

Equality means everyone having equal freedom. How is it unnatural for everyone to have the same amount of freedom?

Left? Communism goes beyond left.

Left wing ideologies and beyond ignore reality.

The state does not owe you a living.

Right wing ideologies ignore morality.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

ok i looked at the introduction
you KNOW i dint read the whole thing
dint help much
i certainly dont see how, without some kind of govt intervention, people wouldnt tend to develop hierarchies within every social, economic, religious, etc group that they formed.

first off, the intro is just an intro. check the subheadings to see if any particular question you have is covered.

and the way you avoid reestablishing hierarchy is to consciously setup egalitarian operating and decision-making processes. hierarchy doesn't just happen, it must be created and maintained.

in neolithic times people did all the work they needed for themselves and their own families and kept the proceeds of their work for their own benefit. (kinda like the people in that movie "the gods must be crazy") and i suppose they traded the proceeds of their work to others as they felt the need to do so.

that isn't quite right. people such as the !kung (the ones from 'the gods must be crazy') do not work exclusively independently and trade with others for other things. they actually have/had something called a gift economy, where stuff is freely shared between people with only a generalized expectation of some sort of return at some point in the future.

in fact, they have an interesting system of determing 'ownership' of game. 'ownership' in this case means being responsible for the first round of food sharing. anyway, game was owned by the person who owned the arrow that actually killed the animal. and they share arrows with each other quite freely, so it is usually the case that the person who shot the arrow isn't the owner of the arrow. quite often the owner of the arrow wasn't even along on the hunting trip at all.

Read "Utopia" by Thomas Moore. It aptly portrays communism in its true form. (not very flattering)

First communism isn't bad.

I already disagree with you.

Any system that is based on equal outcome is inherently unequal and not acceptable in my opinion.

Any system that is based on equal outcome is inherently unequal and not acceptable in my opinion.

it doesn't seem to me that communism isn't about equal outcome. at least not necessarily. it is about more equal outcomes, but not about making everyone the same. really i'd say it is about equal opportunity. so would alexander berkman.


Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse, in fact.

Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetities differ. It is EQUAL opportunity to satisfy them that constitues true equality. Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse, and only the repression of this free diversity results in levelling, in uniformity and sameness. Free opportunity and acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and variations....Life in freedom, in anarchy will do more than liberate man merely from his present political and economic bondage. That will be only the first step, the preliminary to a truly human existence.

In my opinion communism is not about equality, and is not incompatible with free market. Therefore your debate seems pretty senseless to me.

Read "Utopia" by Thomas Moore. It aptly portrays communism in its true form. (not very flattering)

considering Utopia was written before the Enlightenment, before the French Revolution, before the industrial revolution, before the rise of the bourgeosie, before Marx was even born! i don't think you can claim his model to have any relevance to modern theories

it doesn't seem to me that communism isn't about equal outcome. at least not necessarily. it is about more equal outcomes, but not about making everyone the same. really i'd say it is about equal opportunity.



I disagree here, at least partly. Equality of opportunity is most closely associated with liberalism, which is most closely associated with capitalism, and which everyone knows is far from communism on many levels. If you had said 'anarchism' rather than 'communism' however, i may have agreed as anarchism can be seen as an extreme liberalism, indeed in the case of anarcho-capitalism.

Read "Utopia" by Thomas Moore. It aptly portrays communism in its true form. (not very flattering)

considering Utopia was written before the Enlightenment, before the French Revolution, before the industrial revolution, before the rise of the bourgeosie, before Marx was even born! i don't think you can claim his model to have any relevance to modern theories

If you had read it, you would have noticed that all communist societies that followed proved Thomas Moore right (they worked along similar lines to the novel). "Utopia" warned the world of the dangers of communism...too bad we did not heed his words.

Then again, without the USSR what other excuse would there have been to gain huge sums of money for defence? :D

Also..."Animal Farm" is a good way of addressing the equality issue:

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"

That is the communist system at heart. Care to deny this by all means. But the vast majority of people know this famous Orwellian quotation to be 100% correct.

Communism is a bad idea with some novel notions.

I prefer living free, personally.

I'm a marxist and i reject the ussr as being an example of commuism despite what claims it made at the time and what capitalists claim today. George Orwell, too, was a left-libertarian and i find your use of Animal Farm a weak example as it was a satire of the soviet union - indeed highlighting why thinkers on the left should avoid social revolutions prematurely, i.e. when the conditions for revolution are not ripe (it would be accurate to say however that russia was ready for a bourgeous revolution rather than a socialist one). Communism, as i see it, is the culmination of mankind's prehistory and would be a stateless, classless society where all scarcity would be eliminated (it is also true to say that the elimination of scarcity would be a precondition for it).

I disagree here, at least partly. Equality of opportunity is most closely associated with liberalism, which is most closely associated with capitalism, and which everyone knows is far from communism on many levels. If you had said 'anarchism' rather than 'communism' however, i may have agreed as anarchism can be seen as an extreme liberalism, indeed in the case of anarcho-capitalism.Wow I almost disagree with 100% of that.

Communism is a bad idea with some novel notions.

I prefer living free, personally.Please explain how communism is threatening your freedom.

Too many different flavors of communism and capitalism here. No debate possible.

My flavor of communism does have free market but does not have capital.

Please explain why you disagree. Here's a start, are you saying this statement is false: a liberal is strongly in favour of equality of opportunity.

Please explain why you disagree. Here's a start, are you saying this statement is false: a liberal is strongly in favour of equality of opportunity.Capitalism does not support equality of opportunity. Capitalism does support the capital as a discrimination tool. I do not know what you call liberalism. Also anarchism and capitalism looks pretty incompatible to me. Anarchism does not support money and capital as far as I know.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

...equality of opportunity, need i say any more

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

...equality of opportunity, need i say any moreI think everybody agrees with that anyway.

so why say that communism places an emphasis on achieving equality of opportunity (creating de facto inequality) rather than equality of outcome (creating de facto equality)?

so why say that communism places an emphasis on achieving equality of opportunity (creating de facto inequality) rather than equality of outcome (creating de facto equality)?In my opinion, communism is not about equality at all but about efficiency. I think equality of opportunity is not achievable and neither is equality of outcome. I think capitalism is worse in this domain however because it does support capital which gives more opportunities and outcome to owners and less to workers. Communism does not have capital and therefore does not have this inequality at least.

