NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, let me start by saying: no flaming, name-calling or politik.

The US has been the global success story of the last couple of centuries. It was founded on an admirable constitution (all except the bit which encourages people to own killing machines - ie guns) which among other things is founded on the principle of equality for all.

Communism (or at least the original Marxist/Leninist version) takes that principle of equality, but extends it to an economic level.

So, my question is: why the historic hatred of Communism as an ideal? (DO NOT spout figures of human rights violations, etc. We all know the US is just as good [if not better] at that particular sport.) I don't want to know reasons based on syptoms, I want reasons based on the fundamental ethos of socialism.

Why do you find it so abhorrent?
Tell me why.

PS: Do not infer that I myself am a Leftie/Pinko/Godless Commie OR a Bigshot Capitalist/Righty/Conservative. My particular stance is, for this, irrelevant.

Good hunting.

It's because of the propaganda that's been pushed into people's heads for years. The USSR was "the enemy" therefore all they stand for is "wrong" and, "evil". Sadly, such prejudiced beliefs take a while to dissapear from society. I mean look how people treat Wiccans for considering themselves witches, this hatred towards them is based on church propaganda that goes as far back as the middle ages.

Because people (thanks to the USSR and propaganda concerning it) equate it with fascism. A fair number of Americans are socialist (including me), which is more moderate and could fit into the current system pretty easily.

Because Communism is a system based on Jew (http://www.jewwatch.com/)ish supremacy and deceit.

(DO NOT spout figures of human rights violations, etc. We all know the US is just as good [if not better] at that particular sport.)
All the people dead caused in part (ie Pinochet) or by (ie Vietnam) the USA probably pales in comparison statistically to Mao alone. So no, we all don't know that.

It's the same thing as with any doctrine.

Eugenics were popular in the 1930's in the West but then the Nazis put it into practice in the most extreme way possible.
Now, eugenics, human experimentation and anti-immigrancy is labeled wholly bad simply because the Nazis did it. People however don't object to motorways or VolksWagens because they're profitable and so not demonised as a wholly Nazi concept.
On eugenics, if more people knew that it was practiced by the forefathers of democracy (the Athenians) and didn't know about the Nazis then it would be considered a good thing.

Look at the panic against the Muslims in the US now. Really, Islam and the US are not enemies but since they are attacking an Islamic region then they need to make the Muslims enemies.

It's because of the propaganda that's been pushed into people's heads for years. The USSR was "the enemy" therefore all they stand for is "wrong" and, "evil". Sadly, such prejudiced beliefs take a while to dissapear from society. I mean look how people treat Wiccans for considering themselves witches, this hatred towards them is based on church propaganda that goes as far back as the middle ages.

Why are they seen as the enemy, and why is it seen as evil?

Because Communism is a system based on Jewish supremacy and deceit.

Go away, boring Nazi.

1. Because its against the American way

2. Because its very oppressive on a rights level

3. Because Redistribution of wealth is stealing and takes away the incentive to succeed

4. Tenes Traditiones is a moron who has jews on the brain
;)

Because Communism is a system based on Jew (http://www.jewwatch.com/)ish supremacy and deceit.

I never knew, what with the Jews being stereotyped as moneylenders and communism being about no money and under Stalin there being a few pogroms against them. Not to mention Lev Bronstein that famous Jewish friend of Lenin being killed and a Georgian taking control instead because more people supported him one way or the other.

1. Because its against the American way

2. Because its very oppressive on a rights level

3. Tenes Traditiones is moron\

;)

That's incorrect.
Communism hasn't existed in an any way pure form in a long time now. The last time it came close was with the Incas in America and with the small Diggers movement in England (who were destroyed as a group).
As it is, we've only really seen 'facism of the left', where countries have claimed to be communism and leaders have only used it in a cynical method of taking power and growing rich off of it.

True communism is collective anarchy (in the literal sense of anarchy); people are free to do what they wish but choose to work for the good of the community with no coercion by legal or governmental means.

Communism (or at least the original Marxist/Leninist version) takes that principle of equality, but extends it to an economic level.

Marxism or Leninism or even Marxist/Leninism were not original communism. The idea of communism predates Marxs, it was merely he and Engels that presented a certain version of it developed in a certain direction. Check your The Communist Manifesto - first line 'A spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of Communism'. Marx and Engels themselves state that the idea of Communism pre-exists them, but is still only (in their view) an ill-defined thing. Even if one accepts Derridas claim (Spectres of Marx) that they were attempting to simultaneously summon that spectre into being and to clothe it in flesh, it still must be admitted that their version of Communism is not the 'original' one as you have claimed.

mccarthyism

Why are they seen as the enemy, and why is it seen as evil?


They were seen as the enemy because they were the only real threat to US supremacy - at the time. They are not seen as "the enemy" now - because they are gone, but as somone else said, propoganda takes a while to rub off.
Nowerdays, the enemy is "terrorism", and the authorities now have to shove this into peoples brains

Marxism or Leninism or even Marxist/Leninism were not original communism. The idea of communism predates Marxs, it was merely he and Engels that presented a certain version of it developed in a certain direction. Check your The Communist Manifesto - first line 'A spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of Communism'. Marx and Engels themselves state that the idea of Communism pre-exists them, but is still only (in their view) an ill-defined thing. Even if one accepts Derridas claim (Spectres of Marx) that they were attempting to simultaneously summon that spectre into being and to clothe it in flesh, it still must be admitted that their version of Communism is not the 'original' one as you have claimed.
Apologies, I was thinking of Russia 1917 more than anything...

Anyway, back on topic, why is the idea of everyone having the same income and occupying the same social status wrong? Explain your answers.

And, does anyone think that Communism could work in a modern first-world country today, if unmolested by trade embargoes/invasion attempts/etc?

I personaly have nothing against communism, but i feel the I would not be happy in that kind of society for I am very materialistic. Although though if I was born in Russia, China or someother communist state i dought I would have such a vise.

(interesting side note: inbetween World War I and World War II Canada had a very strong communist movment and almost became a communist State itself.)

I think some of it may come feom our agricultural/small bussiness roots

while agriculture and bussiness are better run as a group in many places where comunism flourished (notably SE asia) it wouldn't work very well in America

and Americans who owned farms or had stakes in small or large businesses would have greatly resented government intervention in something that is unquestionably theirs. and America probobly wouldn't be as productive under socialism, here (generaly) if you study hard and work hard you'll do well in life, as is opposed to socialism where people who work hard are payed the same as people who don't work

It's because the rich and powerful know that genuine communism means the end of their wealth and power.

here (generaly) if you study hard and work hard you'll do well in life, as is opposed to socialism where people who work hard are payed the same as people who don't work

a pactical exaimple would be who whats to goto post-secondary school for 8 years only to be paid the same as the kid who ripes your tickets at the movie thearter?

Anyway, back on topic, why is the idea of everyone having the same income and occupying the same social status wrong? Explain your answers.
Well one thing is that from the beginning we were for the ability of people to move up and down classes, that someone could come to America and, if not usually themselves, within a few generations be solidly middle class or even rich. We were against the idea of nobility. Of course we had inheritances, but thats a far cry from perpetuated wealth simply by being a noble. Based off this idea that it would be hard work and effort that brought you success, why would we want to adopt something that suddenly reverted back to the idea of not advancing farther in society if you work harder than everyone else.

