NationStates Jolt Archive

Communism is not about slavery or brutality, like many people would think.

Communism is a stateless society where money is abolished, and everybody is co-operating instead of competing and fighting against each other.

But before we can install communism, we have to go through a stage called "the dictatorship of the proletariat", which is socialism. In a socialist society, the working class will be the ruling class, just like the capitalists (bourgeoisie) are the ruling class, today.

That's the basis, but of course, the whole theory about it is much deeper then that.

So if you have any questions, I will try my best to answer them.

Communism is a stateless society where money is abolished, and everybody is co-operating instead of competing and fighting against each other.

So, no money....

how then does the state or community repay an individual for their contribution.

HINT: for communism to work it has to become a idealistic fascism.

I have never believed it was about slavery or brutality.

I oppose communism because in a communist society, people are forced to give up what they work for so that other people may benefit from it, whether those people are deserving or not. A guy who digs fence-post holes is no different in social standing or in any other way shape or form than a neurosurgeon under a communist society. THAT is the problem with communism, not some misplaced vision about brutality and slavery.

I have never believed it was about slavery or brutality.

I oppose communism because in a communist society, people are forced to give up what they work for so that other people may benefit from it, whether those people are deserving or not. A guy who digs fence-post holes is no different in social standing or in any other way shape or form than a neurosurgeon under a communist society. THAT is the problem with communism, not some misplaced vision about brutality and slavery.Do you know about a better system? Do you know a system where you don't give work? Oh you mean the one where you're a dictator and everybody work for you?

BTW what is your account on lordaeron?

Errrrr I don't see how what you said is in ANY way related to what I said...

Where did I say I believe you shouldn't have to work? No, that's a communist belief. In a right wing society, if you don't work, you will be shot down (figuratively speaking), unless of course, you happen to be just so damn good that you can get by without working, in which case more power to you.

I said you shouldn't have to give up what you work for just because some lazy incapable asshole doesn't feel like working.

Edit: And my account on Lordaeron is currently non-existant, because I haven't been on in a while since I can't find my WC3 CD to reinstall. I'm getting my paycheque today (go part time jobs!) so I'm heading off to the mall to buy it tonight. I alternate between Lordaeron and Azeroth (AzerothII is my dummy account on NS). My account will probably be Snowy21 if it's not already taken. My current one is SnowyFrostwind although I have my doubts it still exists.

Do you play RoC or TFT? If either...

Do you know about a better system? Do you know a system where you don't give work? Oh you mean the one where you're a dictator and everybody work for you?

see, here is the problem

all that is being said is that communism has no way of differentiating between people who do more for society and those who want a free ride. You have not answered that.

Stop being so stuck up, communism does fall apart under any economic sence, the same way that capatilism is horrible for social abuses.

Of course it does. Those who want a free ride won't work, so the difference is clear. There is a difference between people who won't work and who can't find or are unable to do work for medical reasons.

Errrrr I don't see how what you said is in ANY way related to what I said...

Where did I say I believe you shouldn't have to work? No, that's a communist belief. In a right wing society, if you don't work, you will be shot down (figuratively speaking), unless of course, you happen to be just so damn good that you can get by without working, in which case more power to you.

I said you shouldn't have to give up what you work for just because some lazy incapable asshole doesn't feel like working.

Edit: And my account on Lordaeron is currently non-existant, because I haven't been on in a while since I can't find my WC3 CD to reinstall. I'm getting my paycheque today (go part time jobs!) so I'm heading off to the mall to buy it tonight. I alternate between Lordaeron and Azeroth (AzerothII is my dummy account on NS). My account will probably be Snowy21 if it's not already taken. My current one is SnowyFrostwind although I have my doubts it still exists.

Do you play RoC or TFT? If either...
Well in a right wing society you work for a lazy fat ass who can't be arsed to move it though.

I play RoC I don't like TFT, on Northrend mainly.

I believe in communism because I'm an idealist and read a lot of theory. I don't believe in it because I also read the papers.