A case in point on the example given: Cuba has one of the world's highest ratios of doctors to population.

Yet thousands upon thousands of Cubans try to fleet Cuba each year. With such a fantasic health system, why would anyone WANT to leave?

Truth is humans are as I have said greedy. We are materialistic. You might like to claim that this is not so, but the vast majority of people disagree.

Equality is an illusion. Communism doesn't work.

Besides what is wrong with inequality? There seems to be an idea that we must all be equal and that is good. Inequality is natural - equality goes against the natural world.

e.g.

Weather is inequitable. we have changing weather patters, storms, hurricanes etc. that is not equal.

In the animal world there is inequality as the strong survive and the weak are hunted.

There is also inequality on Earth. No country has the same quantity of resources as another. Hence there is trade. There are countries with vast resources and some with very little.

The idea of equality is a human invention and goes against natural inequalities. There is no denying that equality is an inorganic ideal. It therefore cannot work.

I suspect that the reasons people leave Cuba are two:
First, they disagree with Fidel Castro. Cuba is a single party state, with all the problems that entails.
Second, they are greedy and see lots of material wealth just a short hop away in the US of A; our propaganda here helps support that.
In neither case are they leaving because of the health care system... at the same time, the vast majority of Cuba's population has stayed put.

Time and time again, leftist governments have been democratically elected in Latin America, and time and time again, we have overthrown them. Communism is not competing with capitalism on fair terms, and never has; capitalists have fought tooth and nail to try and insure the failure of every experiment in communism.

Greed and materialism are problems that need to be mitigated, not encouraged; however, a substantial chunk of the human resources of capitalist countries are spent in indoctrinating people into them fully. In a society with no advertising and marketing, most of us would see far less desire to consume and acquire.

Equality may be an artificial ideal, but the ideal of equality is integral to the stated ideals of the country I grew up in (USA) and I hesitate to discard the notion that, as a very thoughtful man once said, all men are created equal. This is a notion that capitalism as practiced today stands against.

but what if scarcity was eliminated and no material goods were in short supply? That is to say that everyone has immediate access to everything that they need. Would that not be a situation in which all people not only had the same opportunity but also can be considered having equal outcome?

but what if scarcity was eliminated and no material goods were in short supply? That is to say that everyone has immediate access to everything that they need. Would that not be a situation in which all people not only had the same opportunity but also can be considered having equal outcome?Well in this case it would be achievable, with communism but not in capitalism because if all the goods are someone's property, that is denying them to just everybody else. I mean property is a monopoly.

i didn't say all goods being one person's private property. instead i supposed that if everyone had access to all the material goods they need, i.e. there being no scarcity, then all people would have equal opportunities and equal outcome.

but as you said, for communism that would be true

i didn't say all goods being one person's private property. instead i supposed that if everyone had access to all the material goods they need, i.e. there being no scarcity, then all people would have equal opportunities and equal outcome.Not necessarily, you forget that to achieve equal opportunity and outcome they would first need the freedom to take all those goods. It's useless having access to all the material goods you need if there are laws preventing you from taking them.

"Capitalism" doesn't exist. Just like "the Law of the Jungle" isn't a law. All societies are, by definition, socialist to a degree, and a bloody good thing too. A truly "capitalist" nation would be a nightmare hell of private armies, slavery, child prostitution -- and it wouldn't last long. The social nature of the human animal would draw people together, banding into groups for mutual protection; paying protection money would develop into taxes for police, and a new society would start.

"Market forces" don't exist, either. Adam Smith dreamed up the "Invisible Hand" in an entirely typical piece of Enlightement thinking. God was dismissed, at least from the day-to-day, and new processes were conceived to explain the workings of the world. Concepts like "Nature" were called upon to do what used to be attributed to God. All Adam Smith did was to invent his own form of "Nature" for economic interactions. People often forget this.

"Market forces" are useful concepts; they are good tools to help visualise a likely process. But they are only models. They aren't real. "Supply and demand" doesn't have the concrete existence of, say, gravity. This is why economics, as a school of thought, behaves like theology, where two highly trained economists can come to entirely opposite conclusions from the same data, and where neither one will accept anything the other has to say. It's also why parrots, five-year-olds, people with pins and blindfolds etc. can frequently outperform stockbrokers in playing the markets. Economics is very much the Dismal Science.

So... you have to relax. Don't worry about economic theories, or about "what the Market will do", because it's all a load of hooey anyway. Just take a look at what happens where, and how it all seems to pan out for all concerned, and make your judgement based on that. On that basis, communism + dictatorship would seem to be a bad idea. Then again, anything + dictatorship seems to be a bad idea. I think we have found the turd in the punchbowl here; the secret is, don't have a dictatorship. For the rest of it, it's merely morality: do you want to live in a compassionate society, or an uncaring one? If you are an uncaring person -- especially a rich, uncaring person -- then you are probably very happy with the status quo. If you have some compassion for others, then you are probably a socialist or a communist -- both shades of the same thing, really, although sometimes you'd never guess it. This is what happens when people become obsessed by economics, or theology: they lose all sight of reason and become obsessed with the most trivial of differences. But it's really all about what sort of human being you are: a good one, or a bad one. Left, or Right.

Horrid Swamp,
If everyone had access to everything they need, there would be no capitalism seeing as there would be no point in any trade. Unless people traded things they did not need but desired, but in that case some would end up with more things they desired than others. Which brings us back to an inequality of outcome.