I think the roots of it started in the beginning of the Cold War. We feared the USSR and it's allies, which were...communists.

Thus, we developed the anti-communist atitude. We feared the expansion of communism, seeing it as a threat to our safety and our nation. We feared the Russian's technology, and anti-communist propaganda began to increase.

I think now in the 21st century, many Americans see communism as another political thing, or as the former enemy of America. Still, there are some that still despise communism. I'm not among those.

That's the part of Socialism/Communism that gets attacked most often: unemployment. The thing is... there is no unemployment! No work, no food. No different from any other type of government (think US: there's welfare checks, but they don't just keep coming.) As for education, it's all payed for by the government. Doctors or bankers don't actually do any more work than, say, a farmer; they just have more schooling. If anyone, anywhere, at any time can get free college, then 'white collar' workers don't really have anything that sets them apart from everyone else.

Which, by the way, is the reason why capitalism is so opressive: Only the rich can afford school, only the schooled are rich. It's an unending (and almost exception free) cycle, much like the more ancient feudal system. Only those born into wealth could have land, only those who had land were wealthy.

Canada had a very strong communist movement between the two world wars which is why the communist party was made illegal then. Though after the second world war the CCF party(socialists) came to power in Saskatchewan and formed the provincial government for 17 years. The result of this was the creation of medicare.

We were against the idea of nobility. Of course we had inheritances, but thats a far cry from perpetuated wealth simply by being a noble.

Of course this is true - in a certain respect. However many buisneses / property are licences to print money, and that right has been made by someones father, and then his son/daughter reaps all the benifits - how is that fair?

It's because the rich and powerful know that genuine communism means the end of their wealth and power.

Haha, but in real world communism, the rich and the powerful rule as dictators, and anybody born of low means has almost no means of social improvement.

Hatred of Communism can be can be answered in one word....Stalin. If it wasn't for the rise of the Soviet empire after WW2, peopel might not liek communism but it would be the devil is was played out to be for 50 years.

That's the part of Socialism/Communism that gets attacked most often: unemployment. The thing is... there is no unemployment! No work, no food. No different from any other type of government (think US: there's welfare checks, but they don't just keep coming.) As for education, it's all payed for by the government. Doctors or bankers don't actually do any more work than, say, a farmer; they just have more schooling. If anyone, anywhere, at any time can get free college, then 'white collar' workers don't really have anything that sets them apart from everyone else.

Which, by the way, is the reason why capitalism is so opressive: Only the rich can afford school, only the schooled are rich. It's an unending (and almost exception free) cycle, much like the more ancient feudal system. Only those born into wealth could have land, only those who had land were wealthy.

and thats not all! The best part of it is that there is no inflation / deflation that will affect the ecomomy either! (success!)

Haha, but in real world communism, the rich and the powerful rule as dictators, and anybody born of low means has almost no means of social improvement.

You're confusing state "socialism" with communism, which isn't at all the same thing.

Hatred of Communism can be can be answered in one word....Stalin. If it wasn't for the rise of the Soviet empire after WW2, peopel might not liek communism but it would be the devil is was played out to be for 50 years.

can you put that into proper english please?

Communism hasn't existed in an any way pure form in a long time now. The last time it came close was with the Incas in America and with the small Diggers movement in England (who were destroyed as a group).
As it is, we've only really seen 'facism of the left', where countries have claimed to be communism and leaders have only used it in a cynical method of taking power and growing rich off of it.

True communism is collective anarchy (in the literal sense of anarchy); people are free to do what they wish but choose to work for the good of the community with no coercion by legal or governmental means.

Aptly put, Brutanion.

I think the roots of it started in the beginning of the Cold War. We feared the USSR and it's allies, which were...communists.

it goes back farther than that. there was already hysteria worthy of the 50s in the 10s and 20s. and before that we had solid hysteria against throughout the last quarter of the 1800s. just look at the haymarket affair in chicago 1886, the repression of the iww throughout the beginning of the 1900s, the palmer raids, etc.

i think the problem has its roots in anti-immigrant racism and silly american ideas of 'rugged indiviualism' that had us living all alone out in the middle of nowhere instead of in villages like normal people.

I think U.S. hatred of Communism is all just re-election tactics. Think about it. The only reason McArthy had his witchhunts was because it was good for his PR.

Aptly put, Brutanion.

Thank you.
Although I've had a lot of practice of explaining this very point so now I have pretty much a stock answer.

Because Communism is a system based on Jew (http://www.jewwatch.com/)ish supremacy and deceit.

You know, for someone who seems to be sick down to his very soul of jews, it's interesting that they are all you can think of. I mean, if I really hated a certain group, I would do all I could to avoid them (like drunks and misogynists). I wouldn't spend all my waking (and probably sleeping hours, because I'm sure you DREAM of jewish conspiracies too) thinking and talking about them. It makes me wonder...they say a lot of rabid homophobes are compensating for homosexual feelings that they are not prepared to cope with. Perhaps anti-semites (and assort racists) are compensating for the fact that they a) do not come from PURE white/asian/black/etc. stock themselves (because not all racists are white), or b) secretly wish they could be jewish/asian/black/etc.

a pactical exaimple would be who whats to goto post-secondary school for 8 years only to be paid the same as the kid who ripes your tickets at the movie thearter?

Hehehee...that happens in capitalist countries too....I remember I wanted to work at this really hip (not Chapters) bookstore all through University...but they would only hire me once I had my degree!!! For $6.50/hr! Plenty of people get degrees that are a) NOT going to get them a job (underwater basketweaving, or philosophy), or b) supposed to get them a job, but the market is glutted with graduates (education, law, etc). It's part of the capitalist myth that a higher education automatically means a higher wage.

However, I think going to University and studying whatever you want (paid for, but only for a limited amount of time) may not mean all graduates will improve their financial station, but it will mean there are a lot more open minded, intellectually fulfilled people out there, and I think that would improve any society (more poets, artists, thinkers thinkers thinkers...). Going into $27,000 of debt for a degree that everyone (including the University) swore up and down would get you hired IMMEDIATELY after graduation, and guarantee your financial happiness, then finding out you're just one in a 3000 graduating class and have to work at the movie theatre....now that's just cruel. And I bet the teenager working with you is laughing his ass off:).

Well, when a country goes communist, that's the market closed off to American corporations. It is in the interest of these corporations that the world is capitalist. The corporations in America fund the politicians. Thus the politicians try to stamp out communism and supprt capitalist dictators.

Well for one we LIKE OUR MONEY, and capitalism provides rewards for hard work communism provides rewards for being lazy.

Hehehee...that happens in capitalist countries too....I remember I wanted to work at this really hip (not Chapters) bookstore all through University...but they would only hire me once I had my degree!!! For $6.50/hr! Plenty of people get degrees that are a) NOT going to get them a job (underwater basketweaving, or philosophy), or b) supposed to get them a job, but the market is glutted with graduates (education, law, etc). It's part of the capitalist myth that a higher education automatically means a higher wage.

