NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that there are so many myths about communism that it's not even funny. Most people don't even seem to know what it is. Thus, it's time I refute some myths and do some explaining. Maybe that will help turn the tide in favor of anarcho-communism.

Communism--Stateless, classless, moneyless society
Commune--Group of people living in a communist society
Syndicate--Group of workers operating a factory, farm, etc.

~~~FAQ~~~

Q: Isn't communism a dictatorship?

A: No, genuine communism has social classes and that includes no government officials. Even Marx wanted the state to whither away eventually and become a true communist society.

Q: Isn't communism inherently anti-religious?

A: No, the Bible has a number of strongly communistic messages in it. In fact, capitalism is more anti-religious, since it emphasizes profit and wealth so much and is based on greed.

Q: What is communism, then?

A: Communism is characterized by two things, gift exchange and communal ownership and management of the means of production. Gift exchange means that people and worker syndicates agree to share the products of their labor and in return receive products they need. It differs from trading in that it emphasizes reputation rather than abstract exchange values.

Q: How does communal ownership and management work?

A: It works through direct democracy. The means of production are owned by the community as a whole and meetings are held in the community to discuss how they are used to make sure that two people or syndicates don't get into an argument about who gets to use them at a certain time. They also prevent the "tragety of the commons".

Q: What motivation is there to work in communism?

A: Work would no longer be the dehumanizing task it is today, where many people spend 8 hours attaching bolts to a car or some other boring job. Instead, people might work for a few hours on one job and a few hours on another job. In addition, part of the agreement of being a member of a commune is making a contribution. There is no requirement to support slackers.

Q: What ensures that worker syndicates produce enough?

A: Their reputations. If a syndicate produces too little or produces poor products, they will be viewed as unreliable. Other syndicates will decide not to share their products with them and give them instead to syndicates that will produce what is needed. In addition, they will not be well liked by the commune itself.

Q: What ensures that the jobs that need to be done get done?

A: If there is more than enough of a product, then the communal agreements would require less from the syndicates making it. The syndicate workers would likely spend less time producing it since it was not needed as much. If more of a product is needed, a syndicate would likely encourage people, such as those doing jobs that don't have high product demand, to help them, balancing things out.

Q: What about jobs that no one wants to do?

A: Those can be redistributed so that all members of a commune take a turn doing them. It would certainly provide a strong incentive not to waste things, so that garbage is reduced.

Q: Is it really fair for the doctor to be paid no more than the garbageperson?

A: Most children want to be doctors, firefighters, etc. when they grow up. I've never in my life heard someone want to say they wanted to be a janitor because they wouldn't have to do much work. Teachers don't get paid much yet no one worries about capitalism not providing an incentive to teach. If money was abolished, it would be possible to become a teacher or doctor without having to pay so much, balancing the loss of privilege.

people wont work...look at my roomate.....WASH THE GODDAMN DISHES!!!! YOU LAZY PIECE OF SHIT!!!

Communism is fun

It seems that there are so many myths about communism that it's not even funny. Most people don't even seem to know what it is. Thus, it's time I refute some myths and do some explaining. Maybe that will help turn the tide in favor of anarcho-communism.

Right, the myths... So what was Joseph Stalin and the 20 million dead in the USSR. Or Mao Tse Tung and the 40 plus million dead in China.



Communism--Stateless, classless, moneyless society
Commune--Group of people living in a communist society
Syndicate--Group of workers operating a factory, farm, etc.


Communism= a tyrannical system where a small party elite dominate ruthlessly and smash all opposition. The wealth is distributed to those who will go along with the system.
Commune= What essentially is a forced labor camp, just no razor wire. Try to leave your commune, see what happens.
Syndicate= A happy group of slaves working in factories. (Sarcasm)




Q: Isn't communism a dictatorship?

A: No, genuine communism has social classes and that includes no government officials. Even Marx wanted the state to whither away eventually and become a true communist society.


Well saying we've never seen genuine communism is just giving yourself a blank check to try again and again. In the process you can kill another 100+ million anti-communists.



Q: Isn't communism inherently anti-religious?

A: No, the Bible has a number of strongly communistic messages in it. In fact, capitalism is more anti-religious, since it emphasizes profit and wealth so much and is based on greed.

The bible is mostly fascist. It is anti-communist and anti-capitalist.



Q: What is communism, then?

A: Communism is characterized by two things, gift exchange and communal ownership and management of the means of production. Gift exchange means that people and worker syndicates agree to share the products of their labor and in return receive products they need. It differs from trading in that it emphasizes reputation rather than abstract exchange values.

Communism is a sick system where a few groups of people dominate and rule over the others, but not for the benefit of the state, for their own benefit.



Q: How does communal ownership and management work?
]

It doesn't. Well it works for Comrade Stalin and his cronies, but nobody else.


A: It works through direct democracy. The means of production are owned by the community as a whole and meetings are held in the community to discuss how they are used to make sure that two people or syndicates don't get into an argument about who gets to use them at a certain time. They also prevent the "tragety of the commons".

Yes voice your opinion,
(Peasant) "Comrade Mao, perhaps we should make tractors rather than tanks..." (Pause) Soldier cocks gun... "BANG!"