"Capitalism" doesn't exist. Just like "the Law of the Jungle" isn't a law. All societies are, by definition, socialist to a degree, and a bloody good thing too. A truly "capitalist" nation would be a nightmare hell of private armies, slavery, child prostitution -- and it wouldn't last long. The social nature of the human animal would draw people together, banding into groups for mutual protection; paying protection money would develop into taxes for police, and a new society would start.I think you are confusing capitalism with anarchism. in capitalism, the government guarantees the value of the capital.

Horrid Swamp,
If everyone had access to everything they need, there would be no capitalism seeing as there would be no point in any trade. Unless people traded things they did not need but desired, but in that case some would end up with more things they desired than others. Which brings us back to an inequality of outcome.capitalism is not about ttrade. Capitalism is about the capital.

Both are linked. Trade leads to capital because that's what ends up being traded.

Both are linked. Trade leads to capital because that's what ends up being traded.Capitalism means that the capital creates wealth for the owner of the capital.

Trade will lead to capitalism because it relies on the concept of private property, and private property will eventually become capital as the owner profits from it.

Trade will lead to capitalism because it relies on the concept of private property, and private property will eventually become capital as the owner profits from it.There are other ways to trade.

"Capitalism" doesn't exist. Just like "the Law of the Jungle" isn't a law. All societies are, by definition, socialist to a degree, and a bloody good thing too. A truly "capitalist" nation would be a nightmare hell of private armies, slavery, child prostitution -- and it wouldn't last long. The social nature of the human animal would draw people together, banding into groups for mutual protection; paying protection money would develop into taxes for police, and a new society would start.
I think you are confusing capitalism with anarchism. in capitalism, the government guarantees the value of the capital.

I'm not sure that that is the definition of "capitalism". The value of the capital in the USSR was more closely guaranteed than the value of the capital in the USA, surely?

Trade will lead to capitalism because it relies on the concept of private property, and private property will eventually become capital as the owner profits from it.There are other ways to trade.
Such as...? Ones that don't rely on the concept of private property?

Re: Cuba. For some rather odd reason, some Cubans like to compare their status to America (which is not that good, largely due to continual US embargoes which have been widely condemed by most international states, even Britain), rather than, say the Carribbean capitalist countries that abound all around Cuba, most of whom's economies, to put it mildly, are in the deep shitter, whilst Cuba's is far better. But most Cubans are entirely proud of their fairly equal society, and most stay where they are. Like someone else said, Cuba not only has an exceptional doctor/patient ratio, but also sends their medical graduates all throughout the Third World, as well as producing various generic drugs through their exceptional biotechnology industry. If you ask a person from a Third World country what they think about Cuba, you'll get a very different answer from a First World person.

Re: Greed. If you had actually read what I'd said properly, you'd realise that I did say that people were, to an extent, greedy. But they are also, to an extent, generous. They are, to an extent, cruel, but they are also, to an extent, kind. To claim that people are all continually and totally greedy and that influences everything that they do is completely fallacious, and rather stupid, since, as I said before, human nature has to be adaptable in order to develop and evolve. Change in human nature is enevitable, it is not fixed. And if we are all totally and utterly greedy and selfish, how on earth did Britain manage to survive throughout the Second World War, with rationing? Surely everyone would have wanted more and more? Surely everyone would have squabbled over the meagre resources they received? As it turns out, no.

It all comes from our evolutionary past, y'see. While to a limited extent, people have to be self interested to keep themselves alive and pass on their DNA, human beings have always found strength in community, in communal social bonds and co-operation. Rugged self-interested individualism, I'm afraid, has never been in the human evolutionary plan.

And you have yet to explain how capitalism = greed = human nature if it relies on the majority of people having to not be greedy. You've heard union/company battles, they have to sacrifice their own self interests for the good of the corporation, or to b more precise, the profits of capitalism.

The main problems of capitalism are not just moral, although Clappi is right to a certain extent. The problem is man cannot be creative, he is stuck to do the daily grind in a job he must do in order to survive. Under capitalism, most people become little more than organic machines - Marx's theory of alienation under capitalism. We are aesthetic, artistical beings, but that is denied under the alienating effects of capitalism.

I agree with Clappi on dictatorships, I believe that Bakunin said it best: "Freedom without socialism is priviledge, injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery, brutality." There have been just as many capitalist dictatorships as there have been self-styled "communist" dictatorships; General Augusto Pinochet's regime comes specifically to mind. I am not a Marxist; I believe that although Marx wrote the most incisive critique of capitalism and how it works, and the ideas from capital on the dialectic, historical materialism, alienation and the idea of surplus value are valuable to any left-winger, but the ideas he puts forth in the Communist Manifesto for the transformation from a capitalist to a communist society are deeply flawed. Democracy must always be foremost in any left-winger's mind; I feel the ideas of George Monbiot on fighting corporatism and reclaiming democracy for the people are the most incisive of this generation.

The Idea of communism is that everyone does the work they are best suited for, everyone is treated alike and no one goes without basic needs. From a strictly impartial standpoint, theoretical communism is the best possible system of government. Unfourtunatly, it ussually colapses. But, besides that, the concept of complete equality, no class distinctions and all the other ideals that theoretical communism enbodies are wonderful. If communism worked, we could do a great deal worse (think capitalism) than live in a communist state.

i didn't say all goods being one person's private property. instead i supposed that if everyone had access to all the material goods they need, i.e. there being no scarcity, then all people would have equal opportunities and equal outcome.

You do realize that there is always scarcity right? That goods MUST be produced.

To say that we can get rid of scarcity is to say that we can increase production to infinity.

Getting rid of scracity would be sweet, actually. I wouldn't have to take Economics any more, since Economics itself is the study of scarcity. Since politics is ultimately a branch of economics, getting rid of scarcity would also mean that there would no longer be any government.