Hi all.
I'm new here, and this is my first time posting, so feel free to flame me all to hell. My opinion of communism is that it's a great system of government, for ants. Humans on the other hand can't be organized into a collectivist system so effectively because they tend to disagree with each other about what the common good is exactly, and often cling to their ideas with violent fervor. Also humans tend to get selfish on occasion, and that kind of screws up communist systems. It's telling that no communist government to date has ever progressed to the point where the government falls away and everyone just does what he is supposed to without being told. People _need_ structure, sometimes that structure needs to be imposed by authority.

see, here is the problem

all that is being said is that communism has no way of differentiating between people who do more for society and those who want a free ride. You have not answered that.

Stop being so stuck up, communism does fall apart under any economic sence, the same way that capatilism is horrible for social abuses.I disagree.

I don't like Communiam because there is too much greed for it to work.

However, Fascism is a worthwhile pursuit: Fascism is captilism but you all work toward a common goal. Work for the better meant of the state. Hitler proved it is possible.
Only trouble is Hitler decided to use it for a bad end.

Why do people advocate a impossible dream of communism when fascism can and thus proven works?

The difference will be clear, but in a communist society it won't differentiate... even if the guy is just lazy and wants a free ride, he won't be denied his "share" of the community resources for it.

There is a difference between those who CAN'T work and those who WON'T work. However, in a communist society, both are treated equally. In a conservative society, those who won't work are going to be screwed, whereas those who CAN'T work will usually be supported by charity organizations who realize it's a worthy cause (not all people are greedy SoBs...)

How do you think that guy got up to become your boss? Do you think he was born into it? (Okay some people are, but not most) Most worked to get up where they are, and through hard work and ability, they are now able to not have to do any of the manual work. They still have all the executive responsibilities though... with great power comes great responsibility. If YOU screw up, he can be held accountable. The same hardly applies the other way around.

I don't really play on northrend, I heard it's good for ladder play, but I simply get too much lag to enjoy playing on there. Maybe it's my internet connection *shrug*.

I play TFT mainly, but I switch to RoC occasionally to play with friends.

Edit: Anyways, I can continue this later, I'm going out now though.

Second edit: Totally agree bastardsword... fascism can work so long that it's goals are not twisted. In fascism, people help each other out, they help out those beneath them (in social standing), all for the betterment of the nation, but the difference is THEY DO IT OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, not forced by the state.

Hi all.
I'm new here, and this is my first time posting, so feel free to flame me all to hell. My opinion of communism is that it's a great system of government, for ants. Humans on the other hand can't be organized into a collectivist system so effectively because they tend to disagree with each other about what the common good is exactly, and often cling to their ideas with violent fervor. Also humans tend to get selfish on occasion, and that kind of screws up communist systems. It's telling that no communist government to date has ever progressed to the point where the government falls away and everyone just does what he is supposed to without being told. People _need_ structure, sometimes that structure needs to be imposed by authority.Of course they need structures. Communism is not anarchy.

The difference will be clear, but in a communist society it won't differentiate... even if the guy is just lazy and wants a free ride, he won't be denied his "share" of the community resources for it.

Yes he would.

So, no money....

how then does the state or community repay an individual for their contribution.

People will in the communes share with each other. What is produced is to be shared. It's much like a big family. In a family, everybody works together, and everyone shares the fruits of labor.

People will be admired for what they contribute to society. In todays society, people like janitors, doctors etc. will be respected instead of popstars etc.

For instance, in the USSR (a socialist country), there was a high prestige on being a pilot. They had around 500 people a year that wanted to be a pilot, but today the number is down to 26-28.


I oppose communism because in a communist society, people are forced to give up what they work for so that other people may benefit from it, whether those people are deserving or not.

I don't think you will be forced. But that you share with others and work in a community spirit will of course be advocated. I don't see the society as just one communist society, but smaller societies, a liberal, a socialist, and even a capitalist, so that everyone will belong where they are happy.

Actually, communism has worked in several cases.