Q: What motivation is there to work in communism?

Because we're all just so happy to work for gains that go to others! We're just that nice!




A: Work would no longer be the dehumanizing task it is today, where many people spend 8 hours attaching bolts to a car or some other boring job. Instead, people might work for a few hours on one job and a few hours on another job. In addition, part of the agreement of being a member of a commune is making a contribution. There is no requirement to support slackers.


Lovely, let's all work and be brothers! Love and peace, and happy utopia land! We can all be mr happy man living on lollipop lane!



Q: What ensures that worker syndicates produce enough?

Borrow one from Stalin, work hard, or get sent to a Siberian gulag!



A: Their reputations. If a syndicate produces too little or produces poor products, they will be viewed as unreliable. Other syndicates will decide not to share their products with them and give them instead to syndicates that will produce what is needed. In addition, they will not be well liked by the commune itself.

Competition eh? Reputations, then we're not all really equal. Men will be jealous of those inclined to work harder, or who find ways to produce more. Your system fails.



Q: What ensures that the jobs that need to be done get done?

See the part "Work or Siberia".



A: If there is more than enough of a product, then the communal agreements would require less from the syndicates making it. The syndicate workers would likely spend less time producing it since it was not needed as much. If more of a product is needed, a syndicate would likely encourage people, such as those doing jobs that don't have high product demand, to help them, balancing things out.

The syndicate workers will work, or Siberia is where they wind up.



Q: What about jobs that no one wants to do?

People will magically decide to do them when they are told the alternative is Siberia.


A: Those can be redistributed so that all members of a commune take a turn doing them. It would certainly provide a strong incentive not to waste things, so that garbage is reduced.

Wow, so much for personal choice and individual freedom. It's time we draw jobs from the hat, never worry that you were a doctor and now are dumping garbage... And the communal surgeon used to be a janitor! We're all equal!


Q: Is it really fair for the doctor to be paid no more than the garbageperson?

Let's see how many doctors we have then.


A: Most children want to be doctors, firefighters, etc. when they grow up. I've never in my life heard someone want to say they wanted to be a janitor because they wouldn't have to do much work. Teachers don't get paid much yet no one worries about capitalism not providing an incentive to teach. If money was abolished, it would be possible to become a teacher or doctor without having to pay so much, balancing the loss of privilege.

Right, the myths... So what was Joseph Stalin and the 20 million dead in the USSR. Or Mao Tse Tung and the 40 plus million dead in China.

They didn't impliment the goals of communism. They weren't reallly communist at all.

Communism= a tyrannical system where a small party elite dominate ruthlessly and smash all opposition. The wealth is distributed to those who will go along with the system.
Commune= What essentially is a forced labor camp, just no razor wire. Try to leave your commune, see what happens.
Syndicate= A happy group of slaves working in factories. (Sarcasm)

This from someone who advocates eugenics and racial supremacy.

Well saying we've never seen genuine communism is just giving yourself a blank check to try again and again. In the process you can kill another 100+ million anti-communists.

Not all forms of communism are Marxist.

The bible is mostly fascist. It is anti-communist and anti-capitalist.

Theocratic, really. Fascism didn't develop until the 20th century and it is actually pro-capitalist.

Communism is a sick system where a few groups of people dominate and rule over the others, but not for the benefit of the state, for their own benefit.

It doesn't. Well it works for Comrade Stalin and his cronies, but nobody else.

Oh please! You are the one advocating white supremacy, eugenics, etc. How can you even begin to complain about communism being oppressive.

Yes voice your opinion,
(Peasant) "Comrade Mao, perhaps we should make tractors rather than tanks..." (Pause) Soldier cocks gun... "BANG!"

There actually isn't a formal military in anarcho-communism.

Because we're all just so happy to work for gains that go to others! We're just that nice!

Lovely, let's all work and be brothers! Love and peace, and happy utopia land! We can all be mr happy man living on lollipop lane!

I think you missed the point.

Competition eh? Reputations, then we're not all really equal. Men will be jealous of those inclined to work harder, or who find ways to produce more. Your system fails.

I never said everyone would be viewed as identical.

Wow, so much for personal choice and individual freedom. It's time we draw jobs from the hat, never worry that you were a doctor and now are dumping garbage... And the communal surgeon used to be a janitor! We're all equal!

As opposed to capitalism where people spend their entire lives as janitors, if they're lucky and don't get laid off.

If money was abolished, it would be possible to become a teacher or doctor without having to pay so much,

Well, no s*it.

Now to seriousness, money (or some sort of currency) will likely always be here, and it is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Think of how much more difficult it would be to get things without it.

Well, no s*it.

Now to seriousness, money (or some sort of currency) will likely always be here, and it is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Think of how much more difficult it would be to get things without it.
yeah, barter wouldn't work very well, no matter what Letila claims. my ability to research neuronal metabolic processes isn't going to be in demand by any farmers, so i will starve to death if i try to rely on direct exchange or barter. of course, my research is aimed at curing several serious diseases, but the people who have those diseases don't necessarily have food products they can trade to me for my skills, since they aren't all farmers...perhaps i should only work to cure those people who ARE farmers, in order to support myself in the money-less society...