However, I think going to University and studying whatever you want (paid for, but only for a limited amount of time) may not mean all graduates will improve their financial station, but it will mean there are a lot more open minded, intellectually fulfilled people out there, and I think that would improve any society (more poets, artists, thinkers thinkers thinkers...). Going into $27,000 of debt for a degree that everyone (including the University) swore up and down would get you hired IMMEDIATELY after graduation, and guarantee your financial happiness, then finding out you're just one in a 3000 graduating class and have to work at the movie theatre....now that's just cruel. And I bet the teenager working with you is laughing his ass off:).

Quite.

It is a constant fear of mine, to be underpaid and over-skilled once I graduate.

And I live in the UK. We don't have jobs.

This is depressing.

Of course this is true - in a certain respect. However many buisneses / property are licences to print money, and that right has been made by someones father, and then his son/daughter reaps all the benifits - how is that fair?
Because its the father and/or mother's property, and they pass that property onto their children. It was forged somewhere in the recent family history via work, not twenty generations ago bestowed upon the family by a king.

I think many people (not just the U.S) hate communism because it is inherently anti-consumerism. In the West, we are raised to think that happiness is defined by our buying power...the things we own determine whether we are low or high class. The whole American Dream (I think it's a Western Dream actually, because we have it in Canada too), is that hard work will make you rich (and it doesn't....except for a very few individuals), and being rich is the best thing in the world because it separates you from the lazy have-nots. Well I don't think you can be fulfilled by stuff...and more and more psychologists are saying the same thing...there is a void in us that can't be filled with more toys. Communism condemns us to not being able to have more stuff than our neighbours, and we love that ladder to the top.

I ask though, what is more important than your family and friends? Why aren't we focussing more on living our lives instead of collecting things? Is it really better for your family that you work 18 hour days and weekends and never spend any time with them? That you have a pool, a new house, a couple of SUVs and all the kids have every toy they ever wanted? That you'll have time to spend with them "when you retire"? Is that a happy, healthy family? I'd rather pay 80% of my wage in taxes, if it meant free education for everyone, free healthcare and a system that meant no one goes hungry, than let so many fall through the cracks, desperately trying to accumulate enough 'stuff' to be happy. Not having to worry about SAVING the money for school or assorted illnesses (because how many people can actually put that money aside?), and spending more time with my family, to me, is what life is all about. Well, that isn't communism, it's more like socialism, but they get lumped together (unfairly) anyway. I'm moving to Sweden:).

Anyway, long story short (too late), COMMUNISM=ANTI-CONSUMERISM

I think many people (not just the U.S) hate communism because it is inherently anti-consumerism. In the West, we are raised to think that happiness is defined by our buying power...the things we own determine whether we are low or high class. The whole American Dream (I think it's a Western Dream actually, because we have it in Canada too), is that hard work will make you rich (and it doesn't....except for a very few individuals), and being rich is the best thing in the world because it separates you from the lazy have-nots. Well I don't think you can be fulfilled by stuff...and more and more psychologists are saying the same thing...there is a void in us that can't be filled with more toys. Communism condemns us to not being able to have more stuff than our neighbours, and we love that ladder to the top.

I ask though, what is more important than your family and friends? Why aren't we focussing more on living our lives instead of collecting things? Is it really better for your family that you work 18 hour days and weekends and never spend any time with them? That you have a pool, a new house, a couple of SUVs and all the kids have every toy they ever wanted? That you'll have time to spend with them "when you retire"? Is that a happy, healthy family? I'd rather pay 80% of my wage in taxes, if it meant free education for everyone, free healthcare and a system that meant no one goes hungry, than let so many fall through the cracks, desperately trying to accumulate enough 'stuff' to be happy. Well, that isn't communism, it's more like socialism, but they get lumped together (unfairly) anyway. I'm moving to Sweden:).

Anyway, long story short (too late), COMMUNISM=ANTI-CONSUMERISM

Well, I would rather work live in a HUGE house, drive my nice luxury cars, buy my family and my self ever thing I want. If that means other people dieing in the street in the filth then so be it as long as I have what I want.

Well, I would rather work live in a HUGE house, drive my nice luxury cars, buy my family and my self ever thing I want. If that means other people dieing in the street in the filth then so be it as long as I have what I want.

I'm not sure you're kidding.?

I'm not sure you're kidding.?

I'm not kidding.

Because its the father and/or mother's property, and they pass that property onto their children. It was forged somewhere in the recent family history via work, not twenty generations ago bestowed upon the family by a king.

But how do you reconcil that with the claim that capitalism rewards hard work? Being born into a rich family doesn't sound like hard work to me.

But how do you reconcil that with the claim that capitalism rewards hard work? Being born into a rich family doesn't sound like hard work to me.

But someone did work hard to get it and they have the right to do as they wish with it.

But someone did work hard to get it and they have the right to do as they wish with it.

Giving it to their heirs...but hey, that's just rewarding the heir for being lazy!!!!! ARGHHH!!

Giving it to their heirs...but hey, that's just rewarding the heir for being lazy!!!!! ARGHHH!!

Who said that the heirs aren't going to start a business with it or some thing like that.

Because communism tries so hard to have economic equality, it turns into an illiberal regime. The purest example of communism to date is what I've studied and, ironically enough, the US has supported from time to time: the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. While eliminating markets and currency, they also forced most Cambodians to live on collective farms. Whatever they grew, they shared. They even went as far as to try to forcefully impose social equality, by trying to separate the basic building block of society: the family. This is true communism at its logical conclusion, and even today, the Cambodian people are better off than under Pol Pot.
Thus, communism is a purely illiberal system, much like fascism. Regulations on society create an illiberal society, and it crushes any notion of individual freedom. The current system of liberal democracies, used in much of the world today, may be unequal, but it is the only system so far that champions individual liberties.

Who said that the heirs aren't going to start a business with it or some thing like that.

Who says they are? Maybe they shouldn't get the money until they've proven that they are hard workers (therefore rewarding hard work with financial gain). If they sit around on their butts waiting for the inheritance, then they are automatically thrown into the street to die in filth:). If you just GIVE them the money, and they haven't worked for it, and there are no guarantees getting the money will spur them to work hard...why then you are sliding down the slippery slope into GODLESS BABY-EATING COMMUNISM! MUAHAHAHAHHAA!!

Anyway, we're straying somewhat from the main topic.

Who said that the heirs aren't going to start a business with it or some thing like that.

Still, they have a big head start over the poor. How can you call that rewarding hard work or giving equal opportunity?

Still, they have a big head start over the poor. How can you call that rewarding hard work or giving equal opportunity?
It is rewarding hard work, and respecting the property rights of those who who did the work - by allowing them to give their property to whoever they want.

I'm not kidding.

... who says you're going to be the successful one and not the poor man dying in the street?

It is rewarding hard work, and respecting the property rights of those who who did the work - by allowing them to give their property to whoever they want.

It doesn't reward hard work if you are the recipient and I don't believe in the concept of "property rights". How is giving someone a factory that they don't even work in rewarding hard work?

It doesn't reward hard work if you are the recipient and I don't believe in the concept of "property rights".
Well, private property is firmly established in the USA, and in capitalism, too. So, if you don't believe in that, I don't think I can help you.

mccarthyism

I really don't see why this discussion didn't end here. People just like to see themselves talk.