And all we have to do is increase net productivity to infinity... That can't be that hard... :roll:

"Capitalism" doesn't exist. Just like "the Law of the Jungle" isn't a law. All societies are, by definition, socialist to a degree, and a bloody good thing too. A truly "capitalist" nation would be a nightmare hell of private armies, slavery, child prostitution -- and it wouldn't last long. The social nature of the human animal would draw people together, banding into groups for mutual protection; paying protection money would develop into taxes for police, and a new society would start.
I think you are confusing capitalism with anarchism. in capitalism, the government guarantees the value of the capital.

I'm not sure that that is the definition of "capitalism". The value of the capital in the USSR was more closely guaranteed than the value of the capital in the USA, surely?

I agree. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, though it carries with it alot of secondary baggage.

THe value of capital is NOT guaranteed by the government. Under pure capitalism, the value of ANYTHING is ONLY determined by the market, that is prices. To say that the value of capital is guaranteed by the government is to institute a price control, i.e. not cpaitalism.

Trade will lead to capitalism because it relies on the concept of private property, and private property will eventually become capital as the owner profits from it.

Trade will lead to capitalism, but not for that reason.

To trade, you must have prices... Even if there's no currency, there are still prices (my cmoputer for your three pigs. If someone else is willing to give me four pigs for my computer, the price has just gone up to four pigs).

But to set real prices, you need a market. Even if you abolsih free marekts, there will still be a black market. The market leads to capitalism.

Trade will lead to capitalism because it relies on the concept of private property, and private property will eventually become capital as the owner profits from it.

Trade will lead to capitalism, but not for that reason.

To trade, you must have prices... Even if there's no currency, there are still prices (my cmoputer for your three pigs. If someone else is willing to give me four pigs for my computer, the price has just gone up to four pigs).

But to set real prices over a large amount of goods, you need a market. Even if you abolsih free marekts, there will still be a black market. The market leads to capitalism.

Trade will lead to capitalism because it relies on the concept of private property, and private property will eventually become capital as the owner profits from it.

Trade will lead to capitalism, but not for that reason.

To trade, you must have prices... Even if there's no currency, there are still prices (my cmoputer for your three pigs. If someone else is willing to give me four pigs for my computer, the price has just gone up to four pigs).

But to set real prices over a large amount of goods, you need a market. Even if you abolsih free marekts, there will still be a black market. The market leads to capitalism.

Trade will lead to capitalism because it relies on the concept of private property, and private property will eventually become capital as the owner profits from it.

Trade will lead to capitalism, but not for that reason.

To trade, you must have prices... Even if there's no currency, there are still prices (my cmoputer for your three pigs. If someone else is willing to give me four pigs for my computer, the price has just gone up to four pigs).

But to set real prices over a large amount of goods, you need a market. Even if you abolsih free marekts, there will still be a black market. The market leads to capitalism.

Trade will lead to capitalism because it relies on the concept of private property, and private property will eventually become capital as the owner profits from it.

Trade will lead to capitalism, but not for that reason.

To trade, you must have prices... Even if there's no currency, there are still prices (my cmoputer for your three pigs. If someone else is willing to give me four pigs for my computer, the price has just gone up to four pigs).

But to set real prices over a large amount of goods, you need a market. Even if you abolsih free marekts, there will still be a black market. The market leads to capitalism.

Everyone is not equal - that is where communism fails. The USA is a REPUBLIC. A true DEMOCRACY is where everyone can vote on all issues before them.

Till humans change ... Communism will not work.

One problem I see with many arguments here: you assume that economic theory is fact. It is not a science, it is not irrefutable. I'd like to see certain contributors adopt a worldview that isn't 100% economics. Giving yourself wholly to a field of social science is kind of perverse.

Everyone is not equal - that is where communism fails.

All men are not, in fact, created equal, but it's too dangerous not to assume they are.

Also, thanks, Global Market, what you were saying is what I was getting at in a kind of clumsy way, I guess.

personally i belive that all forms of government work, it just depends on who is running them. Soo everyone has really got to stop stating ignorant facts about government types

Does religion seperate people? Maybe. But we do not all have to be exactly alike for society to function. I don't know where that idea that anything that sets some people apart or makes people different is bad comes from but it is crap.

Human nature separates us into competing social organizations. Religion is just one facet of that, along with tribe, nation, race, etc. Religion is really the one thing among that grouping that can overcome that human instinct through appeal to a higher nature, though it can also certainly be used by outside power structures to control people as well.

I agree that difference is not necessarily a detriment to the functioning of society. As to your general question as to where that idea comes from, I'd say it's partly out of the secular bias against religious thought and faith but that the primary reason is the homogenization of thought and culture desired by our corporate masters. We're all supposed to be good, unquestioning consumers concerned only with fitting into the roles prescribed to us and allowing ourselves to be driven by the greed that drives our economy. Corporate culture is ultimately anti-humanitarian and religious identification is a human characteristic so is a threat to them.

You do realize that there is always scarcity right? That goods MUST be produced.

To say that we can get rid of scarcity is to say that we can increase production to infinity.


thankyou for pointing that out. i agree that the notion of eliminating scarcity is farfetched in today's terms, BUT...think of Marx's theory of history. the era that we live in today is THE capitalist mode of production, and there is a long road of development between where we are now and the end destination which Marx believed to be communism.

I interpret the conditions for communism (and the means of production that will replace capitalism and so on) to be exactly the elimination of scarcity. now i'm sure that at this point most of the people reading this will think that i'm now onto fiction, but that simply is not the case. Scarcity is broadly an absence of what people need to survive and more specifically what people need to flourish. I don't think this is too difficult to comprehend either. I think that it is more probable than not that in the future the breakthroughs, innovations and developments in all aspects of human living will mean that we will have the capacity to provide everyone with what they need to survive and flourish. Is this really so unlikely? To support the contrary is to suppose that mankind's eagerness for discovering more and more is suddenly to end.

it doesn't seem to me that communism isn't about equal outcome. at least not necessarily. it is about more equal outcomes, but not about making everyone the same. really i'd say it is about equal opportunity.