For instance, you have Spain, where the anarchists fought against the fascists. Here, people lived along with the communist principles. There are also natives in South America who lives in a society based on primitive communism.

The main problem with capitalism is that a few people are getting very rich, while the majority of people are (getting) very poor. So in order to stop this trend, we will establish socialism.


This is going to be simple, and it might sound a little stupid, and in reality it is a little more complicated, but let's get the basics. ;)


Say you live in a capitalist society:

The capitalist orders a worker to build a tool. The capitalist invest 2 $ in raw materials. When the worker is done, the worker receive 1 $ for the work.

He then orders another worker to build a canoe. He invest 3 $ in raw material. He gives the worker 1 $ for the work, and he sells the canoe for 40 dollars.

This is how the wealth is distributed:

The capitalist invested 5 $ raw material.

Worker number 1 received 1 $
Worker number 2 received 1 $

The capitalist, who did NO work himself, received 33 $, plus the means of production (the tool).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's capitalism. Let's take a look on how it would be done in a socialist society (I don't take into account all the different variations).

The workers invest 5 $ in raw materials. They create two tools, and they
they build the canoe. They sell the canoe for 40 $. They split the money in half.

Worker number 1 and number and 2 receive 20 $ each.


Capitalist society:

Worker number 1 received 1 $
Worker number 2 received 1 $
Capitalist received 33 $

Socialist society:

Worker number 1 received 20 $
Worker number 2 received 20 $

I think it scares people when you talk about communism because they see it as something which is unrealistic because it does not work in their indoctrined moral framework of property and family and such.

We should first talk about the transitional states of communism so people realize how communism is possible step by step.

It's just to hard to grasp straight after the capitalist brain-washing.

My opinion of communism is that it's a great system of government, for ants. Humans on the other hand can't be organized into a collectivist system so effectively because they tend to disagree with each other about what the common good is exactly, and often cling to their ideas with violent fervor. Also humans tend to get selfish on occasion, and that kind of screws up communist systems. It's telling that no communist government to date has ever progressed to the point where the government falls away and everyone just does what he is supposed to without being told. People _need_ structure, sometimes that structure needs to be imposed by authority.

In todays society, we need to be selfish. If I see money fall from the sky, of course I'm going to get what I can. I need money in order to survive.

When you don't have the need to provide money, that greed will vanish. If there was people who still were greedy, and took more then they needed, it would be thought of as a disease. Why would someone take more then they need if they have all they wanted? The simple answer is: They won't.

Today, the thought of a communist society is far away, because todays society is strictly based on "inidividualism" and greed. Today, capitalism "seems" to be the only logic thing. But for people who live under primitive communism, that would "seem" to be the only logic way of living.

We don't "believe" in governments, because governments create authority over others. Instead, it would either have a direct democracy, or we would elect representants on a local level to decide for us. The problem with direct democracy is that there are little things that people can't be bothered with, so there would most probably be a need for someone to take care of the little things. When you have authorities on a local level, it also creates an extreme authority, but when it is controlled on a local level, the chances of abuse of power is not so big.

Leaders should also be denied to rule if the majority of people agree on that.

Today, yes, we "need" authority, because we are not used to being in control of ourselves. The government decides what we are to do, and what we are not allowed to do. Smoke pot? Nope, you aren't allowed. "Do this, do that, don't do that, do this". When people are used to be commanded around, it's the only "logic" and "moral" thing to do.

Politics, morality, religion, philosophy, ... This has changed over the years. However, the idea of freedom and justice is the same since 6000 years. The idea of property dates back from the antiquity. The slaves and the master, the monarch and the subjects and now the bourgeois and the proletaire.

The communism is a breack with 6000 years of class struggle. It cannot be grasped before one or two generations after the mandatory social education is ready to deliver.

communism wouldn't work because there will allways be someone who wants to be better than the rest and money keeps the world sane and working if there was no money nothing would get done

Or we can have it Marx's way and have the bloody revolution. In this case there is no need to convince the current ruling class.