Well, I would rather work live in a HUGE house, drive my nice luxury cars, buy my family and my self ever thing I want. If that means other people dieing in the street in the filth then so be it as long as I have what I want.

Yes im sure youll have planty of time to enjoy your house the 3 minutes between the time you wake up and go to work every morning. Working 18 hour days sucks. Id rather work 10 hours at a moderately hard job and come home ot my mid size appartment in my economy sedan(probably japanese) or used german car(Mercedes,BMW,Audi) and spend the time from about 6:30 to the tiem everyone goes to sleep with my family and on the weekends do stuff with my family.
BtW if you start working hard to get rich at 20 youll have a day off by the time you're 60.


Okay now for the communism
Im russian and as a patriot im willing to support my government no matter what it is(like a lot of americans are) but i frown on the billionares who used 280,000 worth of Champagne to spill on the floor as celebration over the rising oil prices. Thankfully te new government(as opposed to Elzin's) jails and exiles billionares. Youd think they take all the money for themselves and use it to buy yachts or somehting but they give it back to the people in the form of social benefits(which are soon to be abolished in favor of monetary compensation) and let me tell you socialism was a great stage in the Soviet UNion. People were poor but they were happy. Most of hte people were happy even under Stalin. I support socialism but dont delude yuorself that for example Ivan and Alexander are working on the same project at a factory(car engine) Alexander finishes his but Ivan only completes half. Ivan is going to get in trouble and while in the USSR it was impossible to leave people unemployed as the government assigned jobs Ivan instead of working at a car factory would sweep the streets and keep in mind that stuff was acquired from the government. So if you want a car you ask tehm. They see the Alexander is hard working and assign him a car appropriate for his needs. Ivan however will not get a car.
But no matter how hard alexander works he wont get a different car for every day of the year.

My englsih isnt perfect but i think the example i provded is written corectly.

Communism is an idea based off Plato's Utopia. In Utopia, everyone owns nothing, so all are equal. Everything needed to survive is distributed to everyone by the government, who in Utopia, is run by a single dictator (dictator being used in the original sense here) who had been raised with the mindset that he is nothing more than the servant of the people, not the leader.

This has been communist's downfall in the world -- they've gotten everything right, except the fact that they've appointed dictators who have been corrupted by power and materialism, rather than raised and brainwashed as the people's servant. This is why the U.S.S.R, Cuba, and China have all had poor results from communism. For an extreme view of liberty and equality, the dictator's insure that the people have little liberty and equality.

In theory, communism could work -- but it would fall to the first capitalist nation that fought with it.

In Star Trek, no one owns anything -- its given to them. They don't work for money, they work to better themselves. Anything they want, they can have. Often times, Star Trek's government has been called "a Utopia". Hope you caught on. If anything's called a Utopia, it means its a successful communistic society.

And to clear everyone up, Communism is an extreme left view of the government. It's Liberalism taken to the extreme, where everyone has equality. U.S.S.R. is an example. Facism is an extreme right view of government. It's conservatism, where everyone has order, taken the the extreme. Nazi Germany is an example.

I really don't see why this discussion didn't end here. People just like to see themselves talk.

Yup, we do. I think the conversation did end at "mcarthyism" because to really understand why there is such a hatred of communism, you can not point to one particular movement as being behind it. There is a long history behind the modern perception of communism, and I think it's worthwhile exploring. Plus, using all these multisyllabic words thrills me:).

I really don't see why this discussion didn't end here. People just like to see themselves talk.

because mcarthy wasn't the first or even the worst. see the 'red scare' and palmer raids three decades earlier.

The problem with communism is two fold. Firstly, who can define fair and equal? How many times did fights break out when we were children over claims of fairness? Fairness and equality are undefinable. Secondly, the problem with the utilitarian approach to optimal communal behavior is the lack of omniscience. No one at any time can truly know what is in the best interest of society. Just as Mao starved 50 million Chinese in his best efforts at helping his people. Communism is both undefinable and unattainable.

It is the proposition of Adam Smith, that when goods are sold to the highest bidder that the optimal dispersement of those goods is achieved. That is to say, that the person who wants/needs a good the most is willing to sacrifice the most for that good. When you walk into a store, you are effectively voting on every item for sale. If it is not worth what you are being asked to pay you vote that the price is too high. In most markets, no one has any power whatsoever. When we attempt to sell or trade our goods or services we can only receive what others freely choose to give for our goods or services.

Just as the idealists clamor against using the U.S.S.R. as the embodiment of true Communism, one should also not mistake the U.S. as the embodiment of true Capitalism. In my opinion, the problems that the U.S. faces are not because of Capitalism, but because of the lack of its purity.

We are the product of evolution. Capitalism is evolution. Any deviation from the underlying physics of reality will fail, just as Communism will always fail.

I'm moving to Sweden:).



Welcome in.

You are right, communism, socialism and social democracy are often regarded as one and the same thing in here.

Because communism tries so hard to have economic equality, it turns into an illiberal regime. The purest example of communism to date is what I've studied and, ironically enough, the US has supported from time to time: the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. While eliminating markets and currency, they also forced most Cambodians to live on collective farms. Whatever they grew, they shared. They even went as far as to try to forcefully impose social equality, by trying to separate the basic building block of society: the family. This is true communism at its logical conclusion, and even today, the Cambodian people are better off than under Pol Pot.
Thus, communism is a purely illiberal system, much like fascism. Regulations on society create an illiberal society, and it crushes any notion of individual freedom. The current system of liberal democracies, used in much of the world today, may be unequal, but it is the only system so far that champions individual liberties.

They used authoritarian means to achieve what should have been done through libertarian (in the sense of anti-authority, not just the state) means.

Well, private property is firmly established in the USA, and in capitalism, too. So, if you don't believe in that, I don't think I can help you.

That's why we need to deëstablish it.

I feel the "we are the product of evolution" and "capitalism is evolution" is an invalid arguement based on pure opinion.

With those standards, we could easily say the universe's underlying physics is based on hierarchy -- God on top, stones on bottom, plants animals man and woman fall inbetween in the order of which the Elizabethians believes. In that opinion, then, a King should obviously preside over the people in a strict hierarchy of ruling and little freedom. And considering some even contest that we're are the product of evolution, then it definitely becomes a matter of opinion.

We should then ignore any "underlying physics" based on opinion and base our prime system of government on some undeniable facts of nature, primarily human nature -- we're a flawed, sinful creature, where arguments are hourly and corruption is almost unavoidable. Examine this, examine what would work best to instil order umoungst sinful creatures by sinful creatures, and you'll have your best system of government.

Good luck. We've been trying to figure that out for centuries.

Anyway, back on topic, why is the idea of everyone having the same income and occupying the same social status wrong? Explain your answers.

Because that could only be accomplished by force. There will always be some who don't want to live in that kind of society. They would end up dead or in gulags.

actually communism wont work because for every 100 communists ter is a man who want it all.

Part of it was because of the Cold War. Stalin called himself a communist and the USSR a Communist state. Neither were. The USSR was the enemy and because they used a different form of government, that form of government also became the enemy.