I disagree here, at least partly. Equality of opportunity is most closely associated with liberalism, which is most closely associated with capitalism, and which everyone knows is far from communism on many levels. If you had said 'anarchism' rather than 'communism' however, i may have agreed as anarchism can be seen as an extreme liberalism, indeed in the case of anarcho-capitalism.

anarchism is not liberalism. we were at the first international, thank you very much. 'anarcho'-capitalism has no relation to anarchism other than a shared first 6 letters.

liberalism likes to talk about equal opportunity, but it offers no such thing. by having private ownership of land and capital, it is has a class system where your opportunities are mostly defined by your class position. there is no equal opportunity there. what liberals actually claim is equality before the law - neither the rich nor the poor may sleep under the bridge. some of them like to pretend that equality before the law = equality of opportunity, but that's just theology (not even theory, because it is plainly false from the theoretical standpoint) that has absolutely no relation to the facts on the ground.

why would you want everyone to have equal outcomes? people like different things, and if there is enough why should they not have access to the things that they in particular want? some people eat twice a day, some people eat five times - if they is enough food to feed everyone five times a day, should we give the person who only eats twice three more meals whether he wants them or not? of course not. i want - and we should all strive for - egalitarian outcomes, not equal ones.

You do realize that there is always scarcity right? That goods MUST be produced.

To say that we can get rid of scarcity is to say that we can increase production to infinity.

that relies on the hidden assumption of infinite desire. however, we know that if it exists it is purely a product of culture, because we have met cultures where it doesn't. scarcity is (mostly) artificially produced by the class system and consumer culture. for any real scarcity encountered, it can be dealt with by a form of rationing, which is what money does - just much less fairly.

of course, we know that infinite desire is false anyway, even in our own culture. for example, you can get as many books as you want from the library for free. how many people do you know that go get as many books as they can carry from the library as fast as they can read them? for that matter, how many people do you know who go to the library more than a couple times a year?

Trade will lead to capitalism, but not for that reason.

To trade, you must have prices... Even if there's no currency, there are still prices (my cmoputer for your three pigs. If someone else is willing to give me four pigs for my computer, the price has just gone up to four pigs).

But to set real prices over a large amount of goods, you need a market. Even if you abolsih free marekts, there will still be a black market. The market leads to capitalism.

If the workers own the means of production, then it is market socialism.

------------------------
Free your mind!

One problem I see with many arguments here: you assume that economic theory is fact. It is not a science, it is not irrefutable. I'd like to see certain contributors adopt a worldview that isn't 100% economics. Giving yourself wholly to a field of social science is kind of perverse.

While we're dealing with an economic issue, it makes sense to concentrate on economics, does it not?

thankyou for pointing that out. i agree that the notion of eliminating scarcity is farfetched in today's terms, BUT...think of Marx's theory of history. the era that we live in today is THE capitalist mode of production, and there is a long road of development between where we are now and the end destination which Marx believed to be communism.

I interpret the conditions for communism (and the means of production that will replace capitalism and so on) to be exactly the elimination of scarcity. now i'm sure that at this point most of the people reading this will think that i'm now onto fiction, but that simply is not the case. Scarcity is broadly an absence of what people need to survive and more specifically what people need to flourish.

No. Scarcity is defined economically as having a finite amount of resources. There can be a per capita GDP of $2,000,000 in a country, and that country is still said to have scarcity. Right now, the vast majority of Americans have everything they need to live comfortably, but there is still scarcity in America.

Economics is the study of how people act under scarcity. No scarcity, no economics. If, as Marx claimed, the prerequisite of communism is the elimination of scarcity, then we will NEVER have communism in the forseeable future, since there will ALWAYS be scarcity. As long as there is less than infinite resources in a society, a method of distribution will be needed. This, scarcity exists definitionally.

I don't think this is too difficult to comprehend either. I think that it is more probable than not that in the future the breakthroughs, innovations and developments in all aspects of human living will mean that we will have the capacity to provide everyone with what they need to survive and flourish. Is this really so unlikely? To support the contrary is to suppose that mankind's eagerness for discovering more and more is suddenly to end.

It is very likely, I'd say almost CERTAIN, that in the future we will have enough resources to give everyone a decent quality of life. But that doesn't mean we'll have communism, because as I said already, scarcity would still exist.

that relies on the hidden assumption of infinite desire. however, we know that if it exists it is purely a product of culture, because we have met cultures where it doesn't. scarcity is (mostly) artificially produced by the class system and consumer culture. for any real scarcity encountered, it can be dealt with by a form of rationing, which is what money does - just much less fairly.

It varies from individual to individual. Some have infinite desires, some don't. Culture plays a role, but not the only role.

Limited resources is the very definition of scarcity. You can't argue that there's no scarcity. You can argue that scarcity is sufficiently limited such that everyone can have what they need to live, but to argue that there is no scarcity is patently false.

Definitions aside, you've just merely proven that we have alot of money. You still have to show why rationing (in which case ONE group of poeple determine what everyone else gets) is better than pricing (in which case EVERYONE is allowed to prioritize whichever way they want).

of course, we know that infinite desire is false anyway, even in our own culture. for example, you can get as many books as you want from the library for free. how many people do you know that go get as many books as they can carry from the library as fast as they can read them? for that matter, how many people do you know who go to the library more than a couple times a year?

Infinite desire or not, just because I MAY or MAY NOT want something doesn't give you teh right to assume I don't want and take it away from me. The fact remains that scarcity exists and always will. That makes market capitalism the system that leads to the best quality of life.

Limited resources is the very definition of scarcity. You can't argue that there's no scarcity. You can argue that scarcity is sufficiently limited such that everyone can have what they need to live, but to argue that there is no scarcity is patently false.

there is a finite amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, but it is not scarce in any meaningful sense. the capitalist economist's definition of scarcity is self-serving and makes for a convinient point of equivocation if the argument goes badly. a meaningful sense of scarcity has to do with the difference between means and ends, not with the mere fact that there is a finite amount of particles and energy in the universe.