A guy who digs fence-post holes is no different in social standing or in any other way shape or form than a neurosurgeon under a communist society.

I take it you maintain that the neurosurgeon is somehow better than the post hole digger?

It is a horrible mark of any society that places the value of one's job over the value of one's character.

communism wouldn't work because there will allways be someone who wants to be better than the rest and money keeps the world sane and working if there was no money nothing would get doneAs a side note, contrary to what the first poster said, you can have money in communism.
It is not about abolishing personnal property, but the bourgeois property. The one which is used to reduce people to the slave status.

I think it scares people when you talk about communism because they see it as something which is unrealistic because it does not work in their indoctrined moral framework of property and family and such.

We should first talk about the transitional states of communism so people realize how communism is possible step by step.

It's just to hard to grasp straight after the capitalist brain-washing.


You're right. Sorry about that. ;)

There is no "recipe" on how things will be done. However, there are guidelines.

Even because we have a socialist government, there will still be a capitalist society for a while, because there are a lot of things that need to be done.

The first thing that would be done would most likely be raising the minimum wage. Such small steps will be taken.

The larger step would be to make the means of production (factories, etc.) public. That is because we don't want to have any capitalist to take money from the labor of the worker.

So in a capitalist society, a worker might produce 150 $ worth of material, but the worker himself might only receive 10 $, or even less. In Latin America and other countries, people don't receive more then two dollars a day, while there are capitalists living rich and smoking cigars just a few blocks away.

As I see it, each person must decide themselves what they want to contribute in public services. They could give a certain amount of their money to healthcare, and they would get free healthcare. But on the other hand they would have to pay for the costs if they were in an accident, etc.

So it's basically a choice you have as an individual what you do with your money.

So if the worker in a socialist society will produce 150 $, the worker might get around 100 $ of these, while 50 $ of these might go to public services.

In a socialist society, the wealth among workers would increase rapidly because the workers receive the full worth of their labor.

While we are in the socialist phase, we must concentrate on unity and co-operation, instead of greed and competition, like in a capitalist society.

In Cuba, they have a minimum and maximum system. If you work hard, you will be awarded with more money, but if you are lazy, you will receive less.

So if the standard wage is 30 $, and you work hard, it might be raised up to 40 $, but if you are lazy, that will go down to 20 $.

Another thing they had (not sure if they still have it), was that on saturdays, would be a free day, but those who would like to contribute extra would work for free on the sugar plantations, etc.

All of these measures, and many more, could be used to create unity and solidarity.

Communism has changed from its original births almost a centery ago.
China used to be a huge threat to the world due to the socialist and communist government that has ruled it for decades. When Chiang Kai Shek abolished the last Dynesty in China and took over in 1911, his army of the Koumintang ravaged the country. These "soliders" stole, raped, and killed many of it`s citizens. They weren`t disciplined or controled nor ruled in an orderly fashion. So when these Red Guards of Moa Tze Dung came through dressed in humble clothing and asking instead of taking, of course the local people would embrace this way. The red guards would knock on doors asking for a place to sleep for the night and food. Then the next morning they would be on thier way. No money was stolen, no houses were burnt and no women were raped. Communism at the begin was a great idea and might have worked if things didnt get to complicated and down right bizarre with the burgeosie. Moa was against the "burgeosie". His "burgeosie" was probably more out landish than what the word really meant. He at one time said that green grass was for the rich, so every faithful follower went out on their lawn and pulled out every grass and plant root by hand to please him. Comminism, just like all of those other fads "the beatniks, the hippys" were great ideas BUT that is all they are IDEAS.

In my opinion, the first step is to abolish private inheritance.
I think it is doable just right now because it fits in the current status of the dominant culture, although the bourgeois will resist, but they are in very small number.

communism wouldn't work because there will allways be someone who wants to be better than the rest

That's one of the common bourgeoisie myths.