yeah, barter wouldn't work very well, no matter what Letila claims. my ability to research neuronal metabolic processes isn't going to be in demand by any farmers, so i will starve to death if i try to rely on direct exchange or barter. of course, my research is aimed at curing several serious diseases, but the people who have those diseases don't necessarily have food products they can trade to me for my skills, since they aren't all farmers...perhaps i should only work to cure those people who ARE farmers, in order to support myself in the money-less society...

Anarcho-communism is based on a gift economy, not barter, which means that you would agree to do medical research in exchange for having your needs met.

Communist Mississippi, the Bible isn't facist. Oh let me guess, you haven't even ever opened one. And yes it is more fair doctors get paid more, they spend years and money to go to medical school and have to work their ass off. A garbageman can be a lazy person who just passes Grade 12 and starts working. Communism treats everyone equal, even when people obviously aren't.

Communist Mississippi, the Bible isn't facist. Oh let me guess, you haven't even ever opened one. And yes it is more fair doctors get paid more, they spend years and money to go to medical school and have to work their ass off. A garbageman can be a lazy person who just passes Grade 12 and starts working. Communism treats everyone equal, even when people obviously aren't.

Nothing but strawman attacks and quoting the Simpsons. :headbang: If you truly cared about rewarding hard work, you'd oppose inheritance.

Marxists love redefining things. That way when their bullshit theory screws up, they can just redefine it out of existence and wash the blood off their hands.

Hmmmm most of what I know is based around Communism normally.... so....

I will assume Anarcho-Communism is Communism, except that there is no actual government, and everyone just kind of mutually agrees to work together in the community. If this is incorrect, then explain what anarcho-communism is.

I'm just posting as a place holder here on this page :P I'm going to edit with my response proving why most (if not all) of your points are invalid or are ignoring something very important.

Q: Isn't communism a dictatorship?
A: No, genuine communism has social classes and that includes no government officials. Even Marx wanted the state to whither away eventually and become a true communist society.

I really couldn't care less if it was a dictatorship or not... I personally hate democracy anyways.

Q: Isn't communism inherently anti-religious?
A: No, the Bible has a number of strongly communistic messages in it. In fact, capitalism is more anti-religious, since it emphasizes profit and wealth so much and is based on greed.

The assumption that "religion" must mean Christianity? Interesting... That aside, the bible is NEITHER. It emphasizes a RELIGION, and it has many parts in it that contradict itself, so really you could twist it to support almost any system you wanted.

Q: What is communism, then?
A: Communism is characterized by two things, gift exchange and communal ownership and management of the means of production. Gift exchange means that people and worker syndicates agree to share the products of their labor and in return receive products they need. It differs from trading in that it emphasizes reputation rather than abstract exchange values.

True communism would not have any emphasis on anything. Everyone in the society would be equal. You are misdefining your own system. There would be no emphasis on reputation or anything like that. Everyone would be equal in everyway (reputation, available resources, home, etc.) In trying to create a system where reputation is emphasized, while you are closer to communism than a society based on trade values, you are still not at true communism.

Q: How does communal ownership and management work?
A: It works through direct democracy. The means of production are owned by the community as a whole and meetings are held in the community to discuss how they are used to make sure that two people or syndicates don't get into an argument about who gets to use them at a certain time. They also prevent the "tragety of the commons".

In these meetings of the entire community, how do you propose to have a meeting where every single person in the entire community has a chance to speak their mind? This is an ineffective system. If the people choose people to represent them, what is to prevent these people from becoming corrupt? Don't give me "loyalty to the working class" crap, there will always be more than enough people who will not respect people who do less work than them and live an equal lifestyle.

Q: What motivation is there to work in communism?
A: Work would no longer be the dehumanizing task it is today, where many people spend 8 hours attaching bolts to a car or some other boring job. Instead, people might work for a few hours on one job and a few hours on another job. In addition, part of the agreement of being a member of a commune is making a contribution. There is no requirement to support slackers.

When people work for a few hours on this, a few hours on that, etc., this removes efficiency. It is more efficient to have 5 people on Job A that are highly specialized in it, then 5 people on Job B that are highly specialized in that, rather than having 10 people that are okay at doing both and just kind of switch between at whim. This system could never keep up to a right-wing economic system in terms of development and improvements. Your argument is flawed about the making a contribution. Of course they both make contributions, but the question is, what happens when 2 different people are making vastly differing amounts of contribution? The person doing more work has no incentive (other than the goodness of his heart, *laughs*, that's maybe 1 in 5 people, and that's an optimistic guess).

Q: What ensures that worker syndicates produce enough?
A: Their reputations. If a syndicate produces too little or produces poor products, they will be viewed as unreliable. Other syndicates will decide not to share their products with them and give them instead to syndicates that will produce what is needed. In addition, they will not be well liked by the commune itself.

This will begin to lead to a right wing economic society, one syndicate will rise above the rest that performs the BEST, they make the most products, the most reliable ones, the highest quality, etc. Then they will wield far more influence than anyone else, and even if there is no monetary trade values on things, when their products and services are better, they can afford to demand more from the other syndicates, thus the beginnings of capitalism.