You still have to show why rationing (in which case ONE group of poeple determine what everyone else gets) is better than pricing (in which case EVERYONE is allowed to prioritize whichever way they want).

that's not what i mean by rationing. the form of rationing i envision is such that everyone can have what they want as long as there is enough left for everyone else. anyone can take as much as they want within the limits of our productive capacity and the available goods. hell, items that are scarce (in my sense of the word) may even have a limited pricing system - you can have x of this or y of that, but not both. the thing that makes this form of rationing more fair than the capitalist form of rationing is the lack of class distinctions; which lead to some people being able to get both x and y, while the rest get neither.

Both are linked. Trade leads to capital because that's what ends up being traded.

why? if capital is made socially owned, how could it be individually traded?

Limited resources is the very definition of scarcity. You can't argue that there's no scarcity. You can argue that scarcity is sufficiently limited such that everyone can have what they need to live, but to argue that there is no scarcity is patently false.

there is a finite amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, but it is not scarce in any meaningful sense. the capitalist economist's definition of scarcity is self-serving and makes for a convinient point of equivocation if the argument goes badly. a meaningful sense of scarcity has to do with the difference between means and ends, not with the mere fact that there is a finite amount of particles and energy in the universe.

You still have to show why rationing (in which case ONE group of poeple determine what everyone else gets) is better than pricing (in which case EVERYONE is allowed to prioritize whichever way they want).

that's not what i mean by rationing. the form of rationing i envision is such that everyone can have what they want as long as there is enough left for everyone else. anyone can take as much as they want within the limits of our productive capacity and the available goods. hell, items that are scarce (in my sense of the word) may even have a limited pricing system - you can have x of this or y of that, but not both. the thing that makes this form of rationing more fair than the capitalist form of rationing is the lack of class distinctions; which lead to some people being able to get both x and y, while the rest get neither.

The problem is that at least something will limit production. It could be money, materials, labour, energy, etc... but limiting factors do exist in all economies.

Also, the "capacity of production" are not interchangeable. A factory can't be converted into a hydro dam which isn't a chip manufacturing plan. You can't simply make "enough" for everyone - how much is enough?

At least prices do provide signals to tell manufacturers and others what to build and when. Without these signals, who decides? Ah yes, the great 5 year plan comes into existance. Bureaucrats deciding what is best for everyone - of course, what is best can be self-serving. In your example, rationing is going to tell people that 5 microchips are worth 1 car. If people start believing that 10 chips=1 car, then you have a problem. All of the cars will go off the table - people will inevitably start black market trading - I'll sell 1 car for 7 chips - make a profit.

The scale of the economy matters. It makes a big difference - 2 dozen people could easily survive on "gifting" each other - peer pressure works well and any slackers become very noticeable. 20 million - different problems in getting people to be motivated. Communism hasn't worked on a large scale - ever. Its form of motivation was fear and even then, the "we'll pretend to work, and you'll pretend to pay us" cropped up making it not very reliable. Capitalism works - it has outlasted other systems, dealt with war, depression, booms, busts. So at the moment, you can go with what works and try to improve it, or go with what doesn't.

As for all the small society references, one big problem exists. The planet can't support that many people in that fashion. We need large farms - small ones are just too inefficient to feed everyone. I don't really plan on volunteering to be one of the 95% of people killed so that the survivors can try a communistic pastoralism.

Well i prefer capitalism becuase you basicly earn your way to the top it makes more quality of character and other things like quality and the desire to do better. Comunism is good for a small group of people maby and for a temporary government but it is hard to keep alive :?

Any system that is based on equal outcome is inherently unequal and not acceptable in my opinion.

it doesn't seem to me that communism isn't about equal outcome. at least not necessarily. it is about more equal outcomes, but not about making everyone the same. really i'd say it is about equal opportunity. so would alexander berkman.[/quote]

Socialism is about equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Equal outcome - Classless society.

Till humans change ... Communism will not work.

If a system that is supposed to be applied to humans can't work because of the humans, then I guess the system cannot work.

Communism is a bad idea with some novel notions.

I prefer living free, personally.Please explain how communism is threatening your freedom.
The manifesto calls for the removal of religion from society, the removal of parent's rights to raise their children, and the theft of all private property, and the removal of the rights of inhieritance. I'd call that a big reduction of freedom.

People aren't allowed to oppose communism, if so, everything they have will be taken away. People aren't allowed to leave the country if they don't like communism, if they do, everything they have will be taken away. Very free, isn't it?

Both are linked. Trade leads to capital because that's what ends up being traded.

why? if capital is made socially owned, how could it be individually traded?
If capital is communally owned, what is the point in trading it?

Socialism is about equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Equal outcome - Classless society.

all of our actually existing classless societies did not have equal outcomes. they did, however, have egalitarian ones.

all of our actually existing classless societies did not have equal outcomes. they did, however, have egalitarian ones.

I thought there was only one example of a classless society, the Spanish anarchists. What are the others?

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

The problem is that at least something will limit production. It could be money, materials, labour, energy, etc... but limiting factors do exist in all economies.