Of course, in this society, you are forced to "try" to be better then the rest. If you don't, you're a failure. If you don't have a car, but use a bike to the office, you're failure. If you don't buy the newest cloths or fashion, you're a failure. People will buy new and better things, because they don't want to look like an outsider.

Take a look around you and you will probably see a lot of things you don't really need, but that you need in a capitalist society in order to look "cool", or to be accepted.

In my opinion, the first step is to abolish private inheritance.
I think it is doable just right now because it fits in the current status of the dominant culture, although the bourgeois will resist, but they are in very small number.

That's a great idea. :)

Don't know about you, but I feel it's injust that some people are born wealthy, and don't need to work their entire life, while most people are born into poverty and have to work all their life in a nike shop 16 hours a day just to come home and be broke. :(

That's one of the common bourgeoisie myths.

Of course, in this society, you are forced to "try" to be better then the rest. If you don't, you're a failure. If you don't have a car, but use a bike to the office, you're failure. If you don't buy the newest cloths or fashion, you're a failure. People will buy new and better things, because they don't want to look like an outsider.

Take a look around you and you will probably see a lot of things you don't really need, but that you need in a capitalist society in order to look "cool", or to be accepted.I think this idea is too advanced right now. They want this cool fashion pants right now, because they saw it on TV. If you say communism will remove their cool fashion, their SUV and that they will have to share the earth with others, they'll get upset. I has to be marketed, you see? If you have to convince a bourgeois, talk about small changes first.
Or don't talk about what they will loose but talk about what the proletariat wins. Especially, you have to show them how the proletariat will revolt and that it is their interest to share.

That's a great idea. :)

Don't know about you, but I feel it's injust that some people are born wealthy, and don't need to work their entire life, while most people are born into poverty and have to work all their life in a nike shop 16 hours a day just to come home and be broke. :(
Indeed and that's not the only advantage. Once you have removed inheritance, all the private goods are going to the state, because people are not eternal. I think it is a good soft way to annihilate the bourgeoisy.

Self am I a socialist. Who want's to work fore a more equal and democratic society. That will in the end maybee lead to a truly equal society that you may call communist, but that after along form of reform and also after the creation of a internationel union. But that is so fare in the future that you can't say how it will be organised. But right now the important thing is to struggle to a more socialist society on a national and international level, and also defend the things already won.

But the important thing that the struggle is democratic and by the will of the people and not lead by elite that says they now that is best for the workers!

Socialist realistic goals right now can for example thnings that lead to a more equal society like a good wellfare, health and education system and taxesystem that taxe the rich more. And also things that increase democracy on a political level that the society have democratic election and a system there the politician represent the will of the people. On a social level that the people have controll over their life and for example don't get discriminated. And on a econimical level there the workers get influence over their working condition (for example by union) and govermental get control over important production and services and also product and services that easy gets monopolized. And of course also more radical or more moderate reform consider what is realistic in specific country at a specific time.

Why do people advocate a impossible dream of communism when fascism can and thus proven works?

Because fascism is oppressive?

I take it you maintain that the neurosurgeon is somehow better than the post hole digger?

It is a horrible mark of any society that places the value of one's job over the value of one's character.

they are by no means better as a person, but they serve differant purposes and unequal purposes to society.

While both are necessary, medical specialization requires more time and effort from the doctor than basic manual labor from a construction worker.

I would also contend that neurosugery is much more difficult and requires a much more skillful person than hole digging, making the service the person is providing more valuable to the community.

In communism, the idea is that both of these people should be economically equal and that recognition by society will be the incentive for a person to become a doctor instead of a general labourer. From the government who they serve (instead of a boss) they both get the same (weather in currency or food).

Capatilism however allows for more personal freedom in this. The person who contributes more (in theory of course) gets more. Since, in theory of course, the people who are worth more to society would be the same as the people as in communism (here is where the mass media screws everyhting up) the good and just people would be respected by the mass as well.

There are obviously abuses of a class system, and it is horrible that essential needs like food and health are not provided to everyone, but communism fails in its aspirations. People will become complacent in a routined life of just doing what is necessary because there is no clear incentive to do better, since everyone is equal.

