NationStates Jolt Archive

I for one am a deep admirer of the GREAT AND ALL POWERFUL mao-ze-dong. For those of you who don't know who he is, he started the cultural revolution in china. By the way as my title said i am a proud communist!

I for one am a deep admirer of the GREAT AND ALL POWERFUL mao-ze-dong. For those of you who don't know who he is, he started the cultural revolution in china. By the way as my title said i am a proud communist!

I highly doubt that.

doubt what?

I doubt you even know what Communism is.

This is an attention getter thread

No, I am a deep admirer of the GREAT AND ALL POWERFUL Dirty Dicks Crab shack there in outerbanks NC though!

GRRRRR I DO KNOW WHAT COMMUNISM IS YOU LITTLE PRAT!!!!!!!!
Socialism- basicly when i said i was a communist i ment that we would get rid of the corrupt democracy's that thrive on putting the poor down and we bring in great socialistic nations that treat all like equals.

Hmmm yes... Mao killed all those people...

A lot like admiring Hitler

It's good to see some Communists... A great theoretical political system... Too bad it failed in practice. But such is life.

if you were a communist, then you would realize that most true communists support democracy..

You idiot! Hitler was a fascist not a communist. Before you post on my threads HOW ABOUT YOU LEARN SOME VOCABULARY!

hehe, if you actually took time to anaylze his post you'd realize he's comparing the death counts on Mao and Hitler.

Communism is completely unnatural. To treat everyone "equal" is inherently flawed. People will always crave more.

hehe, if you actually took time to anaylze his post you'd realize he's comparing the death counts on Mao and Hitler.

haha, indeed. Some genius commie he is...

You idiot! Hitler was a fascist not a communist. Before you post on my threads HOW ABOUT YOU LEARN SOME VOCABULARY!

How about I was comparing the fact that they both killed shitloads of people and were psychopaths? Not their political idealogy.

Read carefully.

Have you ever read ANY NOVELS DEALING WITH COMMUNISM. In order to stop for the most part the power hungry, communist country's elect a great leader (mao-ze-dong for instance). The people then idiolize their leaders and in affect have no reason to want power.

Mao wasn't a communist. He might have been at first, but he definately wasn't later on. He was at best an authoritarian socialist with strong state-monopoly capitalist leanings.

Democracy doesn't put poor people down, Communism puts rich people down and they don't deserve it because they or an ancestor of theirs worked hard for their wealth.

Have you ever read ANY NOVELS DEALING WITH COMMUNISM. In order to stop for the most part the power hungry, communist country's elect a great leader (mao-ze-dong for instance). The people then idiolize their leaders and in affect have no reason to want power.

God, what a load of crap. Communist idolizing of leaders is nothing more than the people being brainwashed. Praise him or face the consequences. Some admiration...

Democracy doesn't put poor people down, Communism puts rich people down and they don't deserve it because they or an ancestor of theirs worked hard for their wealth.

Umm, how do new rich people come to being then?

Umm, how do new rich people come to being then?

Huh? In democracy or communism?

Communism is completely unnatural. To treat everyone "equal" is inherently flawed. People will always crave more.

And more the the point, Frank Zappa said it best:

"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."



Hail Eris!

Democracy and communism are two different things. Democracy is a political system, communism is an economic one.

I for one am a deep admirer of the GREAT AND ALL POWERFUL mao-ze-dong. For those of you who don't know who he is, he started the cultural revolution in china. By the way as my title said i am a proud communist!
Betcha don't know what "mao-ze-dong"'s first name is.

I for one am a deep admirer of the GREAT AND ALL POWERFUL mao-ze-dong. For those of you who don't know who he is, he started the cultural revolution in china. By the way as my title said i am a proud communist!
Your also the baby eater.

ok, if you ask me, communism is a lot like the n-gage or teaching teenagers abstinence. Theyre noble ideas, but they wont really work that well, and will end with a lot of dead russians.

I was in Czechoslovakia in 1983, and Poland in 1984. I've been back to both nations numerous times, (1994, 1997, 2001...). I've also (briefly) visited East Germany. Let me tell you, they're much better off now than they were then.

Personally, I highly advise (if you haven't already) you go visit Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, China or (drum roll please) North Korea. Please. If you think going to France or Italy is culture shock, you've seen nothing yet.

If you've never left the US (like 90% of most Americans that think Communism is a good idea, or that it is "if it is done right"), then all I can do for you is to shake my head and sigh.

If you're just some idiot saying this tripe to get a rise out of people, then you really need to leave the computer and go play outside for awhile.

I for one am a deep admirer of the GREAT AND ALL POWERFUL mao-ze-dong. For those of you who don't know who he is, he started the cultural revolution in china. By the way as my title said i am a proud communist!

Congratulations. Your hero was a murderer and not even a very good communist. Come back when you've read The Communist Manifesto.

A thread about Communism with no mention of Marx, is not a thread about Communism. Mao was a dictator, like Stalin. Communism, in the theoretical sense is something very different.

And it is not inherently unnatural as already supposed. From an historical materialist perspective, it is the economic superstructure which conditions the social environments. Therefore, Capitalism makes it seem like humans are naturally liberally self-interested. However, with a change to a real and collective economic base, this could seem very different. Highly theoretical, arguably impractical after years of capitalism....but a great theory nonetheless.

See: Marx -- The German Ideology, Theses on Feuerbach, Capital, Communist Manifesto (with Engels), etc.

he was a socialist by party, had gun control, in fact alot of socialist/marxist ideas were adopted by the national socialist government..............

socialism.........mmmmmm rape the people of guns, then do what we like :)

"Political power sprouts from the barrel of a gun" quote from Mao Zedong (may have been slightly changed from his actual quote, but same exact meaning(maybe not sprouts, maybe something else)

btw, to the "that stuff wasn't communism"

you're right!

it was DICTATORSHIPS OF THE PROLETARIOT

i.e. Socialism per marx, which after passing stage 2, becomes PROFIT....

I mean COMMUNISM, the magical super-government/society whereins everyone wants to work hard at whatever they happen to be doing, be it shoveling shit, smoking crackrock(wait thats not a job billy!), or doing quantum physics................

.....all for the same wage!!!!

......................


.................

......
....

....

in other words, COMMUNISM doesn't exist, because COMMUNISM CAN NEVER, AND WILL NEVER EXIST...............theres these assmunchers called humans, and many of them suckass(this is inherently why communism will never be, we are by our nature corrupt, not perfect, its a cute concept though, and some forms of social welfare are decent, I guess)

Funny that you admire Mao so much, as he was responsible for the deaths of millions.

Anwyay, I found it interesting that in China this year, I could not find anyone that respected Mao. Speculation is that his picture will be removed from Tiananmen square in the next few years.

Chinese know what a failure Mao was, only ignorant Westerners are fond of him.

Marx is likely rolling in his grave at the thought of Mao. Or Stalin, or Castro..etc etc.
The practical attempts to create anything Marxist have been disgusting manipulations of his ideology.

in other words, COMMUNISM doesn't exist, because COMMUNISM CAN NEVER, AND WILL NEVER EXIST...............theres these assmunchers called humans, and many of them suckass(this is inherently why communism will never be, we are by our nature corrupt, not perfect, its a cute concept though, and some forms of social welfare are decent, I guess)

Do you have any real intellectual firepower, or are you all fully of "suckass" and "assmunchers?" You have not proved anything. Our "nature" is not corrupt...our capitalist economic structure produces a situation where humans maintain their means of subsitence through competition. If we maintained it through collective means, but actively changing it (theoretically), it could be much different. Humans may act more collectively (semmingly by 'nature').

Why not marx? or engels? or even trosky? ( I dont know if I misspelled it, and I dont care) Mao was a dick eating sadist squirrel fucker. At least choose a sane communist to admire.

I dunno poeple have been trying communism for years and it always ended up Facist probly something like germany or a moderate social democracie which is kinda like a moderate communism

Democracy and communism are two different things. Democracy is a political system, communism is an economic one.

Maybe, but you can't ignore the fact that there were a large amount of nations with nearly identical political systems. All of whom were calling themselves communist.

i am also a communist and quite proud of it, though i am more a follower of lenin than anything

i am also a communist and quite proud of it, though i am more a follower of lenin than anything

Why Lenin??? why mao?? why god, why?? what is wrong with these people??? Trosky is there! Marx is there! they werent insane!

First of all, I am a Democratic Socialist, just so you can see where I'm coming from.

Markreich, first of all, there has never been a "pure" communist country, as they all end in despotic dictatorships due to bad elections and propoganda, as well as misuse of Marx's great ideas.

Secondly, Mao was NOT a Communist, more a Crazed Nationalist Own-Everything Dictator.

Third of all, the one to honour the most would probably just be Marx and Engels, whose image is the cleanest yet. Although Marx had some disturbing elements to him.


OOC: I like Trotsky myself, very interesting.

First of all, I am a Democratic Socialist, just so you can see where I'm coming from.

Markreich, first of all, there has never been a "pure" communist country, as they all end in despotic dictatorships due to bad elections and propoganda, as well as misuse of Marx's great ideas.

Secondly, Mao was NOT a Communist, more a Crazed Nationalist Own-Everything Dictator.

Third of all, the one to honour the most would probably just be Marx and Engels, whose image is the cleanest yet. Although Marx had some disturbing elements to him.


OOC: I like Trotsky myself, very interesting.


tah you!!! some sense into somebody!!!

Communism has always failed to manifest in its true form because humans are inherently immoral, greedy, and corrupt. They always crave for more. It is an excellent theory, though. It will just never work.

----"Do you have any real intellectual firepower, or are you all fully of "suckass" and "assmunchers?" You have not proved anything. Our "nature" is not corrupt...our capitalist economic structure produces a situation where humans maintain their means of subsitence through competition. If we maintained it through collective means, but actively changing it (theoretically), it could be much different. Humans may act more collectively (semmingly by 'nature'). "

The problem with your theory is that Americans love being competetive. That is thier nature, you can not change it. We are competetive when we play sports or even just watching them. We are competetive in everything we do. We competed against England to gain our independance, we even competed against our own selves soon after. And now you and I sit here today and compete on what would theoreticaly be best for our country! Face it, I know I have, we are a people that lives and drives off of competition.