Q: What ensures that the jobs that need to be done get done?
A: If there is more than enough of a product, then the communal agreements would require less from the syndicates making it. The syndicate workers would likely spend less time producing it since it was not needed as much. If more of a product is needed, a syndicate would likely encourage people, such as those doing jobs that don't have high product demand, to help them, balancing things out.

Yes, they would encourage those people to do so... what makes you think they will do it? Or that there will be people sufficiently skilled in it? Let's say this job that is lacking people is... managing sanitation, how many people are you going to find that will willingly and happily go off to do that job that have the proper training and education required? Now, of course, you could also threaten them, and tell them they will be shot if they don't do it... This will lead to a society where people live in constant fear and their bitterness will build up over time... and we know what happens then

Q: What about jobs that no one wants to do?
A: Those can be redistributed so that all members of a commune take a turn doing them. It would certainly provide a strong incentive not to waste things, so that garbage is reduced.

Err... yes... they can... so what? Again, you expect that people will be selfless and say hey, it's my turn to do something I absolutely hate, Okay! *happily prances off to do it*. No, people will try to make up excuses like "well he doesn't mind it as much as I do, let's send him two shifts in my place!" or other such things. This will lead very quickly to the deterioration of your system.

Q: Is it really fair for the doctor to be paid no more than the garbageperson?
A: Most children want to be doctors, firefighters, etc. when they grow up. I've never in my life heard someone want to say they wanted to be a janitor because they wouldn't have to do much work. Teachers don't get paid much yet no one worries about capitalism not providing an incentive to teach. If money was abolished, it would be possible to become a teacher or doctor without having to pay so much, balancing the loss of privilege.

Errrr you avoided your own question. You didn't answer whether it was fair, you just said some people would still do it. This is true, SOME people still would, but many many less. Now remember, jobs like being a surgeon or something require a MUCH more intelligent and capable person than becoming a janitor. Allow me to give you an example.

There are 100 people in this commune (lowered simplified numbers for the sake of simplicity).

50 people are of average capability
10 are of exceptional capability
10 are exceptionally incapable
15 are above average
15 are below average

Let us say that only the 10 people of exceptional capability are good enough to do jobs like being diplomats to other nations, being surgeons, psychologists, etc. In a capitalist society, they will have the incentive of money, prestige, and privilege to do those jobs, so we have people doing them. In your society, let's say... 6 of those 10 people like being firemen, policemen (not saying anything bad about these jobs, but let's face it, it's alot easier to find someone capable of being a good police officer than someone capable of being a neurosurgeon), so they go into those fields. We now only have 4 people in this entire commune capable of taking these jobs who actually want to. This is not enough. The society collapses after generations of not having enough doctors, not having good diplomats to other nations, not having psychologists to help the mentally ill, etc. etc.

On a final note, a society like this would be much weaker militarily than your typical right-wing state, how do you plan to avoid any conflict whatsoever with any foreign powers? To avoid this situation you would have to have the ENTIRE world living like this. Otherwise, the situation where 1 person with a gun can control 10 people with clubs arises, and those few right-wing societies will annex your precious communist societies.

Anarcho-communism is based on a gift economy, not barter, which means that you would agree to do medical research in exchange for having your needs met.

That's pretty lame. People like you are all neo-luddites.

Marxists love redefining things. That way when their bullshit theory screws up, they can just redefine it out of existence and wash the blood off their hands.

You are teh baka! Anarchism and Marxism are not the same thing. Anarcho-communism isn't at all the same thing as Marxism.

That's pretty lame. People like you are all neo-luddites.

Is that supposed to insult me? I personally don't relish living under the rule of the future Patrick Zalas, so my opposition to advanced technology is justified.

*Sits back and watches Letila prove all the bourgeois pigs wrong*

You are teh baka! Anarchism and Marxism are not the same thing. Anarcho-communism isn't at all the same thing as Marxism.

Oh, I'm sorry, but your "ideas" sound suspiciously similar to the knee-jerk anti-bourgeois paranoia that Marx ranted about over a hundred years ago.

I say reward the hardworking, and inhertiance is a tricky issue, although the parents handing it down would have been hardworking. The child was just lucky enough to be born into that family. By the way, how old are you Letila and if you answer it with a certain age range, I will ask you another question based on that.

Stalin was mad, Moa insane. People under the oppresion of communism should rise up, and defeat their dictators. JOIN THE AXIS, and rid yourselves of communist oprresion, where your loyaly shall be exchanged for many endorsements to make our regions stronger.

Oh, I'm sorry, but your "ideas" sound suspiciously similar to the knee-jerk anti-bourgeois paranoia that Marx ranted about over a hundred years ago.

Knee-jerk? No, this is based on a great deal of thought and research.

Letila, how old are you?

Letila, how old are you?

17. Is that too yound to have an opinion?

The problem here as I see it is that all of you have lived in capitalist nations (I assume) for your whole lives. While this is true of me as well, I've made it a point in my life to think as nobody else would.