The other reason is because despite the US standing for equality and freedom, it is still a capitalist nation (which is hypocritical but I won't get into that), lead by capitalists. If the general populace started thinking that Communism and Socialism might be good, it would mean they would try to get closer to it and suck money from the government officials and their rich CEO friends through higher taxes for the rich etc.

This is becoming exactly the type of intelligent debate that I hoped for.

So, can we conclude that, comparing the two systems (capitalism and communism) from an ethical viewpoint, that they are of equal merit? For example, one could say that hard work should have its bonuses, whilst another could counter that the most important thing is equality.

Whether or not true communism is possible or not depends on your version of true communism, I'd say. And whether any of it is possible without human rights violations remains to be seen.

As for capitalism, I think that if someone manages to get rich from his own wits, then fair play to him. But to leave an inheritance (as is, of course, his right) which means that his offspring never have to work, or which entitles them to power which they haven't necessarily earned, is wrong. It's wrong by both sides' standards - one should not have unearned power (left); one should expect to work to earn (right).

They used authoritarian means to achieve what should have been done through libertarian (in the sense of anti-authority, not just the state) means.

So in principle, you agree that this should be what communism should look like. However, how do you acheive this state through liberatarian means?

Yes im sure youll have planty of time to enjoy your house the 3 minutes between the time you wake up and go to work every morning. Working 18 hour days sucks. Id rather work 10 hours at a moderately hard job and come home ot my mid size appartment in my economy sedan(probably japanese) or used german car(Mercedes,BMW,Audi) and spend the time from about 6:30 to the tiem everyone goes to sleep with my family and on the weekends do stuff with my family.
BtW if you start working hard to get rich at 20 youll have a day off by the time you're 60.


Okay now for the communism
Im russian and as a patriot im willing to support my government no matter what it is(like a lot of americans are) but i frown on the billionares who used 280,000 worth of Champagne to spill on the floor as celebration over the rising oil prices. Thankfully te new government(as opposed to Elzin's) jails and exiles billionares. Youd think they take all the money for themselves and use it to buy yachts or somehting but they give it back to the people in the form of social benefits(which are soon to be abolished in favor of monetary compensation) and let me tell you socialism was a great stage in the Soviet UNion. People were poor but they were happy. Most of hte people were happy even under Stalin. I support socialism but dont delude yuorself that for example Ivan and Alexander are working on the same project at a factory(car engine) Alexander finishes his but Ivan only completes half. Ivan is going to get in trouble and while in the USSR it was impossible to leave people unemployed as the government assigned jobs Ivan instead of working at a car factory would sweep the streets and keep in mind that stuff was acquired from the government. So if you want a car you ask tehm. They see the Alexander is hard working and assign him a car appropriate for his needs. Ivan however will not get a car.
But no matter how hard alexander works he wont get a different car for every day of the year.

My englsih isnt perfect but i think the example i provded is written corectly.

Who said I work 18 hours a day to make my money.

The US (and most sane people :D ) hate communism because it goes against everything we've been raised on, right to private property, the ability to work harder for more gains, freedom to start your own business, ect. and because we've seen what people have done in the name of communism (Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, ect.). Just like the Swastika is known more for its relation to the Nazis then any previous meaning, so too is communism known more for the hundreds of millions killed by communism.

The US (and most sane people ) hate communism because it goes against everything we've been raised on, right to private property, the ability to work harder for more gains, freedom to start your own business, ect. and because we've seen what people have done in the name of communism (Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, ect.). Just like the Swastika is known more for its relation to the Nazis then any previous meaning, so too is communism known more for the hundreds of millions killed by communism.

Are we talking about the same capitalism and communism?

So in principle, you agree that this should be what communism should look like. However, how do you acheive this state through liberatarian means?

For one thing, workers don't need one group of authoritarians to get another group of authoritarians off their back. If they try that, it simply won't work. Instead, the workers should refuse to take orders from capitalists and practice mutual aid to better withstand capitalist reaction.

Now, let me start by saying: no flaming, name-calling or politik.

The US has been the global success story of the last couple of centuries. It was founded on an admirable constitution (all except the bit which encourages people to own killing machines - ie guns) which among other things is founded on the principle of equality for all.

Communism (or at least the original Marxist/Leninist version) takes that principle of equality, but extends it to an economic level.

So, my question is: why the historic hatred of Communism as an ideal? (DO NOT spout figures of human rights violations, etc. We all know the US is just as good [if not better] at that particular sport.) I don't want to know reasons based on syptoms, I want reasons based on the fundamental ethos of socialism.

Why do you find it so abhorrent?
Tell me why.

PS: Do not infer that I myself am a Leftie/Pinko/Godless Commie OR a Bigshot Capitalist/Righty/Conservative. My particular stance is, for this, irrelevant.

Good hunting.
You asked for this with "Us being better at civil rights violations--Stalin the Great Purge-Grand Champion Civil rights violater.

Now that being said, I am not a Communist at all, but I to have never understood the animosity that the generations before us hold for Communism, it was never a real threat to our way of life. Maybe I have hindsight on my side but, who cares about Communism.
There are no savage people, only different cultures.

For one thing, workers don't need one group of authoritarians to get another group of authoritarians off their back. If they try that, it simply won't work. Instead, the workers should refuse to take orders from capitalists and practice mutual aid to better withstand capitalist reaction.
But this isn't answering any of my questions. First, in principle, do you agree with the type of living under Pol Pot, even if you don't agree with his methods of gaining this new social order? And secondly, how is it that liberatarianism can lead to these condition?

Communism (or at least the original Marxist/Leninist version)

Not only, as someone has already pointed out are the much earlier examples of communism then Marx, but Marxist Leninism is a myth. Leninism was a complete break from Marxism not a variant of it.

I think its for a very simple reason. Communism was a new idea that threatened the old system. Everyone profiting in that old system wanted it to fail. In a similar way as all the monarchs wanted democracy to fail.

But this isn't answering any of my questions. First, in principle, do you agree with the type of living under Pol Pot, even if you don't agree with his methods of gaining this new social order? And secondly, how is it that liberatarianism can lead to these condition?

No, because he used force.

No, because he used force.
Then how do you plan to acheive Pol Pot's vision using liberatarian methods?

Then how do you plan to acheive Pol Pot's vision using liberatarian methods?

That really isn't up to me, so much as the workers, but given the past anarchist revolutions, it generally starts with workers taking control of the means of production, then the government comes in and uses force to get them out. That's where the real violence is, not from the anarchists, but the government seeking to enforce capitalist property "rights".

That really isn't up to me, so much as the workers, but given the past anarchist revolutions, it generally starts with workers taking control of the means of production, then the government comes in and uses force to get them out. That's where the real violence is, not from the anarchists, but the government seeking to enforce capitalist property "rights".
So you're assuming that the workers can revolt. Well, I'll ask you a question. Can you tell me what happened during the Russian Revolution? In your own description, please.

That really isn't up to me, so much as the workers, but given the past anarchist revolutions, it generally starts with workers taking control of the means of production, then the government comes in and uses force to get them out. That's where the real violence is, not from the anarchists, but the government seeking to enforce capitalist property "rights".

Letila have you seen the movie Doctor Zhivago. Its a good movie about the communist revolution in Russia. But I thought it was REALLY SAD because there was a rich family and the dirty scumbag commies took there house and the property. I thought I was one of the saddest things I have ever seen in a movie.