It is human nature to always crave more; to always want to be better. It's a strange, deluded form of pragmatism. But it certainly exists.

Marxisn is a mix of a moral and economic development in human nature.,....see www.globalteens.come {or something liek thawt, searhc it}
and tlak about the true meaning.


It's all about MOrality....no-one can be a communist unless thier morals are forced, likea diamond, by the circumstances of an Adv.,Capi8tl.aist society.......it all stems from a shift in morality.....and the economic reversal follows...

This thread is driving me crazy! Communism/Socialism is an economic system. It has nothing to do with politics. Take my nation for exapmle. We are currently "Democratic Socialists". And most 'communists' are actually socialists.

First off the starter of this thread is by no means a Communist, or a Socialist for that matter. Also for all you ignorant people out there, there HAS BEEN true communist societies. Early Chirstian communities were in fact Communist communities, the way Marx had intended. Except of course they had religion. It is also not human nature to be greedy, most of the people that say that are like myself, from the United States. Hence they were RASIED to be greedy. In other countries it is quite possible to live in a communist society, it depends on how your country is, and how you are rasied. Americans are a competitive group, so thats why they believe that its all for the money, and that nobody can think otherwise. Yet again that just shows how ignorant we are. Democrats lean more towards Socialism. I myself am not a true Communist, but rather a Socialist. More like the Soviet Union, and China. China is also fastly becoming a super power while America is declining. If we do not get this national debt paid off then most likely our children will have to pay for it, because it WILL HAVE TO BE PAID, and is not an "imaginary" number. Talk to an Economist if you do not believe me. If it does not get paid off it will eventually cause another depression, so we're slowly getting worse, while China is getting stronger. I'd say within a decade or two China will be quite the super power. Another thing, America is not purely capitalist either. Our economy has a mix of various economic systems including Socialism/Communism/Capitalist/Traditional. So we are a hybrid, which means none of you can really make fun of Communism/Socialism without insulting yourself, Americans atleast.

First thing's first. We have to condemn the founder of this post for his idealism. SHAME ON YOU FOR HAVING NO ARGUMENT!!!!!!!! Now, that we have gotten that out of the way...let us hear an argument from a real communist...me. The chief principle of Communism is the protection of the worker. Sounds pretty nice, but there is much more to it. Communism relies on the (principle, fact, myth, whatever you want to call it) that human beings work better together, as a group. You remember doing all those little projects in school groups right? Remember how it would take only maybe 20 minutes what would have taken 5 hours to do alone? Right. It relies on the...oh hell, it is a fucking fact, that humans work at their peak efficiency when they work together. Sooooooooo...the whole idea of well practiced Communism is where an entire country works together as a whole, for the good of the whole country. The benefits of this include: because of a lack of internal competition, there are never any business failures. This means full employment for all in the country, at all times. Also included are: In a large country, the country is self sustaining, which means that it doesn't need any trading partners.
However, the disadvantages of this are: NO TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION. With no one internally to compete with, no innovation ever comes about. Cars from the 80's would look a lot like cars from the 60's, and vice versa. The other disadvantage is, a country ruler does not know what the consumption needs of the population are. This was why many died under both Mao and Stalin. Both assumed that their people had certain needs, while the people really had others.

BUT...The problems with the above situation, where a communist country is not competitive and the people starve to death, CAN BE ALLEVIATED. This is simple: Sell massive amounts of goods made internally, to other countries. In order to sell the goods, they must be of competitive quality and quantity. As such, innovation will be required, and where it is required, it always appears. And to solve those starvation problems...A democratic government will be necessary. The people will always know their own needs. And in a democracy, the government is nothing without the people. I mean, the government IS the people!

But yeah, I hope this looks like the place everyone would want to live in. What this is is Democratic, Communistic (internally), and Mercantilist (externally). When it has been tried (in Congo for example) it has been so effective, that the U.S. government had to come in and stop it, for fear that people might start believing what the "godless communists" were talking about.

You do know in Marx's vision of Communism there is no government? So how could you say they work to better the country? Its just people working to better society.

I for one am a deep admirer of the GREAT AND ALL POWERFUL mao-ze-dong. For those of you who don't know who he is, he started the cultural revolution in china. By the way as my title said i am a proud communist!

No.

OK fine, I'll call it society, but the problem with that is it confuses people. Generally, we have to dumb it down for the capitalist population, as you probably have realized while fighting with them over the very same old argument (that everybody seems to have) against Marxist economic thought.

I was in Czechoslovakia in 1983, and Poland in 1984. I've been back to both nations numerous times, (1994, 1997, 2001...). I've also (briefly) visited East Germany. Let me tell you, they're much better off now than they were then.

yet oddly enough, 76% of people in the former east germany just recently said that communism is a good thing that had just been poorly implemented.

----"If we maintained it through collective means, but actively changing it (theoretically), it could be much different. Humans may act more collectively (semmingly by 'nature'). "


Now how do you change 99% of the population that loves having the idea of private property, over collective? I have no ill will towards your dream(although I love everything about America the way it is now, even you having this right to speak of an oppisite mindset) I just see it as a not realistic goal. I mean if you touted even socialism to its form where you think we should have a strong central government, it is incapable of happening with the current Constitution and Federalist papers. So how are you ever going to make this happen?

I'll let you in on a secret, you would of thought that Bush would of got his way with the Constitutional gay marriage ban right? Well you see the people of America (and congressmen) know that even if they would like to ban it, they do not want to give up states rights for it. Some of these people were republicans that voted against Bush on this issue, all for states rights. We fought a civil war (at least a large part) over states rights. Since the Conception of our Country there has not been to many (if any) non-federalists (in mind set) in our federal government. Yet they have not gained any significant ground since the begining , the states still have the say on just about everything out there. Just look at the differences of California and Texas our two largest states in population. Most American's are happy and grateful for what they have. Just because thier might be a few ungrateful people here (?) it still leaves you to changing the hearts of over 294,110,276 others. Good luck.

So, what do you think about that though? A mercantilist, communistic (and of course democratic, that is the essential part of it being communistic) society, that has all the benefits of both capitalism and communism? This...is Neo Marxism. I sure do like it : )

Marx's economic vision is outdated, so Communism has to evolve to meet modern times. Marx did no invision a hybrid country like America, he wouldnt even dream of that, he wrote it during a time when the workers were being exploited to a dramatic degree. Which is why he wrote it in the first place. Marx's vision was for society then, not now.

That is definitely true. There are very few federalists in America today. However, I think it is for the best that that should change. For example: The Attorney General for the state of Indiana banned many CD's from libraries in his state, because they contained references to drugs, sex, violence, or revolution. This left nearly 4,000 artists work out of libraries. Also, in Alabama, (and any women, don't think I am a pervert, I'm not, I just have my own particular needs for watching porn) they banned the use of dildos and vibrators, and as such, one of my favorite porn sites dropped right off of the map. THINK OF THE HORNY MEN FOR GOD'S SAKES!!!!!!!!!

As a result of this, I have come to the conclusion that states are not civilized enough to make decisions for themselves. I mean seriously, how long did the south segregate for? Exactly. Frankly, I don't want anyone from that particular part of the U.S. to be able to make laws. They would probably make one that requires all of them to have sex with their sisters. Uh, that shit is nasty.

That is untrue USSR. Marx had predicted that capitalism was going to spread until it encompassed every part of society. He freakin hit the nail on the head. Capitalism in his day was not all consuming (like it is now). It was spreading, but had not yet taken control of everything.

I like my communists like I like my mother-in-law; Elsewhere. :)

----"As a result of this, I have come to the conclusion that states are not civilized enough to make decisions for themselves. I mean seriously, how long did the south segregate for? Exactly. Frankly, I don't want anyone from that particular part of the U.S. to be able to make laws. They would probably make one that requires all of them to have sex with their sisters. Uh, that shit is nasty."

But don't you think the south is saying the same exact thing about the northern states? Your opinion is no different than some southern good ole boy that exclaims, "The yanks are a bunch of fags" so what, they dont think you should be allowed to have states rights probably. The whole thing with segregation and slaves, that is a black eye (no pun intended) for the entire civilized world. The elite in the north had slaves just like the south, and do you really think thier wasn't segregation (it may of been open to blacks, but did they dare go into some places?) in the north? We were a bunch of bigoted assholes. Now luckily we can change the status "of a bunch of assholes" to whatever we like with each new generation, just hopefully for a positive.

That is untrue USSR. Marx had predicted that capitalism was going to spread until it encompassed every part of society. He freakin hit the nail on the head. Capitalism in his day was not all consuming (like it is now). It was spreading, but had not yet taken control of everything.

No genius, your thinking of Capitailism like it was THEN, which is COMPLETLY different then what it is now. Marx did not intend for something like America to appear which is not a true capitalist society, but a hybrid of Socialism/Communism/Capitalism/Traditional systems thrown into one.

Marx is speaking of Capitalism as a whole. No one could have predicted the emergence of Roosevelt, but the fact of the matter is, all goods that you will ever buy will have been sold by a Capitalistic organization (I.E. a Company). In Marx's time, he was predicting the downfall of the Artisian. By proportion, there were many more than then there are now. THAT, is what Marx was getting at. He didn't ever deal with individual countries. That wasn't his thang. He predicted the move of capitalism to becoming the only economic system practiced by men today. Sure, a country may have pensions for the old, or healthcare, but all economic happenings are entirely Capitalistic.

Communism is completely unnatural. To treat everyone "equal" is inherently flawed. People will always crave more.http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html

Actually Marx correctly predicted the replacement of 19th century robber baron capitalism with Social Democracy (which is the mixed socialism/capitalism we see in Europe and America today). Marx believed that the mixed market hybrid we see today will eventually give way to true communism.