Also, the "capacity of production" are not interchangeable. A factory can't be converted into a hydro dam which isn't a chip manufacturing plan. You can't simply make "enough" for everyone - how much is enough?

of course there are limits. what really matters is where those limits are. just because the universe is finite doesn't mean we are going to run out of available matter and energy anytime some. the first issue is producing enough of the basic necessities for everyone - which is pretty trivially easy. beyond that, enough is however much we collectively decide it is

At least prices do provide signals to tell manufacturers and others what to build and when. Without these signals, who decides? Ah yes, the great 5 year plan comes into existance. Bureaucrats deciding what is best for everyone - of course, what is best can be self-serving. In your example, rationing is going to tell people that 5 microchips are worth 1 car. If people start believing that 10 chips=1 car, then you have a problem. All of the cars will go off the table - people will inevitably start black market trading - I'll sell 1 car for 7 chips - make a profit.

prices aren't the only way to transmit information. in fact, prices merely summarize certain aspects of the actual production and distribution information available. and no libertarian socialist of any sort intends to leave production decisions in the hands of bureaucrats. even the more statist versions know that bureaucrats operating without proper feedback mechanisms is a good way to kill your economy. there really has been a lot of thought about all of this among the various branches of socialism.

check out I.4 How could an anarchist economy function? (http://infoshop.org/faq/secI4.html) for a short treatment of this topic from an anarchist angle. you might want to look at I.4.4 What economic decision making criteria could be used in anarchy? (http://infoshop.org/faq/secI4.html#seci44) in particular.

I thought there was only one example of a classless society, the Spanish anarchists. What are the others?

for one, there's my favorite stone-age economists, the !kung. and then there are some more (http://boas.ukc.ac.uk/cgi-bin/uncgi/Ethnoatlas/show_groups?r=70&rv=1&c=72&cv=1).

I'm a bit late to bring this up but because i only just found the thread, i want to contribute a bit. Communism is only bad because perfection does not exist, and also because it is too extreme. Karl Marx was sick of dictatorship and socialism didn't provide the equalness which he wanted (he was extremely sick of dictatorship so he wanted equalness for all), but Communism can be good if it adapts to the modern economy based world, then it'll become more like Capitalism. However, everything changes and almost nothing remains the same. If you look at today's Capitalism, it has also inherited some Socialist traits for example welfare. If anyone has an argument against "Communism only works in theory" please notify me because i'm sick of people chopping me purely because it is an impossible topic to argue against.

The idea of communism sounds good but does not realistically take into account the necessity for a plan b. By plan B I mean that a government shared by everyone with equality cannot stand. With everyone playing a part there is a leadership gap that EVERY country needs to survive. The problem with leaving everything up to everyone is that no matter how much people agree on said type of government, they will ALWAYS have their own ideas on how things should be carried out. Therefore nothing gets done because no one can agree. However, if somehow human nature changes and people all think in the same vein then sure communism is a great thing. But it's just not realistic. Even in any communist government there must be those who operate the government, as "heads." But with these people having more influence than others, doesn't that ruin the whole theory?
The only reason communism still survives, much as American politics do, is because it gives people the apperance of real freedom and equality with out actually delivering. It's government that manipualtes thoughts and beliefs, and people buy into this "freedom." There is no way to have a government that is even decent, any kind, because we are people. Bottom line. :?:

First communism isn't bad. It's just some people execute it totally wrong. First of all I would like to correct Karl Marx. You do not need a violent revolution to get what you want. Mahatma Ghandi overcame the British Empire without raising a fist against anybody. But the idea that we all run a country ourselves is good. For one you don't have to put up with politicians. The thing I don't like about the democratic society is that you have leaders. Aren't all men and women created equal? This person has complete and utter control over you for four years and you don't find that a little oppresive? One thing I would also like to comment on is that Marx was wrong about religion. You should not get rid of it. Let people believe whatever they want to believe. Eventually they will come to terms to the fact that religion does seperate people and we don't need that at all. There is just a few thoughts to get you going. I see you'r an anarchist.

The idea of communism sounds good but does not realistically take into account the necessity for a plan b. By plan B I mean that a government shared by everyone with equality cannot stand. With everyone playing a part there is a leadership gap that EVERY country needs to survive. The problem with leaving everything up to everyone is that no matter how much people agree on said type of government, they will ALWAYS have their own ideas on how things should be carried out. Therefore nothing gets done because no one can agree. However, if somehow human nature changes and people all think in the same vein then sure communism is a great thing. But it's just not realistic. Even in any communist government there must be those who operate the government, as "heads." But with these people having more influence than others, doesn't that ruin the whole theory?
The only reason communism still survives, much as American politics do, is because it gives people the apperance of real freedom and equality with out actually delivering. It's government that manipualtes thoughts and beliefs, and people buy into this "freedom." There is no way to have a government that is even decent, any kind, because we are people. Bottom line. :?:

This is a rather nonsensical argument; its only application lies under the following title:

"Why consensus government is impractical for large numbers."

and

"Why democracy does not reflect the wishes of the people."

Personally, I think that a democratically elected government can be run in such a manner to decide fairly close to the wishes of the people on the whole.

I'm starting to wonder why so many low-post number flybys have been sighted popping up in this thread to bash communism... it's as if they don't want their normal nations associated with the argument. Or want more nations to appear to argue against it without having more people argue against it.

The idea of communism sounds good but does not realistically take into account the necessity for a plan b. By plan B I mean that a government shared by everyone with equality cannot stand. With everyone playing a part there is a leadership gap that EVERY country needs to survive. The problem with leaving everything up to everyone is that no matter how much people agree on said type of government, they will ALWAYS have their own ideas on how things should be carried out. Therefore nothing gets done because no one can agree. However, if somehow human nature changes and people all think in the same vein then sure communism is a great thing. But it's just not realistic. Even in any communist government there must be those who operate the government, as "heads." But with these people having more influence than others, doesn't that ruin the whole theory?
The only reason communism still survives, much as American politics do, is because it gives people the apperance of real freedom and equality with out actually delivering. It's government that manipualtes thoughts and beliefs, and people buy into this "freedom." There is no way to have a government that is even decent, any kind, because we are people. Bottom line. :?:

This is a rather nonsensical argument; its only application lies under the following title:

"Why consensus government is impractical for large numbers."

and

"Why democracy does not reflect the wishes of the people."

Personally, I think that a democratically elected government can be run in such a manner to decide fairly close to the wishes of the people on the whole.