We are more individualists than commune-togetherness type of people. Some like the idea of capitalism because it means the more sweat that comes off your back the more green that goes into your/family's wallet.
They don't like the idea of collective ownership over private ownership when it comes to thier money and land and tax dollars. We dont like the idea of the state or someone other than private industry's controling the economy. So it mainly comes down to Americans don't like the idea of redistributing personal incomes for what a entity says over what the maker of that dough says.

Letila have you seen the movie Doctor Zhivago. Its a good movie about the communist revolution in Russia. But I thought it was REALLY SAD because there was a rich family and the dirty scumbag commies took there house and the property. I thought I was one of the saddest things I have ever seen in a movie.

I really don't care about rich people. They are lucky I'm also a pacifist. What did they do to earn that house? Those "dirty scumbag commies" were workers who suffered terribly under capitalism. They shouldn't have been so brutal, but the rich people were in no way innocent. They oppressed and continue to oppress people.

We are more individualists than commune-togetherness type of people. Some like the idea of capitalism because it means the more sweat that comes off your back the more green that goes into your/family's wallet.

Actually, that is not true at all. You think a child working in a sweatshop for 12 hours a day gets paid more than a rich kid who hasn't worked a day in his life?

They don't like the idea of collective ownership over private ownership when it comes to thier money and land and tax dollars.

They should. If a group of people use something (such as a factory or it's products), all of them should have a say in how it is used, not just one guy. If one guy bosses the others around in a factory, that's really no different than dictatorship.

So you're assuming that the workers can revolt. Well, I'll ask you a question. Can you tell me what happened during the Russian Revolution? In your own description, please.

I'm really not an expert, but from what I heard, workers innitially revolted and for a brief period, it looked like they were going for anarcho-communism. Then the Bolsheviks took control of the state and created a dictatorship.

----"Actually, that is not true at all. You think a child working in a sweatshop for 12 hours a day gets paid more than a rich kid who hasn't worked a day in his life?"

The rich kid that didn't work a day in his life was a lucky ass to be born into a family that had someone along that blood line that busted thier ass for that wealth.
Thats not anyones fault but the dumbass that made all that money in the family for not spending it all in his own lifetime to enjoy. :)

----"They should. If a group of people use something (such as a factory or it's products), all of them should have a say in how it is used, not just one guy. If one guy bosses the others around in a factory, that's really no different than dictatorship."

Your idealistic in this way and Americans are idealistic in thier ways for private ownership, it's a conflict of interest that has no right or wrong answer because thier both idealistic answers that are saying mine is more right. Now in America if you want to buy a parcel of 5 acres and do whatever you want on it, as long as it fits the zoning orders I see no problem with it at all, and on the other hand we have Americans that buy property only to allow everyone and anyone that wants to come on it .... to be on it.... thats a personal decision that everyone can make. No right or wrong just what is right for yourself, otherwise you become the authoritarian that wants to control someone else.

I'm really not an expert, but from what I heard, workers innitially revolted and for a brief period, it looked like they were going for anarcho-communism. Then the Bolsheviks took control of the state and created a dictatorship.
Yes and no. A provisional government was formed. It was intended to be a liberal democracy. However, Lenin's Bolsheviks gained the upper hand, and filled the government with his deputies. It was not a total dictatorship. In fact, he was far more liberal than any of his sucessors until Gorbachev. It was more of a state like Singapore is today, only slightly more authoritarian. Anyhow, I just wanted to show you that the every person on the planet is not really some leftist who, when unhindered, is ready to sing "Kumbaya" with everyone. The most staunch philosopher for individualism is who you often denounce, and she was a Russian herself: Ayn Rand.
BTW, you seem to think that the government in Russia was capitalist. That is not so. It was a traditional monarchy that based power purely by birthright.

The most staunch philosopher for individualism is who you often denounce, and she was a Russian herself: Ayn Rand.

There's a difference between rhetoric and reality. Ayn Rand was not an individualist, unless by individualist, you mean one who advocates the freedom to submit to capitalist übermenschen. She glorified élites and looked down on the working class. She didn't advocate freedom for anyone except the rich. She could have cared less about the workers.

BTW, you seem to think that the government in Russia was capitalist. That is not so. It was a traditional monarchy that based power purely by birthright.

The government was a monarchy, but the economy was capitalist, or at least feudalist and becoming capitalist.

There's a difference between rhetoric and reality. Ayn Rand was not an individualist, unless by individualist, you mean one who advocates the freedom to submit to capitalist übermenschen. She glorified élites and looked down on the working class. She didn't advocate freedom for anyone except the rich. She could have cared less about the workers.
That was because she was a staunch believer in the good of all humans (unless you were Emmanuel Kant or Vladimir Lenin). She believed that collectivism is inherently evil, and thus individualism, embodied by capitalism, is a way to fight back. She did not believe in a dominating elite at all, but rather the power of individual choice. I'm surprised you don't agree with her. She sounds almost like she's advocating anarchy. I believe she has her points, but I don't believe in a rosy image of humanity, like Ayn Rand and you do.


The government was a monarchy, but the economy was capitalist, or at least feudalist and becoming capitalist.
It was feudalist to the core. The only element that represented capitalism was the existence of money and property, both restricted to only a priviledged few. It wasn't until a few decades before the Revolution that serfdom in that country was abolished, and rights always existed in the hands of a tiny elite. Unlike capitalism today, there was no chance for mobility.

Now, let me start by saying: no flaming, name-calling or politik.

The US has been the global success story of the last couple of centuries. It was founded on an admirable constitution (all except the bit which encourages people to own killing machines - ie guns) which among other things is founded on the principle of equality for all.

Communism (or at least the original Marxist/Leninist version) takes that principle of equality, but extends it to an economic level.

So, my question is: why the historic hatred of Communism as an ideal? (DO NOT spout figures of human rights violations, etc. We all know the US is just as good [if not better] at that particular sport.) I don't want to know reasons based on syptoms, I want reasons based on the fundamental ethos of socialism.

Why do you find it so abhorrent?
Tell me why.

PS: Do not infer that I myself am a Leftie/Pinko/Godless Commie OR a Bigshot Capitalist/Righty/Conservative. My particular stance is, for this, irrelevant.

Good hunting.


"Equal men are never free and free men are never equal."

"Equal men are never free and free men are never equal."
You sound like Napoleon from Animal Farm.

"Equal men are never free and free men are never equal."

That makes no sense. If everyone is equal, then there is no one to enforce oppression and thus everyone is free. If everyone is free, then there is no one who is oppressed, thus everyone is equal.

She believed that collectivism is inherently evil

She was right there.

and thus individualism, embodied by capitalism, is a way to fight back.

That was her mistake. Capitalism isn't individualistic at all.

She did not believe in a dominating elite at all, but rather the power of individual choice.

Except for the second-handers who didn't own means of production.

I'm surprised you don't agree with her. She sounds almost like she's advocating anarchy.

Property gives you the power to coerse. That isn't anarchistic in any way.

She makes some pretty big contradictions:

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Does that mean she expects everyone to be completely self-sufficient?

And she's obsessed with technology.