NO HE DID NOT, show me where he predicted that. America is not just a mix of Socialism and Capitalism anyway. Marx did not predict a hybrid nation.

GRRRRR I DO KNOW WHAT COMMUNISM IS YOU LITTLE PRAT!!!!!!!!
Socialism- basicly when i said i was a communist i ment that we would get rid of the corrupt democracy's that thrive on putting the poor down and we bring in great socialistic nations that treat all like equals.

Mao killed 40 000 000 people. He killed more than the entire population of Canada, and that was 60 years ago. Maoism is not communism, so you obviously are full of shit.

Trotsky 4 Jesus

You idiot! Hitler was a fascist not a communist. Before you post on my threads HOW ABOUT YOU LEARN SOME VOCABULARY!

I use to be a communist and I would like to believe I was not as irritable as you are. What he said was not saying that Hitler was a communist nor does have to do with his or her vocabulary (or lack of).

Just take a breath and calm down.

Oh, I am not a communist anymore. I am actually rather anti-communist these days.

Actually Marx correctly predicted the replacement of 19th century robber baron capitalism with Social Democracy (which is the mixed socialism/capitalism we see in Europe and America today). Marx believed that the mixed market hybrid we see today will eventually give way to true communism.

NO HE DID NOT, show me where he predicted that. America is not just a mix of Socialism and Capitalism anyway. Marx did not predict a hybrid nation.
Sorry I was thinking of GermAN followers of Marx who left revolutionary Marxism for the Social democratic party... i had realized my error and deleted my post.

I for one am a deep admirer of the GREAT AND ALL POWERFUL mao-ze-dong. For those of you who don't know who he is, he started the cultural revolution in china. By the way as my title said i am a proud communist!
Mao was never a Communist, he never even came close. If he is your idol you are not a true Communist. A real Communist doesn't have someone to idolise for being a Communist, only the people who graced the world with it's brilliance. Also saying one person is 'Great and All-Powerful' proves you are not a Communist. You are nothing more than a totalitarian, you disgrace Communism and all those who believe in it's power.

I am a proud communist.

Meaning you believe in the Communist Manifesto, but are not part of a true Communist society.

Meaning you believe in the Communist Manifesto, but are not part of a true Communist society.
Yes.

If you have to debate whether or not communism is a good thing remember this :

Capitalism is not democracy, nor competition, it is not america either.
Capitalism is a class system based on private property. The two classes are the bourgeoisie (those who own) and the proletariat (those who work).
It has been globaly introduced in the 18th century in order to replace feudalism, which was another class system based on the nobility, the clergy and the tiers-etat. Feudalism colapsed in a global bloody revolution when the cost of the shrinking ruling class was too high for the mass of the ever growing working class.
Prior to feudalism there was the slave-master system which ended in an uprising of the slaves.

There is a trend here. In a class-based system, the ruling class is naturally shrinking while the working one is always growing until there is a revolution which replaces this system with another class system (the working class initiating the revolution, and therefore taking the ruling siets from the old ruling class).
This is the same with capitalism. The bourgeois are less and less and cost more and more, the proletaires are more and more and have less and less.

So what next?

People do not "always crave more". Consumerism and Capitalism have left humans "always craving more". Take a look at the Lhadakh. If any of you know anything about different cultures, you should know what I mean. If not, I will enlighten you. The Lhadakh are a large population group in the high Himalayan mountains (a very difficult place to live, mind you). They have a three month growing season, which is half of what most places are used to. Now, this would be the perfect place for people to always want more right? I hear some libertarians talking about individual survival? Good. Now, the system they actually use (and have for almost 900 years) is Familial Anarcho-Communism. The family lives together, sharing communal lands with the rest of the families in the area. Food is divided according to need (based on size, how hard you work, etc.) and the people don't want anything more than that. Any extra food is traded for decoration, but not for the decoration, only because it is bad to have food rot. There is always more than enough for everyone here, despite the short growing season and infertile ground.

Now...in 1994, a road was built into the region of the Lhadakh. Western culture was brought with that road. Western products and western consumerism were brought along. What happened next?

Suddenly, there were mass migrations off of the farms, and into towns. People fought each other over the highest paying jobs, so that they could buy western products. The local farmers started using pesticides on their crops that had been banned in the west for 20 years. Massive landgrabs went on, often with violent results. Prostitution and the black Market took off almost immediately. Kids in the streets fought over magazines. Stores were regularly looted.

NOW. WHEN THE LHADAKHIS WERE ASKED BY ORGANIZATIONS TAKING SURVEYS BEFORE THE ENTERING OF WESTERN CONSUMERISM WHETER THEY NEEDED ANYTHING MORE, THEY ALMOST ALWAYS SAID THAT THEY WERE HAPPY WITH WHAT THEY HAD. NOW THAT CONSUMERISM ENTERED, THE SURVEYORS ADMINISTERING THE SAME SURVEY HAD TO PAY THE LADHAKIS MONEY TO TAKE IT, OTHERWISE THE LADHAKIS WERE TO BUSY WINDOWSHOPPING OR LOOTING.

The nature of man is not to keep wanting more. It's just that Consumerism has poisoned your minds into thinking so.

Interesting point of view... I think I agree, now that someone actually explained it.

Arenestho, I float in the same boat as you do. I believe in the Manifesto, but even the most noble of communists (Ernesto "Che" Guevara) had an ideology that was quite flawed. The problem is, no one person has a solid interpretation of the Manifesto, or of what Marx believed. I have read accredited historians who believed that, based on reading his work, Marx liked capitalism. So as far as I can tell, no one has the right interpretation, as of yet. I mean seriously, I think marx was somewhat of a Mercantilist for god's sakes!!!!!

GRRRRR I DO KNOW WHAT COMMUNISM IS YOU LITTLE PRAT!!!!!!!!
Socialism- basicly when i said i was a communist i ment that we would get rid of the corrupt democracy's that thrive on putting the poor down and we bring in great socialistic nations that treat all like equals.

First of all Communism will always be a failure in practice. Anyone who has ever studied Political Theory would know this. No matter how hard people try there will always be an elitist class, as people always strive for their owenpersonal benefit. Pure socialism is also an economic failure in practice. In India it takes months if not year to get a permit to start your business, as the Socialist Beauracrats have to argue endlessly about what the dangers your company will have on society.

True Fact: It took 5 years for Coca-cola to get introduced into the indian Market, as the government had debate for over 4 years about if it was healthy enough for public consumption

The Indian socialist economy is a failure due to an abundance of government regulation on business. No new jobs are created as no one can start a business. And don't tell me that India has other extenuating circumstances that prevent it from being successful. While its true that India has a high population density and a lack of any valuable resources, so does Hong Kong. And as many people know Hong Kong (While it was independant from China) had one of the most successful economies in the world. With a population density 20 times that of india and less natural resources, it makes people curious as to why Hong Kong was so much richer economicly than India

The difference lies in the government. While it take years to get a business permit in india, it only took 20 minutes in Hong Kong. Fill out a short 1 page form and you could go into business the very next day. Due to a lack of government regulation new jobs were created nearly every minute.

Lets look at Spain, another socialist nation, Spains Unemployment rate is nearly 4 times that of the united states. Spain has an unemployment rate that floats around 18% as compaired to the US's moderately low 5%

Plus what the United States consider poor... many other homeless people around the world would consider fairly well off. 75% of all Americans living below the poverty line own a color television (40% of those have Cable access), and 90% own at least one car. If you look at the destitute in foreign "3rd world" nations... many of those people don't have a pot to piss in, much less food to eat.

Overuse of Government Regulation is a bad bad thing. And it will cause a total implosion of the economy. So if you think for one minute that people are equal in a socialist economy you're dead wrong.

That is actually what Marx was principally getting at. He hoped for the downfall of the Bourgeouise, because if they went down, so did all class, because as of right now, there are only the haves, and the have nots.

Arenestho, I float in the same boat as you do. I believe in the Manifesto, but even the most noble of communists (Ernesto "Che" Guevara) had an ideology that was quite flawed. The problem is, no one person has a solid interpretation of the Manifesto, or of what Marx believed. I have read accredited historians who believed that, based on reading his work, Marx liked capitalism. So as far as I can tell, no one has the right interpretation, as of yet. I mean seriously, I think marx was somewhat of a Mercantilist for god's sakes!!!!!
I think he liked capitalism as opposed to feudalism.

It is true that Hong Kong has a very good economy. But the reason for that, mainly is, that most of the companies there use inexpensive sweat shop labour, in other countries in the area. Also, India has a unique situation. With any food or textile products, religion must come into mind. As much of the population is still devout Hindu (and thus vegan) any use of leather, or any animal by-product in any goods can be extremely offensive to the population. So obviously it is difficult to start a company, and rightly so. Besides, the labour laws in India are still so bad that companies should probably remain banned from there anyway, as sweat shops are the principal means of production.

First of all Communism will always be a failure in practice. Anyone who has ever studied Political Theory would know this. No matter how hard people try there will always be an elitist class, as people always strive for their owenpersonal benefit. Pure socialism is also an economic failure in practice. In India it takes months if not year to get a permit to start your business, as the Socialist Beauracrats have to argue endlessly about what the dangers your company will have on society.

True Fact: It took 5 years for Coca-cola to get introduced into the indian Market, as the government had debate for over 4 years about if it was healthy enough for public consumption

The Indian socialist economy is a failure due to an abundance of government regulation on business. No new jobs are created as no one can start a business. And don't tell me that India has other extenuating circumstances that prevent it from being successful. While its true that India has a high population density and a lack of any valuable resources, so does Hong Kong. And as many people know Hong Kong (While it was independant from China) had one of the most successful economies in the world. With a population density 20 times that of india and less natural resources, it makes people curious as to why Hong Kong was so much richer economicly than India

The difference lies in the government. While it take years to get a business permit in india, it only took 20 minutes in Hong Kong. Fill out a short 1 page form and you could go into business the very next day. Due to a lack of government regulation new jobs were created nearly every minute.