Capatilism however allows for more personal freedom in this. The person who contributes more (in theory of course) gets more. Since, in theory of course, the people who are worth more to society would be the same as the people as in communism (here is where the mass media screws everyhting up) the good and just people would be respected by the mass as well.

More personal freedom? Getting more? Tell that to the children working in sweatshops.

There are obviously abuses of a class system, and it is horrible that essential needs like food and health are not provided to everyone, but communism fails in its aspirations. People will become complacent in a routined life of just doing what is necessary because there is no clear incentive to do better, since everyone is equal.

Why do better? What's the point of producing stuff that no one really needs? In capitalism, it's to enrich a wealthy few, but in communism, there is no point. People would rather enjoy life than work all the time and they would reduce unnecessary work to more acceptable levels.

I like competition, I like to do better than others so therefore I do not want to be told what I am allowed to acheive. I would rather live under a facist government than a communist government. The only people that it is worth being a communist is a high party official or a high ranking military commander.

Terra - Domina and Enodscopia don't seem to get it.
Where is is written that in communism neurosugery should be rewarded at the same level as hole digging?
What we are saying is that capital should not be rewarded as work. However, work should be rewarded. And the more work the more reward is deserved.

Say you live in a capitalist society:

The capitalist orders a worker to build a tool. The capitalist invest 2 $ in raw materials. When the worker is done, the worker receive 1 $ for the work.

He then orders another worker to build a canoe. He invest 3 $ in raw material. He gives the worker 1 $ for the work, and he sells the canoe for 40 dollars.

This is how the wealth is distributed:

The capitalist invested 5 $ raw material.

Worker number 1 received 1 $
Worker number 2 received 1 $

The capitalist, who did NO work himself, received 33 $, plus the means of production (the tool).

Let's continue your example. Capitalist number 2 (C2) sees that capitalist number 1 is making a killing selling canoes. He hires two workers for their going rate (invented by you) of 1 dollar per worker. Then the greedy bastard sells the canoe for 39 dollars. Seeing this the C1 starts selling his canoes for 38 dollars. What we quickly have is a situation where the C1 and C2 are selling canoes for the price of 4.50 dollars, where the 50 cents is the reward for having produced the tool and being in the risky business of canoe-making. Then maybe one day along comes C3 who knows how to make canoes that only require 2.50 dollars worth of raw materials. The C3 could even be one of the workers who decides that he's earned enough wages to start his own canoe-business or then he takes on a bit more risk and takes out a loan.

P.S. In the original example the capitalist risked his capital, which didn't just randomly appear out of thin air either. Maybe he worked for it.

Let's continue your example. Capitalist number 2 (C2) sees that capitalist number 1 is making a killing selling canoes. He hires two workers for their going rate (invented by you) of 1 dollar per worker. Then the greedy bastard sells the canoe for 39 dollars. Seeing this the C1 starts selling his canoes for 38 dollars. What we quickly have is a situation where the C1 and C2 are selling canoes for the price of 4.50 dollars, where the 50 cents is the reward for having produced the tool and being in the risky business of canoe-making. Then maybe one day along comes C3 who knows how to make canoes that only require 2.50 dollars worth of raw materials. The C3 could even be one of the workers who decides that he's earned enough wages to start his own canoe-business or then he takes on a bit more risk and takes out a loan.

P.S. In the original example the capitalist risked his capital, which didn't just randomly appear out of thin air either. Maybe he worked for it.It doesn't happen because C1 did patent "his" canoe. The fat bastard decided to own everything and don't let the competition happen. Moreover he wouldn't want his workers be free and sell the canoes without paying taxes to him.

Communism is not about slavery or brutality, like many people would think...

.


It just works out that way every time it is tried.

Give Communism a Chance (http://www.protestwarrior.com/signs.php?sign=4)

Exercise : could you compile the number of people killed by capitalism (since 250 years)?