I also completely disagree with this:

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

Civilization has done so much to abolish privacy. Coughsecuritycamerascough

She once again relies on strawman attacks on nature:

"An Asian peasant who labors through all of his waking hours, with tools created in Biblical times—a South American aborigine who is devoured by piranha in a jungle stream—an African who is bitten by the tsetse fly—an Arab whose teeth are green with decay in his mouth—these do live with their 'natural environment,' but are scarcely able to appreciate its beauty. Try to tell a Chinese mother, whose child is dying of cholera: 'Should one do everything one can? Of course not.' Try to tell a Russian housewife, who trudges miles on foot in sub-zero weather in order to spend hours standing in line at a state store dispensing food rations, that America is defiled by shopping centers, expressways and family cars."

As though hierarchy and air pollution are any better.

"Even if smog were a risk to human life, we must remember that life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death."

What the hell is she talking about?

In short, we resemble eachother only in rhetoric.

That makes no sense. If everyone is equal, then there is no one to enforce oppression and thus everyone is free. If everyone is free, then there is no one who is oppressed, thus everyone is equal.



She was right there.



That was her mistake. Capitalism isn't individualistic at all.



Except for the second-handers who didn't own means of production.



Property gives you the power to coerse. That isn't anarchistic in any way.

She makes some pretty big contradictions:

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Does that mean she expects everyone to be completely self-sufficient?

And she's obsessed with technology.

I also completely disagree with this:

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

Civilization has done so much to abolish privacy. Coughsecuritycamerascough

She once again relies on strawman attacks on nature:

"An Asian peasant who labors through all of his waking hours, with tools created in Biblical times—a South American aborigine who is devoured by piranha in a jungle stream—an African who is bitten by the tsetse fly—an Arab whose teeth are green with decay in his mouth—these do live with their 'natural environment,' but are scarcely able to appreciate its beauty. Try to tell a Chinese mother, whose child is dying of cholera: 'Should one do everything one can? Of course not.' Try to tell a Russian housewife, who trudges miles on foot in sub-zero weather in order to spend hours standing in line at a state store dispensing food rations, that America is defiled by shopping centers, expressways and family cars."

As though hierarchy and air pollution are any better.

"Even if smog were a risk to human life, we must remember that life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death."

What the hell is she talking about?

In short, we resemble eachother only in rhetoric.
You seem obsessed with the idea that capitalism is always an elite. It isn't like that. Back when capitalism took its first form, mercantalism, a merchant class rose, which were the forerunners to today's businessmen. The thing is that today, everyone can own property, not just a priviledged few. Anyone can own a business, and can decide where to work. In illiberal systems in general, and traditional tribal/feudal systems in particular, an individual is told where to work.
What you're believing is that today's society is interdependent, and that dependency ultimatly works its way to a form of an elite, with all of the switches in society. That may be true today. In fact, I feel that today's elite don't realize how powerful they are. However, the control of a tiny minority is less prevelant than in systems that aren't the embodiement of classical liberalism.
This is because of technology, which Ayn Rand is right to say. Without technology, you depend entirely on a tribal chief, or a holy man to take care of you. With technology, this is less true today. More choices can be made, as a person isn't utterly dependent on a leader, or even religion (I'm not denouncing religion, but just saying that it's less likely with technology that religion will be used as a tool to make an individual dependent).
You assume that technology actually invades privacy. Some elements do. But you're falling into the same trap that Ray Bradbarry, Alduos Huxley, and most importantly, Jack London and George Orwell did. They were the creators of a "negative utopia" idea, where technology actually creates and bolsters toltalitarianism and collectivism. This was disproven by the simple passage of time. Technology didn't uphold dictatorships, but helped destroy them. For example, media was tightly controlled by the Soviet Union. Pictures and textbooks were routinely altered, and even the KGB wasn't allowed accurate maps, for fear of members defecting. However, radio transmissions know not the bounds of government. Technology has helped the fall of dictators, not the rise of them.
So I feel that while you may have legitimate reasons to believe that anarchism is the way to go, your critique of Ayn Rand is, in my mind, not on solid grounds. She was saying that civilization is the best way to promote the individual, not stopping the natural progress of civilization. It'd be comforting for you to know, perhaps, that with the advance of technology, anarchism is far more likely 200 years from now than today.

The thing is that today, everyone can own property, not just a priviledged few. Anyone can own a business, and can decide where to work.

In theory, yes, but in reality, some people have huge amounts of property and others have little. Those with little must work for those with much. Otherwise, those without the factories or farms have nothing to sell and can't live.

This is because of technology, which Ayn Rand is right to say. Without technology, you depend entirely on a tribal chief, or a holy man to take care of you. With technology, this is less true today.

Now you rely on a doctor to do the same. Many primitive societies had no formal hierarchies. It wasn't until the invention of agriculture that true hierarchy became widespread.

More choices can be made, as a person isn't utterly dependent on a leader, or even religion (I'm not denouncing religion, but just saying that it's less likely with technology that religion will be used as a tool to make an individual dependent).

We still are dependent on leaders and now we're also dependent on technology.

You assume that technology actually invades privacy. Some elements do. But you're falling into the same trap that Ray Bradbarry, Alduos Huxley, and most importantly, Jack London and George Orwell did. They were the creators of a "negative utopia" idea, where technology actually creates and bolsters toltalitarianism and collectivism. This was disproven by the simple passage of time. Technology didn't uphold dictatorships, but helped destroy them. For example, media was tightly controlled by the Soviet Union. Pictures and textbooks were routinely altered, and even the KGB wasn't allowed accurate maps, for fear of members defecting. However, radio transmissions know not the bounds of government. Technology has helped the fall of dictators, not the rise of them.

Technology has also been used to kill thousands of people at once. It gives a great deal of power to its possessor and more likely than not, it's the government or business owners that have the best technology.

It'd be comforting for you to know, perhaps, that with the advance of technology, anarchism is far more likely 200 years from now than today.

Highly unlikely. Today, capitalists are ordinary humans. In the future, they could very well be genetically engineered. Anarchism would be almost impossible then.

In theory, yes, but in reality, some people have huge amounts of property and others have little. Those with little must work for those with much. Otherwise, those without the factories or farms have nothing to sell and can't live.
Not unless, of course, if they work for either factories or in services. An employee is not as precious to an employer today as a hundred years ago, and likewise, an employee in a well developed society isn't as dependent on a job as he used to be. Technology has created efficiency and, possibly most important to individualism, the inexpensiveness of a commodity. Food is cheaper than even fifty years ago, thanks to technology. And if, in the future we build nano machines that build things atom by atom at virtually no cost, what'd be the point of money, or working for a living?


Now you rely on a doctor to do the same. Many primitive societies had no formal hierarchies. It wasn't until the invention of agriculture that true hierarchy became widespread.
If I get a sore throat, I do not go to some holy medicine man, and ask him to ask the gods what sin is causing this. I go to mom, and she helps me. I can cure 90% of the ailments just by buying over the counter drugs. It may be possible that one day, I can diagnose myself for any ailment using sensors, then, even if I have HIV, I can go buy medication over the counter to cure myself. Doctors will only be needed for accidents and academic stuff, and even accidents may be obsolete with genetic engineering. This shows how technology can empower us.
You are right, btw, that agriculture did do a lot to form a hierchy. But in the paleolithic times, humans lived a miserable, unrewarding existence, and died at twenty with five kids. Today, we live better lives, but less of a hierchy needs to exist.