I'm starting to wonder why so many low-post number flybys have been sighted popping up in this thread to bash communism... it's as if they don't want their normal nations associated with the argument. Or want more nations to appear to argue against it without having more people argue against it.
Quite touchy. Well this is my only nation however, that not what I wanted to address. No, I do not support communism and yes I DO support democracy. I believe it's the closest to a reasonable government that has been thought up. However, my seeming disapproval of both comm. and demo. is because there must be a better solution, and no it has nothing to do with a monarchy. I am not saying I have the answer because no one has yet. But you should realize that as more power is given to the people the more it becomes the people's government. Since the beginning of the 20th century its been obvious that the country has swayed quite a bit towards many communists ideas. That much cannot be argued. It's not hard to see where it is possible that this country could go. Not necessarily communism but something close. What I would say is that, the most important thing in politics is balance, and while democracy has the most balance without question, it has flaws and people shouldn't be so ignorant of them because of their "attachment" to it. That would be foolish, and then no one progresses. Also, don't attack me. Just speak your mind no need for offenses, I give you the same respect.

anarchism is not liberalism.
I didn't say that anarchism WAS liberalism, rather i suggested that anarcho-capitalism is liberalism taken to it's logical conclusion.
'anarcho'-capitalism has no relation to anarchism other than a shared first 6 letters.
I trust that by 'anarcho-capitalism' you mean idividualist anarchism and by 'anarchism' you mean collectivist anarchism. There is a very strong relationship between the two in that they both share the the core values of anarchism in the broader sense, that is ANTI-STATISM, NATURAL ORDER and ANTI-CLERICALISM. Where anarcho-capitalism deviates from this is in it's vocation of the FREE ECONOMY, as indeed Bakunin professed that 'political power and wealth are inseparable'.

why would you want everyone to have equal outcomes?
Equality at the point of outcome is true equality. It is to say that all people have the same entitlements as everyone else - across the board. That does not imply, however, that every person is compelled to accept and use/consume that full entitlement, there is a great amount of flexibility within what people can take.

Socialism is about equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Equal outcome - Classless society.
Socialism in the Marxist sense is a classless society

If, as Marx claimed, the prerequisite of communism is the elimination of scarcity, then we will NEVER have communism in the forseeable future, since there will ALWAYS be scarcity.
Remember that there would be no market in this society. That there would be a universally recognized quota of what people need to surive and flourish. When discussing this issue a Marxist doesn't recognize all goods that can be produced, rather the goods that need to be produced, all else is, ironicallly, immaterial.

The manifesto calls for the removal of religion from society, the removal of parent's rights to raise their children, and the theft of all private property, and the removal of the rights of inhieritance. I'd call that a big reduction of freedom.

I one sense, yes. But remember that religion, private property and all that you mentioned are variations of power and therefore a means to control people. So in that sense, it is freedom.

'anarcho'-capitalism has no relation to anarchism other than a shared first 6 letters.
I trust that by 'anarcho-capitalism' you mean idividualist anarchism and by 'anarchism' you mean collectivist anarchism. There is a very strong relationship between the two in that they both share the the core values of anarchism in the broader sense, that is ANTI-STATISM, NATURAL ORDER and ANTI-CLERICALISM. Where anarcho-capitalism deviates from this is in it's vocation of the FREE ECONOMY, as indeed Bakunin professed that 'political power and wealth are inseparable'.

'anarcho'-capitalism isn't really related to individualist anarchism either. though they do like to badly misread some of the individualists and claim them as their own. while i may not agree with the ideas of the individualist anarchists, i do know and understand the deep connections between them and us. a rejection of capitalist relations is one of those connections. the individualists were opposed to rent and profit and usury - which turns them into libertarian market socialists from my point of view.

why would you want everyone to have equal outcomes?
Equality at the point of outcome is true equality. It is to say that all people have the same entitlements as everyone else - across the board. That does not imply, however, that every person is compelled to accept and use/consume that full entitlement, there is a great amount of flexibility within what people can take.

flexibility within what people can take sounds exactly like equal opportunity to me. i always think of outcome as having to do with the end point of some system and equal opportunity as applying at the step before a particular outcome. an equal outcome in terms of education would be that we all got the same education. likewise, an equal opportunity in terms of education is that everyone would have equal access to whatever form of education they wanted. and equality before the law in terms of education would mean that it was illegal to deny a poor person education on the grounds of being poor, without touching the other structural barriers that prevent equal opportunity or equal outcome.

for one, there's my favorite stone-age economists, the !kung. and then there are some more.

Pretty much all of those groups have hierarchy, though. The !Kung have hereditary chiefs.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

for one, there's my favorite stone-age economists, the !kung. and then there are some more.

Pretty much all of those groups have hierarchy, though. The !Kung have hereditary chiefs.

hereditary chiefs with no power who have to go out of their way to give away whatever they can and aren't allowed to speak up first or most at group meetings. a true ceremonial position.

they really have/had a very slight amount of hierarchy, less than even the anarchists in spain pulled of. and certainly no classes.

they really have/had a very slight amount of hierarchy, less than even the anarchists in spain pulled of. and certainly no classes.

What about the mentioning of bride prices? They seem very patriarchal. There is a great deal of division of labor between men and women, which seems a bit like a class to me.

On the other hand, none of them seem to have property.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

What about the mentioning of bride prices? They seem very patriarchal. There is a great deal of division of labor between men and women, which seems a bit like a class to me.

On the other hand, none of them seem to have property.

there are two real divisions of labor (and sometimes status) - sex and age grade. they aren't really classes per se, and they really aren't as exploitative or coercive as the stuff that comes later. but this is definitely one of the areas where anarchist theory improves upon primitive communism.

but they are classless societies.

So they were communistic as well?

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

So they were communistic as well?

in a sense. they had collective ownership of the means of production (the land, in this case) and a culture of sharing and gift giving - which a number of people have called 'primitive communism'. i happen to agree with them.