Lets look at Spain, another socialist nation, Spains Unemployment rate is nearly 4 times that of the united states. Spain has an unemployment rate that floats around 18% as compaired to the US's moderately low 5%

Plus what the United States consider poor... many other homeless people around the world would consider fairly well off. 75% of all Americans living below the poverty line own a color television (40% of those have Cable access), and 90% own at least one car. If you look at the destitute in foreign "3rd world" nations... many of those people don't have a pot to piss in, much less food to eat.

Overuse of Government Regulation is a bad bad thing. And it will cause a total implosion of the economy. So if you think for one minute that people are equal in a socialist economy you're dead wrong.I think you are miles away off the point.
First off, 18% unemployment in Spain is not to be compared to 5% of unemployemnt in the US.
an unemployed in Spain is someone who has no job.
In the US, it is someone who already worked for 3 years or so 13 weeks after he lost his job. 13 weeks after he is no more unemployed, he is nothing.
You have to know that the spanish people have more mobile phones than the US people (not really relevant, this is just so you see how the color TV example was not relevant).
The way you measure success is strange to me. The US consumes 25% of the worldwide oil reserves, it produces 50% of the C0 and it employs slaves from China. On the other hand, Spain commits a great share of it's resources to help the environment and the third world.

Mercantilism is not Feudalism. It is the state of economy where importing anything is not possible (and it doesn't need to be, as the country tries to be self-sustaining) and the only interaction with the global economy is through exports.

Psylos, I agree. The only question is the date and how effective it will be. It could take several more stages to reach Communism. The sublety could also be hard to detect. Revolutions in world wide economy are less likely to be the violent and drastic revolutions of the medievil and pre-modern eras.

Comandante, I agree that it isn't human nature to be greedy. But it's easier to leave greed than to tell everyone they can't be greedy all of a sudden. Communism is a society that has greed, everyone wants more. The difference is that everyone needs to contribute in order for everyone to benefit to the most possible. I also agree that Communism is open to interpretation, but so is everything, depending on one's experience's in life and how they have molded a person anything can be interpreted in anyway.

The Ivory Federation, Communism doesn't have to fail. It can succeed. There will always be people seeking to become an elite citizen, Communism needs this. If everyone wants to become an elite, everyone will become an elite in comparison to know, this is because all wealth is equally redistributed. Communism isn't about restricting people's abilities to become an elite, it is giving everyone equal oppurtunity to be elite. Of course it's impossible for everyone to be elite except in comparison to old systems, which simply leads to everyone striving as hard as humanly possible, creating a paradigm economy.

People do not "always crave more". Consumerism and Capitalism have left humans "always craving more". Take a look at the Lhadakh. If any of you know anything about different cultures, you should know what I mean. If not, I will enlighten you. The Lhadakh are a large population group in the high Himalayan mountains (a very difficult place to live, mind you). They have a three month growing season, which is half of what most places are used to. Now, this would be the perfect place for people to always want more right? I hear some libertarians talking about individual survival? Good. Now, the system they actually use (and have for almost 900 years) is Familial Anarcho-Communism. The family lives together, sharing communal lands with the rest of the families in the area. Food is divided according to need (based on size, how hard you work, etc.) and the people don't want anything more than that. Any extra food is traded for decoration, but not for the decoration, only because it is bad to have food rot. There is always more than enough for everyone here, despite the short growing season and infertile ground.

Now...in 1994, a road was built into the region of the Lhadakh. Western culture was brought with that road. Western products and western consumerism were brought along. What happened next?

Suddenly, there were mass migrations off of the farms, and into towns. People fought each other over the highest paying jobs, so that they could buy western products. The local farmers started using pesticides on their crops that had been banned in the west for 20 years. Massive landgrabs went on, often with violent results. Prostitution and the black Market took off almost immediately. Kids in the streets fought over magazines. Stores were regularly looted.

NOW. WHEN THE LHADAKHIS WERE ASKED BY ORGANIZATIONS TAKING SURVEYS BEFORE THE ENTERING OF WESTERN CONSUMERISM WHETER THEY NEEDED ANYTHING MORE, THEY ALMOST ALWAYS SAID THAT THEY WERE HAPPY WITH WHAT THEY HAD. NOW THAT CONSUMERISM ENTERED, THE SURVEYORS ADMINISTERING THE SAME SURVEY HAD TO PAY THE LADHAKIS MONEY TO TAKE IT, OTHERWISE THE LADHAKIS WERE TO BUSY WINDOWSHOPPING OR LOOTING.

The nature of man is not to keep wanting more. It's just that Consumerism has poisoned your minds into thinking so.

I feel the strangest urge to kiss you now.

When I turn 18 in two years, I'm joining the Communist Party of the United States of America. Nuff' said about my political views.

Psylos, I agree. The only question is the date and how effective it will be. It could take several more stages to reach Communism. The sublety could also be hard to detect. Revolutions in world wide economy are less likely to be the violent and drastic revolutions of the medievil and pre-modern eras.
I don't think it is possible to reach communism, just like I don't think it is possible to reach freedom. It is a daily struggle, in every country. People fight to keep their freedom, or sometimes to gain some. And people must fight to keep their social advances and hopefully to gain some. Until now we have achieved so much things, from the ban on child labor to the minimum wages. This is something we must fight to keep, and if we can have more let's take it : progressive taxation of the capital, de-privatization of the major industries ... This is a struggle with no end to make the world fair, just and peaceful. It will not be achieved but it will get closer and closer.

This is the fight of civilization against babary.

Novaya, I am glad to see a fellow true communist in the works. There is actual, definitive proof out there for anyone who looks at all. Communism can and has worked, just most people don't know about it. Just like Japanese students aren't taught about the bombing of Pearl Harbour, or Americans aren't taught about Christopher Columbus being responsible for the deaths of 3 million natives on the islands that he conquered. Have you ever wondered why every person has the same exact argument against communism? (unless they are a libertarian, uh, god, nasty buggers those) It is because they have only been taught that argument.

Fuck dude, our education is force fed to us. We can't learn anything real unless we have a high enough GPA, or are smart enough to take AP classes. Wait until college, that's where I am now. There, you will at least unlearn the bullshit we have been given all throughout high school.

I don't think it is possible to reach communism, just like I don't think it is possible to reach freedom. It is a daily struggle, in every country. People fight to keep their freedom, or sometimes to gain some. And people must fight to keep their social advances and hopefully to gain some. Until now we have achieved so much things, from the ban on child labor to the minimum wages. This is something we must fight to keep, and if we can have more let's take it : progressive taxation of the capital, de-privatization of the major industries ... This is a struggle with no end to make the world fair, just and peaceful. It will not be achieved but it will get closer and closer.

This is the fight of civilization against babary.
I think it is possible. It isn't an impossible system in my mind, like I said before it simply relies on everyone trying their hardest and it is basically an equalised capitalism. But I agree everywhere else.

I happen to be in near complete agreement with this fellow about communism being a fair form of government (although no one can do it right)....I say this because I am close enough being an active socialist, I believe that the working class should be the most hailed of all. I don't believe that all the leaders that have in the past tried because none of them brought it about in a peacefull manner, which is about the only way one should try to bring about a full communist or socialist gov't.

Your friendly neighborhood Socialist,
Triatticus :sniper:

Of course the working class should be hailed above all. You hit the nail on the head. You see, the Bourgeois is nothing without the Proletariat. The Parasites always need something to leech off of. And because only the Proletariat produces, the Bourgeois can only exploit them (along with laying to waste everything that was once good and noble [the artisian for example].

"The nature of man is not to keep wanting more. It's just that Consumerism has poisoned your minds into thinking so."

Well all we have to do is look at what this all means.

Consumerism: The movement seeking to protect and inform consumers by requiring such practices as honest packaging and advertising, product guarantees, and improved safety standards.

Capitalism: an economic system based on private ownership

Communism:A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people

Collectivism: The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government

Lets see, due to a thing called states rights there is only one option that works in one form or another with our Constitution, hmmm.......................... kind of a dead in the water issue.

The proof is in the pudding, Americans (along with many other countrys) Love our consumerism and capitilism. We personally enjoy buying the latest thing, with our latest money (notice I said our, as in not yours or anyone elses) with our latest tax breaks. We enjoy buying with 'our' (notice I said our again) own money that 5, 10, 2,000,000 acre ranch, with that private property sign that say's "trespassers will be shot on site". That is American.

Our wills are ours, we known not how. --Tennyson

The proof is in the pudding, Americans (along with many other countrys) Love our consumerism and capitilism. We personally enjoy buying the latest thing, with our latest money (notice I said our, as in not yours or anyone elses) with our latest tax breaks. We enjoy buying with 'our' (notice I said our again) own money that 5, 10, 2,000,000 acre ranch, with that private property sign that say's "trespassers will be shot on site". That is American.


Let us ask ourselves this then: Are most Americans content with what they have? Is keeping up with the Jones' a myth? Do material posessions truly satisfy? Are the rich happier than the average American? Is it a lie that the times we have the most happiness, posessions or not, we are with our friends and families?

The answer to all of those is no. I am an American. You can say are. Money and goods do not fulfill us. They never will. The pursuit may be a part of our way of life, but I bet you a group of friends who goes out to dinner together will have more fun and fulfillment than one dude, sitting in his room, playing on his X-box.