Communism is not, inherently, autocratic. Communism is essentially a system where the government owns everything, and they distribute it to the people fairly equally. Most of you dismiss communism as an extreme right wing philosophy, while in fact it's about as far left as you can get. Government for the people, of the people, by the people. That's what democracy is all about, isn't it? Communist governments do, however, become dictatorships, almost invariably. This is probably where some of the nasty remours come from; "communism is evil". Not so. It is in fact the rulers of most communist nations who, according to popular definition, are evil. Stalin's massacre, Tainanmen (sp?) Square, they're all the works of single people, not the nations nor communism as a whole. Don't believe what most will tell you about communism; they've no idea what they're talking about.

Problem is, Communism has never worked in human history and never will work unless in a small group of genuinely consenting people (which still probably would not work for long). It is against what has developed as human instincts, competition and the desire for power for example. These will not change in a free-willed world, and if that stopped, it would not be true Communism anyway, just as Lenin/Stalin proved.

But, to be fair, it is a great idea to me, despite its impossibility. Its just something that you can hope and believe in, so in some ways is like a heaven. Humans who believed in Communism were part of a Communist religion if they'd only realised that it was impossible on this world instead of trying to inforce it.

Communism is not, inherently, autocratic. Communism is essentially a system where the government owns everything, and they distribute it to the people fairly equally. Most of you dismiss communism as an extreme right wing philosophy, while in fact it's about as far left as you can get. Government for the people, of the people, by the people. That's what democracy is all about, isn't it? Communist governments do, however, become dictatorships, almost invariably. This is probably where some of the nasty remours come from; "communism is evil". Not so. It is in fact the rulers of most communist nations who, according to popular definition, are evil. Stalin's massacre, Tainanmen (sp?) Square, they're all the works of single people, not the nations nor communism as a whole. Don't believe what most will tell you about communism; they've no idea what they're talking about.

Communism has no government, since government officials comprise a social class.

Your definition of communism is self-contradictory. If the free gift system really worked, the people who want it so much would just put it into practice and leave the others alone. But since it doesn't, there is always a need to find the guilty for that - the "enemies of the people" - hence drastic measures such as "liquidation of kulaks as a class", in fact killing of these people themselves.

This system, based on a flawed assumption of the human nature, naturally found itself fighting this very nature, making tens of millions of victims among those who opposed it, or who just were in the way of its theories (starved Ukrainian and Chinese peasants during the collectivisation and the "great leap forward")

That is why it fails. Most do not work well, or feel the need to work without the authority to tell them to do it.

Ok no, given I'm only 15. But think about this. In High School there are A students and F students. I give room for people that simply cannot understand things or have disabilities. But why would you treat a person with an A overall average who attends every class, does every assignment, doesn't get in trouble the same as a C student who may skip classes, only does the odd assignment and often is sent to detention for causing trouble in the classroom? The C student may simply be lazy and see no point in trying. Believe me, in my High School, there's plenty of them.

17. Is that too yound to have an opinion?

That explains a lot.

Just so you know, I spent my formative years in communist China back in the bad old days, when the country was as about as close to your "anarcho-communist" bullshit as any place would ever be.

And communism is inherently evil, because it is based on a complete disregard for personal liberty, freedom (of anything) and property rights.

Letila, communism only works in small groups. A monks commune or order is a good example. But on the state or even the city level it never will. There are just too many variables for communism to work effectively. Someone will always want more, it's as simple as that.

well from what I have absived with histry and mondern Comunisist nations its one huge faluire and dont tell me there not real communists becuse if you try something and it allways falls you dont say its not the right way you say its not going to work!!

Just so you know, I spent my formative years in communist China back in the bad old days, when the country was as about as close to your "anarcho-communist" bullshit as any place would ever be.

It's about as far from anarcho-communism as possible. It has child labor!

And communism is inherently evil, because it is based on a complete disregard for personal liberty, freedom (of anything) and property rights.

Anarcho-communism doesn't even have a government.

Your definition of communism is self-contradictory. If the free gift system really worked, the people who want it so much would just put it into practice and leave the others alone. But since it doesn't, there is always a need to find the guilty for that - the "enemies of the people" - hence drastic measures such as "liquidation of kulaks as a class", in fact killing of these people themselves.

You're confusing Marxist and anarchist methods.

This system, based on a flawed assumption of the human nature, naturally found itself fighting this very nature, making tens of millions of victims among those who opposed it, or who just were in the way of its theories (starved Ukrainian and Chinese peasants during the collectivisation and the "great leap forward")

Or maybe that's due to the psychologically harmful effects of living in a hierarchial society.

It seems that there are so many myths about communism that it's not even funny.
No, there aren't. There's just so much wrong with communism that it's not even funny.

Most people don't even seem to know what it is. Thus, it's time I refute some myths and do some explaining. Maybe that will help turn the tide in favor of anarcho-communism.

Communism--Stateless, classless, moneyless society
Commune--Group of people living in a communist society
Syndicate--Group of workers operating a factory, farm, etc.