We still are dependent on leaders and now we're also dependent on technology.
We're dependent on technology because it can fill the role humans once played. And are we dependent on leaders? Yes. I personally believe that, to some degree, we always will be. However, with capitalism, we are no longer dependent on the government for our economy, and with democracy, we're not dependent on them for our society and culture. In fact, we're really only dependent on them today for protection. Alan Greenspan, a personal friend of Rand, understood this. He advocated capitalism for some of the same goals. In fact, the only reason why the Fed exists today is because he realizes that humanity isn't ready for an economy with absolutely no limits imposed by the government. However, he's probably the biggest proponet of privatization in Washington.


Technology has also been used to kill thousands of people at once. It gives a great deal of power to its possessor and more likely than not, it's the government or business owners that have the best technology.
Cars and able computers are available to all. Indeed, technology gives power to its possessors, but today, nearly everyone in the US has a computer, a car, and a TV. As I reiterate, we aren't completely independent, and therefore, the best tends to go to an uppercrust. But the basics permeate downward, and technology has empowered the individual.


Highly unlikely. Today, capitalists are ordinary humans. In the future, they could very well be genetically engineered. Anarchism would be almost impossible then.
How are the two mutually exclusive? I thought anarchism was all about individual choice. In any case, it is likely that employees wouldn't be needed in a few hundred years, except for acadamia. This is the future Ayn Rand saw, and this is what you should consider. Is it the desire of man to hold another man in bondage just for the hell of it? No. And since capitalists are obeying the laws of money, those laws dictate that employees would be a waste of resources. I guess it could be the epitome of Huey Long's famous statement, "every man a king".

Hehehee...that happens in capitalist countries too....I remember I wanted to work at this really hip (not Chapters) bookstore all through University...but they would only hire me once I had my degree!!! For $6.50/hr! Plenty of people get degrees that are a) NOT going to get them a job (underwater basketweaving, or philosophy), or b) supposed to get them a job, but the market is glutted with graduates (education, law, etc). It's part of the capitalist myth that a higher education automatically means a higher wage.

However, I think going to University and studying whatever you want (paid for, but only for a limited amount of time) may not mean all graduates will improve their financial station, but it will mean there are a lot more open minded, intellectually fulfilled people out there, and I think that would improve any society (more poets, artists, thinkers thinkers thinkers...). Going into $27,000 of debt for a degree that everyone (including the University) swore up and down would get you hired IMMEDIATELY after graduation, and guarantee your financial happiness, then finding out you're just one in a 3000 graduating class and have to work at the movie theatre....now that's just cruel. And I bet the teenager working with you is laughing his ass off:).

:rolleyes: I like how you put antedoctal evidence into a situation. Say I wanna be a teacher, am I still gonna make as much as the mouth breather taking my ticket stub?

That's incorrect.
Communism hasn't existed in an any way pure form in a long time now. The last time it came close was with the Incas in America and with the small Diggers movement in England (who were destroyed as a group).
As it is, we've only really seen 'facism of the left', where countries have claimed to be communism and leaders have only used it in a cynical method of taking power and growing rich off of it.

True communism is collective anarchy (in the literal sense of anarchy); people are free to do what they wish but choose to work for the good of the community with no coercion by legal or governmental means.

This only works in la la land, If I want to do something different from the community, what happens to me?

This only works in la la land, If I want to do something different from the community, what happens to me?

What do you mean? If you mean refuse to contribute, then they are free not to support you.

Some people say Capitalism is oppressive to poor people because only the rich benefit, but it's the other way around. With Communism, rich people are oppressed. They work hard to succeed and are rewarded the same as someone with no job at all who doesn't even want to work. In Capitalism, everyone has the right to an education, but if someone does not work hard in school and they are unsuccessful because of it, they're not going to be rewarded like someone who studied hard and worked through school. Communism offers less freedom, because you don't even have the opportunity to be successful. In the Soviet Union, that meant you could only be poor while the army was built up and they were trying to beat the US into space.

Communism has never truly worked on a large scale. They expect every human being to be perfect in the way they work. The government ends up being corrupt and problems arise. I don't think there should even be an argument for which system is better, because Capitalism has stood the test of time and Communism hasn't. Most communist regimes have collapsed and now their countries use Capitalism. The Communist countries that do exist are slowly becoming more and more Capitalist.

Some people say Capitalism is oppressive to poor people because only the rich benefit, but it's the other way around. With Communism, rich people are oppressed. They work hard to succeed and are rewarded the same as someone with no job at all who doesn't even want to work.

What? That made no sense.

Some people say Capitalism is oppressive to poor people because only the rich benefit, but it's the other way around. With Communism, rich people are oppressed. They work hard to succeed and are rewarded the same as someone with no job at all who doesn't even want to work. In Capitalism, everyone has the right to an education, but if someone does not work hard in school and they are unsuccessful because of it, they're not going to be rewarded like someone who studied hard and worked through school. Communism offers less freedom, because you don't even have the opportunity to be successful. In the Soviet Union, that meant you could only be poor while the army was built up and they were trying to beat the US into space.

Communism has never truly worked on a large scale. They expect every human being to be perfect in the way they work. The government ends up being corrupt and problems arise. I don't think there should even be an argument for which system is better, because Capitalism has stood the test of time and Communism hasn't. Most communist regimes have collapsed and now their countries use Capitalism. The Communist countries that do exist are slowly becoming more and more Capitalist.
What about the disabled? In a pure capitalism, the disabled would be instantly opressed since despite what they do, they will always be slower. There are also lots of people who get rich from inheritance in Capitalism. There is also a lot of corruption, which means that no matter how hard you work, someone is always above you to put you down unless you're at the top of the ladder.

Everyone has a right to everything in Communism. They are thus trusted to make the best use they can of it so they can be productive members of society. That is the fundamental flaw of Communism, people are required to do work for all of society as a whole. The thing is though that if everyone has the attitude of making society better and thus making myself better off. You can be successful in Communism. There is nothing to prevent one from being a successful person. They simply can't be rich. Neither does it have to be free of greed, you can still be greedy, it's just that everyone needs to be greedy so that everyone helps everyone, including themselves.

Communism has never been present on this planet on a large scale. The USSR was NEVER Communist. Cambodia was NEVER Communist. North Korea ISN'T NOR EVER has been a Communism. North Korea was NEVER Communist. There has NEVER been a country that was Communist. There has also never been a pure Capitalism, because pure capitalism is anarchy, government takes away from the earnings of a person to fund other things and any country that has claimed to be capitalist, has had a government. Thus neither can be said to be better in practice, because neither has ever existed. There have been countries where it's close to being Capitalist, can't say the same for Communism; that's as close as we can get.

Yes and no. A provisional government was formed. It was intended to be a liberal democracy. However, Lenin's Bolsheviks gained the upper hand, and filled the government with his deputies.

though to be fair, lenin came in on the slogan "all power to the soviets", which really only the anarchists had been supporting up until that point.