Socialization is what gives humans fulfillment. That is why the Lhadakhi were so happy. They knew that the only things they needed were people, and enough to survive

If we were truly satisfied, would we keep wanting more?

bump

"Let us ask ourselves this then: Are most Americans content with what they have? Is keeping up with the Jones' a myth? Do material posessions truly satisfy? Are the rich happier than the average American? Is it a lie that the times we have the most happiness, posessions or not, we are with our friends and families? The answer to all of those is no. I am an American. You can say are. Money and goods do not fulfill us. They never will. The pursuit may be a part of our way of life, but I bet you a group of friends who goes out to dinner together will have more fun and fulfillment than one dude, sitting in his room, playing on his X-box. Socialization is what gives humans fulfillment. That is why the Lhadakhi were so happy. They knew that the only things they needed were people, and enough to survive"

Yes I am satisfied with everything America has to offer, as apparently you must not have noticed, the rest of the country seems to be also. Your opinion that socialization gives people fullfillment is an opinion of yours, I know more people that are content on doing what ever it is they want to do by 'themselves' than having someone tag along. I have never, not even once met someone in life in person that has spoke or even hinted that they would rather give up private property over collectivism, or give up capitilism over communism. So are you sure you are in America?

Try this, because apparently nobody has heard or caught on to this 'idea' that you want to put forth. Stand on your local street corner with a sign saying 'I LOVE COMMUNISM' and let me know if you have any takers or 'honker's', ok? By the way what state are you in?

People talk to each other in Capitalism...

People talk to each other in Capitalism...

I'd buy that for a dollar! :p

I'd buy that for a dollar! :p

I'm selling it for 10

Now go work in my oppressive capitalistic society, BECAUSE PROFIT IS THEFT, WHATEVER THE FUCK THAT MEANS!! So you can buy the right to socialize.

I for one am a deep admirer of the GREAT AND ALL POWERFUL mao-ze-dong. For those of you who don't know who he is, he started the cultural revolution in china. By the way as my title said i am a proud communist!

mmm....I'm a commie, but Mao Tse Tung (some peopel spell it liek that) was a bastard. My brand of communism is alot different than killing off all the smart people, and reperessing the proliteriat...the same people who are the focus of communism.

not to start anything and due to not reading the rest of this thread as long as humans are alive there will never be communism that truly works people are greedy.

mmm....I'm a commie, but Mao Tse Tung (some peopel spell it liek that) was a bastard. My brand of communism is alot different than killing off all the smart people, and reperessing the proliteriat...the same people who are the focus of communism.

Commie.

I for one am a deep admirer of the GREAT AND ALL POWERFUL mao-ze-dong. For those of you who don't know who he is, he started the cultural revolution in china. By the way as my title said i am a proud communist!



MAO TSE TONG.... God, some of the historically and educationally challenged half-wits you get on these forums is enought try the patients of a saint!

While young brain-dead morons like yourself are trying-out your long discredited and mostly dead politics on other similar challenged individuals, the remnants of those communist experiments are lying dead in the killing fields of Cambodia, and the sanitoriums of other ex-Eastern Block countries where they put orphans to mentally rot and people opposed to the communist regime. Fools like you are just as much a danger to our society as those of the far right and their racial theories.

y'know what's funny? when people make arguments like "people naturally want more" and "people idolize their ruler, so they have no desire for power" and "people are naturally corrupt."

and "communist contry's elect a leader like mao-ze-dong"

it gets me every time.

i mean, even if we ignore the second and last ones because they're patently untrue, ridiculous, and/or typo-ridden, what the poopie does it mean to say people are "naturally corrupt"? corrupt based on what?

corruption is when something's good, and then it becomes bad.

so if we're naturally corrupt, then we're just bad. and if we're bad, bad based on what, since all our moral compasses (by the "people are corrupt petty and selfish" argument) point straight up our asses?

saying "human nature is ____" is like saying "everybody sees the color blue as red, and red as blue" even if it's true it means nothing, becuase it has to do with a supposed innate flaw in EVERYBODY'S relation to the world.

and to my esteemed friend immediately overhead, i'd say that actually the stalinists, trotskyists, leninists, and maoist-leninists have done such a wonderful job of sectarian backstabbing in the last century that they're really not much of a danger to anyone.

which is a comforting thought every time International ANSWER Coalition and the Worker's World Party co-opt another cause as though they were the first people in history to, say, oppose the war.

and by "oppose the war" i mean (in the isolated case of ANSWER) "support saddam hussein"

who, returning to the point of this thread, was another borderline psycho authoritarian socialist who killed some people and put his face everywhere.

Mao Ze Dong is one of the greatest men in the history of the world, so does Vladimir Lenin, but not Josef Stalin.

Vladimir Lenin had more contribution to communism than Mao Ze Dong, as I see. The first man to recognize communism is Lenin, not Mao. And that's enough to prove that Mao was only following HIS steps.

Meanwhile Mao was only a peasant who doesn't like the Chinese capitalists under Chiang Kai Sek. He then marched his army northward to exile Chiang to Taiwan. So then he appointed himself as a "communist".

Josef Stalin? Hmm, barbaric. He killed thousands of Russian people. He didn't deserved to be called as a communist. Insted, he's a butcher.

BTW, I'm proud to be a communist too. :rolleyes:

My canadian opinion on econmical models, and real applications:

True Capitalism - People getting what they deserve, whether they are poor or rich. I hvae been raised to beleive in such ideals, so i am biased.

Our(The world's) Capitalism - A middle-class grab-fest that favours the rich(middle class and above), and the children of the rich(middle class and above) . Your life is most likely determined by these 2 factors.
-Your parent's wealth
-Your natural intelligence
I find it usually has nothing to do with how hard you try.
(Fortunatly enough, i am relatively smart, and my parents are rich)

True Communism - A good and smart concept. The nature that humans have to earn more, or to move ahead, or to have change, is not nature, it is a learned behaviour. As such, i beleive that humans can live based on what they find happy, and not demand more. However, i only find one fundamental flaw with the communism model. why should the man who does a really good job get the same rewards as the guy who does a bad job? Sure this is in fact the key concept to communism, but Human nature will dictate lazinees and there will be bad apples. If there was a system that did'nt conflict with the ideals of communism that sorted these bad seeds out, then i would be a full-fledged communist. If the world was communist. But i'm a conformist, so have fun.

Practiced Communism - Usually a miserable failure, due to misguided people, and corrupt leaders, who don't follow the ideals they profess.

Now then. I know my views may seem weird, but i think that they are accurate(otherwise, they would'nt be my opinions). I do prefer a slightly left-leaning mixed economy, but if we could stick to a true model, of one or the other, then that would be great.

Sincerely,
Connor
Check out www.politicalcompass.org , and take the test!!!

...A democratic government will be necessary. The people will always know their own needs. And in a democracy, the government is nothing without the people. I mean, the government IS the people!

But yeah, I hope this looks like the place everyone would want to live in. What this is is Democratic, Communistic (internally), and Mercantilist (externally). When it has been tried (in Congo for example) it has been so effective, that the U.S. government had to come in and stop it, for fear that people might start believing what the "godless communists" were talking about.
Interesting...

why should the man who does a really good job get the same rewards as the guy who does a bad job? Sure this is in fact the key concept to communism, but Human nature will dictate lazinees and there will be bad apples.


and again with the human nature. human nature arguments are like "cuz god says so" arguments. they don't mean anything. also, the above is only a flaw when work is something bad that you need to be compensated for. that's only true so long as someone else (either by direct command, or by an economy where you'll starve to death unless you pick a certain job) dictates what your work should be. and i'm not talking about being brainwashed into loving toiling in salt mines. just work done in a context where it doesn't suck. those contexts exist, and i know from working in them. they're definitely not flourescent-lit cubicles, and they're definitely not maoist labor camps. they're places where it's fun to do work with your friends. whether that's cooking, teaching first aid, washing, etc.

and before someone asks me who takes out the garbage, lemme point out that a lot of people already take their trash to the dump on their own.

No true communist would support dictatorship. No government can be for the the people unless it is BY the people.

The U.S. is afraid of alot of things. Entirely different debate.

However, I agree, in theory Communism is probably the greatest goal on the planet that we could strive for. Complete equality (morally speaking), cohesiveness, and harmony with one another. Unfortunately humans are too greedy in our current standings. Change takes time, but one day we'll reach the Star Trek fantasy and make it a reality! It'd be nice to think it, anyways.

Just an opinion from a Canadian.

P.S. Mao's name is spelled many different ways. There is no correct spelling of it in English. As well, he was powerhungry just like Stalin. Might add more to this later, maybe not.





Love living in a Democracy, love the ideology of Communism.

and again with the human nature. human nature arguments are like "cuz god says so" arguments. they don't mean anything. also, the above is only a flaw when work is something bad that you need to be compensated for. that's only true so long as someone else (either by direct command, or by an economy where you'll starve to death unless you pick a certain job) dictates what your work should be. and i'm not talking about being brainwashed into loving toiling in salt mines. just work done in a context where it doesn't suck. those contexts exist, and i know from working in them. they're definitely not flourescent-lit cubicles, and they're definitely not maoist labor camps. they're places where it's fun to do work with your friends. whether that's cooking, teaching first aid, washing, etc.
I hate to degenerate this down to a nature vs. nurture argument, but here goes.

This is my opinion, and though you may be right, i may be as well. I don't know, and i'm pretty sure u don't know that there would'nt be greedy humans, or anything like that, if they had no outside influence.
That's how i think it is man. I think it's more nurture than nature, but i think that nature has a good deal to do with how someone turns out.
Sincerely,
Connor
P.S.
I know that most people who have good jobs are satisfied, but are you absolutley postive that there would be noone who would'nt be satisfied, because they wanted something more, or something better, or something that gives him/her more power??
I know i'm not sure.

ahahaha, communism is indeed a nice idea but it'll never happen successfully. if you were the leader of a communist nation, u really think ur not gonna abuse all that power and not get better stuff or watever than everyone else? human nature is greedy, thats it. oh yeah, and mao was a power hungry retard who killed millions of people because they were educated (apparantly he wanted everyone to be a farmer or something) plus he failed.

(excuse the spelling/grammar/shortenings, too lazy to write correctly)

ahahaha, communism is indeed a nice idea but it'll never happen successfully. if you were the leader of a communist nation, u really think ur not gonna abuse all that power and not get better stuff or watever than everyone else? human nature is greedy, thats it. oh yeah, and mao was a power hungry retard who killed millions of people because they were educated (apparantly he wanted everyone to be a farmer or something) plus he failed.