~~~FAQ~~~

Q: Isn't communism a dictatorship?
Yes. Any large area with communism must be a dictatorship. Otherwise, there's no way to enforce what will be produced, etc.

Q: What is communism, then?
A pipe dream.

Q: How does communal ownership and management work?
It doesn't.

A: It works through direct democracy. The means of production are owned by the community as a whole
How can the "community as a whole" own anything? Massively begged question.

and meetings are held in the community to discuss how they are used to make sure that two people or syndicates don't get into an argument about who gets to use them at a certain time. They also prevent the "tragety of the commons".
No, it's the implementation of the tragedy of the commons.

Q: What motivation is there to work in communism?

A: Work would no longer be the dehumanizing task it is today,
Begged question: assumes that work today is dehumanizing.

where many people spend 8 hours attaching bolts to a car or some other boring job. Instead, people might work for a few hours on one job and a few hours on another job. In addition, part of the agreement of being a member of a commune is making a contribution. There is no requirement to support slackers.
Yet since need is all that is required, there is a requirement to support slackers.

Q: What ensures that worker syndicates produce enough?

A: Their reputations.
Funny how "reputation" in capitalism is denied by the communists, but used here. How...hypocritical.

Q: What ensures that the jobs that need to be done get done?
There won't be any way to do it, since apparently there's no state, no authority, no anything.

Q: What about jobs that no one wants to do?
No one would do them, since having someone do them would be "dehumanizing" and subjecting them to "boring" work.

Q: Is it really fair for the doctor to be paid no more than the garbageperson?
No.

I personally think communism could work if we were all hard workers - the problem is that we are all not, and also, with communism, which has no government, there is a large vaccum of power/authority just waiting to be filled, sometimes by something rather bad . . .

It's about as far from anarcho-communism as possible. It has child labor!

Classic. China in the early 70's had no coherent government to speak of and people survived by banding together (aren't you people really fond of the whole spontaneity thing) and you say "IT IS CHILD LABOR!" to redefine anarcho-communism? LOL! Not to mention how child labor isn't exactly a noted feature of the Cultural Revolution era.... I don't recall working, I was busy fleeing that hellhole!

Anarcho-communism doesn't even have a government.

Whether there is a government is irrelevant, your world (and communism for that matter) revolves around the abolition of private property. That is unacceptable to sane and reasonable people.

It will never work.

To be honest, humans are still animals. Animal instinct says you do what you can to survive and to hell with everyone else. Communism just won't work on a large level: too many people.

Imamitenise = Aisetaselanau in forums.

To be honest, humans are still animals. Animal instinct says you do what you can to survive and to hell with everyone else. Communism just won't work on a large level: too many people.

Obviously, you have never heard of the concept of mutual aid.

But on a large scale it's just not feasable: there will ALWAYS be one person or two people who get lazy. Then it all colapses. As someone said, it's feasable in a really small group where everyone believes in it 100%, however for a society it won't work unless it's forced upon them, and then you get the USSR or China.

P.S. I do think it's a great idea and I support it (I right now declare myself an anarchistic communist), but I'm just stating an obvious fact.

It seems feasible to say that the one major motive for the use of Communism is to provide all people with equal "wealth", with this word standing for almost everything conceivable. That it is dependent upon what is effectively forced labour (alongside the removal of freedom of choice, and a natural extension of which) is not relevant to my point, but does not raise its appeal.
If one gives any credence to meritocratic values (i.e. how far one gets depends on how hard one works), then perhaps the thing we're looking for is a means to provide all people with equal opportunities - very different from actual wealth - and removes the problem of the idle either being forced to work against their will or syphoning off the more diligent, although we may hope that charity towards such people will continue.
To my mind it seems that a factor in the failure of Communist regimes is an easily recognisable lack of fairness, made bitter by the claims of equality, in that, regardless of the level of effort they put in, their upper and lower parameters of achievement are set in a very tight range, compared with other systems, and this opposes basic meritocratic values natural to humans.
I do not know how to put into effect a system of equal opportunities, but it would remove this problem, and would not necessitate the removal of freedom to anywhere near the same degree.
I propose that this system of equal opportunities would be considered preferable to the system of equal wealth (apologies for broad definitions, but this does appear to be a key element of Communism) by the majority of people, and I would appreciate your views on this, ignoring the technicalities of setting it in motion for now. It may be that mistaking the aims of Communism for these values has been what has cost so many lives.

In NS terms:

The Communist State of Communist State

Civil Rights: Outlawed
Economy: Imploded
Political Freedoms: Outlawed

In NS terms:

The Communist State of Communist State

Civil Rights: Outlawed
Economy: Imploded
Political Freedoms: Outlawed

Would it have killed you to read the first post in the topic?

Would it have killed you to read the first post in the topic?