(excuse the spelling/grammar/shortenings, too lazy to write correctly)Indeed humans are greedy. This is why genghis khan invaded all of Asia, Hitler killed all the jews and stalin reinvented slavery. And now this is why some greedy bourgeois are fighting with all they have to keep and extend their privileges.

Greed is a dangerous illness in the human brain, just like all the other mental illnesses. Perhaps it is greed which will destroy the human race.

I believe in the human race however. Look at all we have achieved. Look at the first humans who where so barbaric they were killing each other. Look as the human race today. We are almost half civilized and organised. Sometimes we settle disputes peacefully and we even almost take care of each other. There is still a long long way to go, but I refuse to give up. Perhaps the humans are too stupid to survive and perhaps we wil destroy each other anyway but what are we doing in this world other than trying to survive? Maybe it is futile but it is worth trying

I for one am a deep admirer of the GREAT AND ALL POWERFUL mao-ze-dong. For those of you who don't know who he is, he started the cultural revolution in china. By the way as my title said i am a proud communist!
I am as opposed to Maoism as I am opposed to any totalitarian system, be it Italian or German fascism (granted Nazism was an especially egregious variety), American capitalism, European colonialism, Islamic theocracy, or Soviet Communism.

Having said that, I am in fact an anarcho-communist.

Indeed humans are greedy. This is why genghis khan invaded all of Asia, Hitler killed all the jews and stalin reinvented slavery. And now this is why some greedy bourgeois are fighting with all they have to keep and extend their privileges.

Greed is a dangerous illness in the human brain, just like all the other mental illnesses. Perhaps it is greed which will destroy the human race.

I believe in the human race however. Look at all we have achieved. Look at the first humans who where so barbaric they were killing each other. Look as the human race today. We are almost half civilized and organised. Sometimes we settle disputes peacefully and we even almost take care of each other. There is still a long long way to go, but I refuse to give up. Perhaps the humans are too stupid to survive and perhaps we wil destroy each other anyway but what are we doing in this world other than trying to survive? Maybe it is futile but it is worth trying

Agreed. If we keep telling ourselves "there's no hope; therefore what we have is the best", then we'll never make any progress. Who would have thought that it would become, by the 20th century, commonplace in the Western world to believe that the government has no right to trample on our freedom of speech? Now, they prevent us from exercising it to any extent, and that's what we need to work on next. We can't call ourselves a democracy until we have a thriving level of exchange of ideas. Or we can, but then we get into semantic debates and what ends up coming out is that democracy is no different from dictatorship.

I for one am a deep admirer of the GREAT AND ALL POWERFUL mao-ze-dong. For those of you who don't know who he is, he started the cultural revolution in china. By the way as my title said i am a proud communist!

I have no problem with communism - but MAO ZEDONG?!?!? C'MON HE MURDERED A QUARTER OF A BILLION PEOPLE!!!

No, I am a deep admirer of the GREAT AND ALL POWERFUL Dirty Dicks Crab shack there in outerbanks NC though!

Hells yeah! I've been there! Have you ever been to Wrightsville Beach?

Having said that, I am in fact an anarcho-communist.

Interesting. Although this is theoretically possible. Communism in its purest form is a system without a true government (yes, i've done research), since all people own all things together and live in peace, therefore they need no help from the government. However, as many have said before me, communism IS impossible with the human race, because somewhere along the line someone will be smart enough to take advatage of the system. The only way to keep this from happening would be to institute some form of brain-stapling, and wouldn't that bring government into play? I doubt the person brainwashing everyone would brainwash himself, therefore he would have an advantage over all others, therefore being a "leader" of sorts. And still, brainwashing is wrong. As some famous Latin dude once said, "Quis custodiet ipos custodes?" (Who will guard the guards?) In conclusion, anarcho-communism CANNOT work.

Interesting. Although this is theoretically possible. Communism in its purest form is a system without a true government (yes, i've done research), since all people own all things together and live in peace, therefore they need no help from the government. However, as many have said before me, communism IS impossible with the human race, because somewhere along the line someone will be smart enough to take advatage of the system. The only way to keep this from happening would be to institute some form of brain-stapling, and wouldn't that bring government into play? I doubt the person brainwashing everyone would brainwash himself, therefore he would have an advantage over all others, therefore being a "leader" of sorts. And still, brainwashing is wrong. As some famous Latin dude once said, "Quis custodiet ipos custodes?" (Who will guard the guards?) In conclusion, anarcho-communism CANNOT work.This is not a reason not to try to achieve it though. It is true that communism can fall and bring back capitalism, but it doesn't mean capitalism is better than communism.

Wow, someone who is impressed by a tyrant, murderous son of a bitch like Mao. He killed a ton of people on his way to power and then oppressed those left alive. Ya, he sure was an asshole. Used military force and killed alot people that could have help fight the Japs when they invaded China in WW2. Most of these so called "Communists" are actually power hungry, war lords who simply want to get the poor on their side to fight the government. They lie to them and make all these promises that can never be kept and then these people are left in the dark once the Communists take power. Then they helped North Korea against the UN in the Korea War, which was an illegal invasion of South Korea and the UN was simply sticking up for the South. I feel bad for the people that had to live under Mao.

I'm a communist, but there are at the moment no real leaders to be admired as real communism hasn't taken place yet. Anyway, you shouldn't ever have a leader but a council etc.
Hopefully communism could take place one day, or a near communist society.
Sadly a lot of "communist" countries use propaganda so much that people come to think that an evil despot was actually a wonderful person

Why Lenin??? why mao?? why god, why?? what is wrong with these people??? Trosky is there! Marx is there! they werent insane!

I am a follower of Lenin (His real name was 'Vladimir Illitch Ulianov'), if you actaully take the time to learn something about the man then you will see that he was infact very friendly, was not rascist, sexist and such, that he loved animals and nature and did truly beileve in the right of the workers and did truly want the best for Russia. Now was Lenin perfect, no! But he wasn't insane or as bad as many westerners seem to think he was. Also Leon Trotsky was one of Lenin's friends and one of his biggest supporters.

If you want to get a better idea of the Russian Revolution and Lenin then read '10 Days That Shook The World' by John Reed (John Reed was an American that was there when the Revolution happened).

I do agree that following Mao is not a good thing though.

The system which probably would bear the closest resemblance to anything Marxist/Communist would be traditional Aboriginal/First Nations governments, pre-imperial European contact. Many of their social/economic/political superstructures were absolutely amazing.

Instead of the liberal idea of individualistic self-interest, there were group rights, and real collective organization. Greed was minimal and collective responsibility was paramount.
Humans are not naturally greedy, like I have already mentioned in this thread, it is the economic superstructure of capitalism that allows us to function in direct self-interested competition. The economics of many traditional Aboriginal societies in pre-colonized North America (or Turtle Island) were based on responsibility of one another and the land.
Its contradicts the current system. It contradicts, directly, the arguments that humans are naturally greed and self-interested.

I am a follower of Lenin . . . Now was Lenin perfect, no! But he wasn't insane or as bad as many westerners seem to think he was.

Ya know, the Soviet experiment might have been at least a bit more successful if Lenin hadn't died so soon. It was Stalin taking over the helm that really caused the problems. Lenin was an academic and an intellectual, Stalin was a fool, and a despot. But, yeah. Lenin had much more appeal and substance.

However, as many have said before me, communism IS impossible with the human race, because somewhere along the line someone will be smart enough to take advatage of the system. The only way to keep this from happening would be to institute some form of brain-stapling, and wouldn't that bring government into play? .

I disagree. I think in the event that some Marxist/Communist or collective state of affiars were to take place, and it were to become successful...that is, the majority of people (internationally, as Marx says) enjoy the benifits of it, no brainwashing would be needed. If the majority enjoyed and supported the system, then those who decide to try and take advantage would be rebuked by the majority who act together to keep the system together, the system they support.

The problem is though, that There is no example of a true economicly successful Communist country. In every communist nation i've ever seen presented a majority of the population lives a faily low-standard-of-living lifestyle, while they are held down by a WAY to rich upper class that runs the government and more often than not dictates to the lower class... telling them how to live their lives.

I agree that in theory communism would be successful... But it just won't work in practice. There will always be classes no matter what people say, If I ever see a truely communist nation that can match the United states with-out over extending its resources to the point it collapses onto itself (AkA The USSR/CCCP), then perhaps i will be a little more open minded to the idea.

I mean, as a true-blue advocate of capitalism perhaps i'm just being closed minded, but i just don;t think communism will ever work... and if Capitalism ever fails and is "on the way out" as you say I'll be perfecly willing to admit that you were right and i was wrong. But as the evidence stands right now... Capitalism is the way to go.

The problem is though, that There is no example of a true economicly successful Communist country. In every communist nation i've ever seen presented a majority of the population lives a faily low-standard-of-living lifestyle, while they are held down by a WAY to rich upper class that runs the government and more often than not dictates to the lower class... telling them how to live their lives.

I agree that in theory communism would be successful... But it just won't work in practice. There will always be classes no matter what people say, If I ever see a truely communist nation that can match the United states with-out over extending its resources to the point it collapses onto itself (AkA The USSR/CCCP), then perhaps i will be a little more open minded to the idea.

I mean, as a true-blue advocate of capitalism perhaps i'm just being closed minded, but i just don;t think communism will ever work... and if Capitalism ever fails and is "on the way out" as you say I'll be perfecly willing to admit that you were right and i was wrong. But as the evidence stands right now... Capitalism is the way to go.Actually Capitalism already failed in the 19th century. Many social laws have been introduced since then and many others are to come (mainly in Europe but also in the US).
I am sure you wouldn't want to live in the 19th century. I've read a book about it and the workers were monitored up to the time they were allowed to spend on the toilets. They could forget about holidays or sundays. They were spending just as many time outside of sleeping working and all they got in return was just enough to feed themselve.
I wouldn't want to go back to this state of affairs. Even if you are conservative I think you would want to keep our social progress.

Da Comrades Of The Red Flag

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
Ronald Reagan (1911 - 2004)

I have always said and still maintain, that certain people should'nt do drugs! :headbang:

Amen to that The Phoenix Rising!

This is not a reason not to try to achieve it though. It is true that communism can fall and bring back capitalism, but it doesn't mean capitalism is better than communism.

Never said it was. I support capitalism, but I was just saying your view on anarcho-communism was interesting

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
Ronald Reagan (1911 - 2004)
I think that's wrong...... but DAMN is it clever. I would have voted for that man, simply on the basis of that wit. Damn!

I think that's wrong...... but DAMN is it clever. I would have voted for that man, simply on the basis of that wit. Damn!

Check this one out:

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
- Winston Churchill

Accurate or not (and I lean toward saying it's accurate), it sums up the feelings of anti-communists on communism better than any other quote I've ever seen.

First of all, I am a Democratic Socialist, just so you can see where I'm coming from.

Markreich, first of all, there has never been a "pure" communist country, as they all end in despotic dictatorships due to bad elections and propoganda, as well as misuse of Marx's great ideas.

Secondly, Mao was NOT a Communist, more a Crazed Nationalist Own-Everything Dictator.

Third of all, the one to honour the most would probably just be Marx and Engels, whose image is the cleanest yet. Although Marx had some disturbing elements to him.


OOC: I like Trotsky myself, very interesting.

Thank you for making my point. There hasnt been a "pure" communist state. BECAUSE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. Just as the US is a great Republic, it is not a "true" Democracy (ala the Athenian model).

1. When say "pure communist state", how do you balance it against human cults of personality, desires and wants?
The only really true Communist state was the Spartans -- and they didn't have a monetary system to start with! The issue with Communism is that you can't have an equal society as long as some have more than others, which is the way it will ALWAYS be when there is money in the equation.
(BTW: No, the American Indians, the African Tribes and even the Aboriginies don't count. They all had trade and wealth of some kind. Sure, they didn't "own" the land, but they also didn't unify into a mass ideological paradigm, either. One can make the case that they had Communism at some time in the existance, fine. But you're talking about small, primitive collectives which come WAAAAY before the Industrial Age. You can't be liberated if you haven't been oppressed, after all.)

Here are a couple of "real life issues". Note that these aren't the only ones I can think of, just a few biggies:

A) From the Manifesto, Chapter II: (page 24 in my edition)
"In Communist soceity, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer".
** Which doesn't work. Go watch (if you haven't) the Polish film "Man of Marble", which tells the story of a 50's Communist Hero -- the man whom can lay the most bricks in a day. The end result is that there is NO REASON for him (or anyone) to do it except for glory/propoganda, which you yourself state is a corruption of Communism in the first place. As long as people want better for themselves and their children, "pure communism" can't work.
B) From the Manifesto, Chapter II: (page 28 in my edition)
"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The workingmen have no country. We cannot take from them what they haven't got."
** Here Marx and Engles are behind their own times. The rise of the nation-state was already fully entrenched in 1848, and has only gotten stronger over the past century and a half. We've seen Soviet, Chinese, and Cuban strains of Communism were were quite different from one another, but all revolved around nationalism. (The Cuban missions into African and South America, for example, were basically at odds with the Soviet Union, though the two were allies, and the North Koreans started the war more or less against Stalin's wishes but with Chinese assistance.
C) From the Manifesto, Chapter III: (page 40 in my edition)
"Since the development of class antagonism keeps even pace with the development of industry, the economic situation, as such Socialists find it, does not as yet offer to them the material conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat."
** Hogwash. If this were true, then the revolutions of the past (USSR, especially) would never have happened, and the US (heck, the UK, France, and the rest of the G7) would have turned Communist after WW1. At the very least, the revolution SHOULD have come during the Great Depression!

2. Mao was most *certainly* a Communist, unless you don't count half the Soviet Premiers and most other Communist heads of state as being Communist, either.
How do you feel about Breznev (USSR), Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam), Dubcek (CSSR), or Jagielski (Poland)? Were they more or less "Communistic" than Pol Pot (Cambodia), Che Guevera (Cuba), Chauchescu (Romania), or Kim Jong Il (North Korea)?
** Consider that the actions of people are tied to their situation, time and nation's condition. Were any of these good or bad Communists, and why? It is easy to say one was for or against their system, but it is not so easy to say that they fit into a Stage of Communism. Was Dubcek rebelling against Communism, or transcending to a higher order? What if you place any of the others into the same question?
** Jagielski met with the Pope. Would Guevera in the same situation? Or Il? (IMHO, probably. Castro did, as have others.) The issues here enlargen to Communism interacting with non-Communist personalities and powers. As Comintern proved, Communist states are CANNOT opt out of a world economy.

3. That's a matter of opinion, but I certainly agree with you on this point. :-)

OOC: Which is why he got the ice pick.

yet oddly enough, 76% of people in the former east germany just recently said that communism is a good thing that had just been poorly implemented.

You'd say that too, if you no longer had a state pension and unemployment was around 20% (http://www.haver.com/COMMENT/030205x.htm).

You idiot! Hitler was a fascist not a communist. Before you post on my threads HOW ABOUT YOU LEARN SOME VOCABULARY!

Now, in theory, the two people were polar opposites on the political spectrum, but in practice, they were both harsh, absolute dictators who like killing a lot of people.

They are two of the three most evil people ever.

It is foolish to be proud of being a communist, for was it not Marxist literature that taught us that it is foolish to be proud of your country? You country hasn't existed forever, so therefore it is foolish to be patriotic. Communism hasn't existed forever, therefore such you are the hypocrite.

Now, in theory, the two people were polar opposites on the political spectrum, but in practice, they were both harsh, absolute dictators who like killing a lot of people.

They are two of the three most evil people ever.

Actually, politically they were very similar, as you mentioned their absolute totalitarianism - it is economically where they differ. Apart from Hitler's racialness that is, which doesn't really fit into politics as such but more of an offspring of such a political persuasion with such an evil man.

I'd just like to point out that a Dictatorhsip of the Proletariat is in itself a democracy. It's where the Proletariat rule in a democratic government, it's merely the "Dictatorship" because the Proletarians rule.

And a true Communist or Socialist knows that Mao was about at the same level of Communism as Hitler.

As for Cuba, I beleive, while it is opressive, it'd be better of if the US would trade with them.

For referance, I'm a bit of a Trotskyist and a Democratic Socialist.

Now, in theory, the two people were polar opposites on the political spectrum, but in practice, they were both harsh, absolute dictators who like killing a lot of people.

They are two of the three most evil people ever.Like the communists were one person.
Comparing Hitler to communism...
Can't you people have some kind of intellectual thinking?
If you need some culture, the USSR lasted more than 70 years. There was Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Krutchev...
And for the record, Stalin is the man who ended nazism.

u can't say somethin is "bad" if u don't understand it
i'm not a "fan" of stalin cause what he has done 2 the ppl wasn't what jhe wrote
....but the 1st things he wrote were brilliant

mao: yeah...he wasn't able 2 wait(just like stalin) and wanted all on 1 day....but his ideology was really great(the 3 steps of revolution,....)

Ronald Reagan,...well....he was an idiot....(...) who understand marx is an anti-communist....i don't think he wrote the book...and if, he wouldn't understand it...there only a hand full off ppl who understand it fully...

trotzki....... :sniper: idiot....well....his only ideology was 2 kill ppl :) that was what he wrote, what he said and what he thought...well...at least he said what he thought...


true communism can't fall back 2 capitalism, only socialism will fall back,...


sry 4 my bad english, i'm from austria(not australia) and wasn't in school really good in english :)

Thank you for making my point. There hasnt been a "pure" communist state. BECAUSE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. Just as the US is a great Republic, it is not a "true" Democracy (ala the Athenian model).

1. When say "pure communist state", how do you balance it against human cults of personality, desires and wants?
The only really true Communist state was the Spartans -- and they didn't have a monetary system to start with! The issue with Communism is that you can't have an equal society as long as some have more than others, which is the way it will ALWAYS be when there is money in the equation.
(BTW: No, the American Indians, the African Tribes and even the Aboriginies don't count. They all had trade and wealth of some kind. Sure, they didn't "own" the land, but they also didn't unify into a mass ideological paradigm, either. One can make the case that they had Communism at some time in the existance, fine. But you're talking about small, primitive collectives which come WAAAAY before the Industrial Age. You can't be liberated if you haven't been oppressed, after all.)You contradict yourself. Either the spartans were not communist or communist is not possible.

A) From the Manifesto, Chapter II: (page 24 in my edition)
"In Communist soceity, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer".
** Which doesn't work. Go watch (if you haven't) the Polish film "Man of Marble", which tells the story of a 50's Communist Hero -- the man whom can lay the most bricks in a day. The end result is that there is NO REASON for him (or anyone) to do it except for glory/propoganda, which you yourself state is a corruption of Communism in the first place. As long as people want better for themselves and their children, "pure communism" can't work.
I have an idea : why don't you give that man the biggest house? Isn't that an incentive?

B) From the Manifesto, Chapter II: (page 28 in my edition)
"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The workingmen have no country. We cannot take from them what they haven't got."
** Here Marx and Engles are behind their own times. The rise of the nation-state was already fully entrenched in 1848, and has only gotten stronger over the past century and a half. We've seen Soviet, Chinese, and Cuban strains of Communism were were quite different from one another, but all revolved around nationalism. (The Cuban missions into African and South America, for example, were basically at odds with the Soviet Union, though the two were allies, and the North Koreans started the war more or less against Stalin's wishes but with Chinese assistance.Then please explain why my boss want me to go work in India.