No, that's a pretty accurate description. :)

Yes it is, Marx himself said that Communism was more powerful than any God which is bs. So many freedoms you have would be removed.

Yes it is, Marx himself said that Communism was more powerful than any God which is bs. So many freedoms you have would be removed.

I'm an anarchist, not a Marxist.

I'm an anarchist, not a Marxist.

Sophistry.

Sophistry.


what?

No, that's a pretty accurate description. :)

Thanks for backing me up.

Q: What ensures that worker syndicates produce enough?

A: Their reputations. If a syndicate produces too little or produces poor products, they will be viewed as unreliable. Other syndicates will decide not to share their products with them and give them instead to syndicates that will produce what is needed. In addition, they will not be well liked by the commune itself.
This one sounds like consumerism.

what?

Letila's "ideas" are basically indistinguishable from communism because they are so wacked out the finer details get lost in the insanity of it all. Besides, even Marx argued that in the long run the cadres (i.e. state) should disappear because they are no longer needed. So is that anarchism now? Either way, it would be the most unfree and inhumane place in the history of humanity.

This one sounds like consumerism.

Free association, actually.

Letila's "ideas" are basically indistinguishable from communism because they are so wacked out the finer details get lost in the insanity of it all. Besides, even Marx argued that in the long run the cadres (i.e. state) should disappear because they are no longer needed. So is that anarchism now? Either way, it would be the most unfree and inhumane place in the history of humanity.

They are communism, but unlike Marxism, they don't advocate government at all.

Direct democracy is the worst form of "government" (even though you don't call it government). Its basis lies directly in majority rule with no respect to the minority. It isn't too hard to brainwash the masses and install a dictatorship from there. That's why America has a checks and balances system.

They are communism, but unlike Marxism, they don't advocate government at all.

Oh, so those are the finer points. Frankly, my main complaint against both "systems" is the lack of personal liberties, property rights, freedom of speech, association and religion. Oh, and such a place would be technologically equivalent to the medieval ages. Can you come up with one reason why we should sacrifice all that? Where's the benefits?

Main Entry: an·ar·chism
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-"ki-z&m, -"när-
Function: noun
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.

Is there any sizable population that would " voluntarily cooperate"?

Just so you know, I spent my formative years in communist China back in the bad old days, when the country was as about as close to your "anarcho-communist" bullshit as any place would ever be.Provide some evidence that "communist" China had the means of production in the hands of the workers. It's the defining feature of communism after all.

And communism is inherently evil, because it is based on a complete disregard for personal liberty, freedom (of anything) and property rights.
Substaniate that. I'm a Marxist so feel free to quote specific parts of Marx that support your theory.

Direct democracy is the worst form of "government" (even though you don't call it government). Its basis lies directly in majority rule with no respect to the minority. It isn't too hard to brainwash the masses and install a dictatorship from there. That's why America has a checks and balances system.

Dictatorship is. It is based on minority rule. At least from a utilitarian POV, democracy is certainly better. Either way, someone is oppressed.

Oh, so those are the finer points. Frankly, my main complaint against both "systems" is the lack of personal liberties, property rights, freedom of speech, association and religion. Oh, and such a place would be technologically equivalent to the medieval ages. Can you come up with one reason why we should sacrifice all that? Where's the benefits?

Because freedom is enjoyable, because hierarchy gets people killed, because transhumanism is overrated, etc.

You're right. DD is the second worst form of government. But many dictatorships develop through the democratic process.

Main Entry: an·ar·chism
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-"ki-z&m, -"när-
Function: noun
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.

Is there any sizable population that would " voluntarily cooperate"?

Only several radicals and their brainwashed *ahem* educated masses.

You're confusing Marxist and anarchist methods.And yet again you're confusing Leninism and Marxism, despite the fact I've challenged you to back it up loads of times.

Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

I'll assume your going for definition C Letila, but somehow it always ends up as B

Provide some evidence that "communist" China had the means of production in the hands of the workers. It's the defining feature of communism after all.

During the 50's the cadres naturally claimed to be workers themselves even though they were too busy rooting out dissenters and executing them. That charade stopped after a few years. Every attempted implementation of communism ends up like that; frankly, I'm not about to tolerate another bloodbath just so someone can give it another college try.

Substaniate that. I'm a Marxist so feel free to quote specific parts of Marx that support your theory.

I couldn't give a shit about the theory any more after examining the historical consequences of such ideas. What you people say is radically different from what ends up happening. Say what you want about the glories of a Marxist "society", historical precedent says otherwise.

Because freedom is enjoyable, because hierarchy gets people killed, because transhumanism is overrated, etc.

What freedom?

The Holy Word, the Communist Manifesto was written by Karl Marx and had Ten Planks. Here is each of them:

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.
7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

Above was the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848. Number one says it all, and two, three and four are just as bad. So Pan-Arab Israel was right because Marx himself wrote those.

During the 50's the cadres naturally claimed to be workers themselves even though they were too busy rooting out dissenters and executing them. That charade stopped after a few years. Every attempted implementation of communism ends up like that; frankly, I'm not about to tolerate another bloodbath just so someone can give it another college try.Not every one. The only attempts there have been by genuine Marxists are a) POUM in the Spanish Civil War and b) the Paris Commune so to criticise Marxism those are the two historical precedents you need to look at.