C) From the Manifesto, Chapter III: (page 40 in my edition)
"Since the development of class antagonism keeps even pace with the development of industry, the economic situation, as such Socialists find it, does not as yet offer to them the material conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat."
** Hogwash. If this were true, then the revolutions of the past (USSR, especially) would never have happened, and the US (heck, the UK, France, and the rest of the G7) would have turned Communist after WW1. At the very least, the revolution SHOULD have come during the Great Depression!And what was WW2? Wasn't that one hell of a revolution?
I think you didn't understand. Having the means of the emancipation doesn't mean it will happen. There is idiocy, under-education and everything.
I think Marx and Engels meant that a revolution would happen and that they wished it was a communist one and tryed to educate the masses about it.

Here's just a thought. Based on Karl Marx's "Das Kapital", his position is that the means of production ought to be in the hands of the working class, rather than the capitalists. This would allow for the workers to divide things amongst themselves according to need, rather than the surplus value of the commodities they produce profitting the capitalists. Now, if this is really the better way of doing things does it even require a reformation of government? I'm not referring to every possible aspect of Communism, but merely this one, rather pivotal, point. What is there, even in a free enterprise economy, preventing this control over production by the proletariat, at least on a smaller scale? Corporations exist that are owned by shareholders, so why can't a corporation come into existence where the shareholders just happen to be the workers, to the exclusion of anyone else? That way, they ARE in control of the means of production, and they can operate in that wonderful, communist way. So, maybe we can't all agree with whether capitalism or communism is the better choice, but are they really mutually exclusive? You can't force people to co-operate, because that would just be silly, but if those who think so are correct in believing that communism would be the best system, economically, then this method of running a business should be relatively successful. After all, each worker has a stake in how the company does, as opposed to the worker in the capitalist model who is payed a wage, regardless of how much he produces, and how much the company produces. Communism, competing with capitalism. The pragmatist in me believes that the capitalists will do better, but you never know.
Damn, that was long. I'll throw in a quotation that has nothing to do with the topic for good measure.
"A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind, and won't change the topic."
-Winston Churchill

You contradict yourself. Either the spartans were not communist or communist is not possible.

I have an idea : why don't you give that man the biggest house? Isn't that an incentive?
Then please explain why my boss want me to go work in India.
And what was WW2? Wasn't that one hell of a revolution?
I think you didn't understand. Having the means of the emancipation doesn't mean it will happen. There is idiocy, under-education and everything.
I think Marx and Engels meant that a revolution would happen and that they wished it was a communist one and tryed to educate the masses about it.

How is the Spartan example a contradiction? My point was you can't have Communism and still have a viable, monied economy. The Spartans shared everything equally and had a rigid, militaristic soceity with no personal wealth.
Basically, Communism (*today*) is impossible, especially in the manner in which M&E stated. In small, pre-industrial tribes, maybe. But even the other examples I listed have/had personal wealth. The Spartans did not and could therefore be considered Communist (in the "purist" sense of the word).

Because the biggest house is still not economic equality. Communism is for the abolition of property. QED.

I have no insights as to your boss, and I really don't see what that has to do with what I posted. Please be more verbose as I don't know you, your situation, nor what you are referring to.

WW2 was *not* a revolution, it was a fight for the ideological dominance of the planet -- and the Republic/Democracy won over Fascism (and a couple of generations later) Communism. A revolution is a fight over a specific power or ideal. WW2 was the wholesale battle between 3 powerful ones.

There will always been idiocy, undereducation, poverty and the like. Maybe Marx & Engles did want to rid the world of these things. However, they fully expected it to happen by enlightenment and for it to start in industrialized nations first, ESP. Germany. Obviously, this did not happen. My postulate is that it will never happen and that you'll never see a "Star Trek" like world where everyone shares freely and there is no stock exchange, nations or personal wealth.

How is the Spartan example a contradiction? My point was you can't have Communism and still have a viable, monied economy. The Spartans shared everything equally and had a rigid, militaristic soceity with no personal wealth.
Basically, Communism (*today*) is impossible, especially in the manner in which M&E stated. In small, pre-industrial tribes, maybe. But even the other examples I listed have/had personal wealth. The Spartans did not and could therefore be considered Communist (in the "purist" sense of the word).But I don't think anyone is utopian enough to think it is possible NOW. There has to be a transition. I don't think there is any communist utopian enough to think we can install communism instantly.

Because the biggest house is still not economic equality. Communism is for the abolition of property. QED.Read the manifesto. It is about abolishing the bourgeois property. It has nothing to do with personnal stuff like your tooth brush, your car or your house.

I have no insights as to your boss, and I really don't see what that has to do with what I posted. Please be more verbose as I don't know you, your situation, nor what you are referring to.I was saying that the proletaires don't have a nation.

WW2 was *not* a revolution, it was a fight for the ideological dominance of the planet -- and the Republic/Democracy won over Fascism (and a couple of generations later) Communism. A revolution is a fight over a specific power or ideal. WW2 was the wholesale battle between 3 powerful ones.
No a revolution is a big change. It doesn't necessarily involve a fight or even violence.

There will always been idiocy, undereducation, poverty and the like. Maybe Marx & Engles did want to rid the world of these things. However, they fully expected it to happen by enlightenment and for it to start in industrialized nations first, ESP. Germany. Obviously, this did not happen. My postulate is that it will never happen and that you'll never see a "Star Trek" like world where everyone shares freely and there is no stock exchange, nations or personal wealth.
I wil never see it, indeed. I can't say the children of my children will not however. And you cannot either.

what a thought provoking post, pity i dont hav time to read it. I love the communist ideology. Castro has pulled it off in Cuba, the only country to be truly communist. The only reason why they screwed over is coz they hav no natural resources and USA has embargos against em. I do, however, believe Stalin to be one of the greatest rulers of all time. So you could say Im more of a Stalinist.

But I don't think anyone is utopian enough to think it is possible NOW. There has to be a transition. I don't think there is any communist utopian enough to think we can install communism instantly.
Read the manifesto. It is about abolishing the bourgeois property. It has nothing to do with personnal stuff like your tooth brush, your car or your house.
I was saying that the proletaires don't have a nation.
No a revolution is a big change. It doesn't necessarily involve a fight or even violence.

I wil never see it, indeed. I can't say the children of my children will not however. And you cannot either.

Ok, so I think we more or less agree on that. I disagree on the transition though -- I don't think it can happen, given the dynamicism in the world. The only "back door" which might lead to a scenario like that would be the gradual absorbtion of the world into a One World Government. (This would NOT be the UN.) Then, it *may* be possible to gradually shift (over, say six or seven generations) from a capitalist to a communist economic theory, assuming overproduction remains constant. Even now, the world could feed and clothe itself with ease, if someone would pay for the goods. But I still put the odds of this happening at more than 1000:1.

I *have* read the Manifesto. At leat a half dozen times. And I'll site Chapter II (page 23 in my edition) here: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." (It goes on for a bit afterwards about the destruction of artisan/peasant property by industry, and the need to destroy bourgeous property.)
The house example fails in my opinion, as the house is obviously private property. (Thus why the Zhivago house is partitioned in the book/movie.)

And I'm stating that proletarians have a piece of every nation, as people in today's age are first bound to their ethnicity/nation, then to their philosophy. You can change your way of thinking, but you cannot change your origins. This is why the English speaking nations are similar, the Spanish speaking nations are similar, the French speakers, the Arabic speakers, etc. Nationalism, at least for the foreseeable future, trumps everything.

I agree with your definition of revolution, but that doesn't make WW2 a revolution any more than it would make my throwing out all my pairs of brown shoes. All Texans are Americans, but not all Americans are Texans. WW2 was certainly a change, but I can't call it a revolution, as it was not a fight/change against the status quo.

Actually, I'm pretty certain of it, but that's just my opinion. The world at large tends to put down/end any attempts to radically change it. Napoleon, for example left a legacy, but didn't transform Europe/the world. Ditto Metternich, Bismarck, Churchill, Stalin, Thatcher, Bush or any other leader you may care to mention. Change it? Certainly. Remove a rival's influence? Certainly. But to outlaw property and move to a utopian Communist society? Not in 100 years, and probably not even then. It's just too big a shift.

PS- While I disagree with you on most of these points, I must admit that your arguements are well thought out and valid.

Here's just a thought. Based on Karl Marx's "Das Kapital", his position is that the means of production ought to be in the hands of the working class, rather than the capitalists. This would allow for the workers to divide things amongst themselves according to need, rather than the surplus value of the commodities they produce profitting the capitalists. Now, if this is really the better way of doing things does it even require a reformation of government? I'm not referring to every possible aspect of Communism, but merely this one, rather pivotal, point. What is there, even in a free enterprise economy, preventing this control over production by the proletariat, at least on a smaller scale? Corporations exist that are owned by shareholders, so why can't a corporation come into existence where the shareholders just happen to be the workers, to the exclusion of anyone else? That way, they ARE in control of the means of production, and they can operate in that wonderful, communist way. So, maybe we can't all agree with whether capitalism or communism is the better choice, but are they really mutually exclusive? You can't force people to co-operate, because that would just be silly, but if those who think so are correct in believing that communism would be the best system, economically, then this method of running a business should be relatively successful. After all, each worker has a stake in how the company does, as opposed to the worker in the capitalist model who is payed a wage, regardless of how much he produces, and how much the company produces. Communism, competing with capitalism. The pragmatist in me believes that the capitalists will do better, but you never know.
Damn, that was long. I'll throw in a quotation that has nothing to do with the topic for good measure.
"A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind, and won't change the topic."
-Winston ChurchillThe problem is that the capitalist and communist corporations would compete in a capitalist world.
-> if the communist one care about it's employees it will be less "effecive" than the one using slaves up to their death (by the capitalist standards of "effectiveness").

Ha ha. You guys are the funniest. I've never heard criticism of the free market from anyone who understands it and you guys are no exception. Either stop these rants or put on a clown mask so we know to laugh.

Ha ha. You guys are the funniest. I've never heard criticism of the free market from anyone who understands it and you guys are no exception. Either stop these rants or put on a clown mask so we know to laugh.
Rants? Where? Are you ranting?