I couldn't give a shit about the theory any more after examining the historical consequences of such ideas. What you people say is radically different from what ends up happening. Say what you want about the glories of a Marxist "society", historical precedent says otherwise.But if they weren't following Marxist theory then they weren't Marxist societys. Just because a country calls itself communist doesn't mean it was. Unless you believe the German Democratic Republic was actually democratic. Do you think that people are freer in China since they adopted a capitalist economy?

What freedom?

Freedom both in and out of the workplace.

The Holy Word, the Communist Manifesto was written by Karl Marx and had Ten Planks. Here is each of them:

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.
7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

Above was the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848. Number one says it all, and two, three and four are just as bad. So Pan-Arab Israel was right because Marx himself wrote those.On point one, this has already been covered in other threads but Marx's defination of property didn't include personal property. He's talking about things such as landlords. Why is a progressive income tax a bad thing? Why should someone have inheritance? I thought capitalism was supposed to be a meritocracy? Again, I don't believe point 4 is talking about personal property.

Not every one. The only attempts there have been by genuine Marxists are a) POUM in the Spanish Civil War and b) the Paris Commune so to criticise Marxism those are the two historical precedents you need to look at.

Nope. Lenin and Mao were prime examples of Marxist coups, because they followed the basic tenets of the Marxist faith. Again, one of the most annoying things armchair Marxists do is to redefine Marxist crimes out of existence.

But if they weren't following Marxist theory then they weren't Marxist societys. Just because a country calls itself communist doesn't mean it was. Unless you believe the German Democratic Republic was actually democratic. Do you think that people are freer in China since they adopted a capitalist economy?

Once again, the redefinition of Marxism to exclude horrible failures. Mao followed Marxist theory quite closely all through the massacres of the Great Leap Forward... definitely Marxists in practice.

The Chinese gained much in property rights in the past decade. Now they must free themselves from the CCP.

Freedom both in and out of the workplace.

How is it freedom when I can't own anything or dissent against the status quo?

How is it freedom when I can't own anything or dissent against the status quo?

First, you can own things you made yourself or were given, you just can own things that would give you power over others, like factories. Second, you can dissent against the status quo. Where did you get the idea you couldn't?

Nope. Lenin and Mao were prime examples of Marxist coups, because they followed the basic tenets of the Marxist faith. Again, one of the most annoying things armchair Marxists do is to redefine Marxist crimes out of existence.

Maybe they did at first, but they quickly abandoned genuine socialism.

First, you can own things you made yourself or were given, you just can own things that would give you power over others, like factories. Second, you can dissent against the status quo. Where did you get the idea you couldn't?.

But the lack of property rights would mean anyone can take my property. Unacceptable. Somehow I get the feeling dissent against the tenets of such a "society" would be harshly punished. I dunno, it's a gut feeling ;)

Maybe they did at first, but they quickly abandoned genuine socialism.

More redefinition. Ugh. Admit it, your ideas spurred the murder of millions.

First, you can own things you made yourself or were given, you just can own things that would give you power over others, like factories. Second, you can dissent against the status quo. Where did you get the idea you couldn't?



Maybe they did at first, but they quickly abandoned genuine socialism.

Socialism isn't communism, just so you know.

Socialism isn't communism, just so you know.

I know, but Marxists plan on using it to reach communism.

I know, but Marxists plan on using it to reach communism.

So where does the mass murder of dissidents come in? Socialism or communism? Or both?

So where does the mass murder of dissidents come in? Socialism or communism? Or both?

Ask The Holy Word. He's the Marxist.

Ask The Holy Word. He's the Marxist.

Hey, didn't the Spanish anarchists during the Civil War slaughter a lot of people they didn't agree with? Or was that the Soviet NKVD? HAHAHA.

Hey, didn't the Spanish anarchists during the Civil War slaughter a lot of people they didn't agree with? Or was that the Soviet NKVD? HAHAHA.

And your precious government killed 100+ million people in the last century.

Nope. Lenin and Mao were prime examples of Marxist coups, because they followed the basic tenets of the Marxist faith. Again, one of the most annoying things armchair Marxists do is to redefine Marxist crimes out of existence.



Once again, the redefinition of Marxism to exclude horrible failures. Mao followed Marxist theory quite closely all through the massacres of the Great Leap Forward... definitely Marxists in practice.How convienent. You're saying Lenin was a Marxist because you say he was, with no evidence whatsoever. I don't know as much about Mao- if you can prove Mao followed Marxist theory as opposed to being a Leninist go for it. (I'm not an "armchair Marxist" strictly speaking. See www.iwca.info so you're at least criticising my politics from a postion of knowledge about what they actually are.)

Some specific reasons Bolsheviks were not Marxists.

Whereas Marx called for the means of production to be in the hands of the workers a leading Bolshevik (Larin) said "The workers in each enterprise should not get the impression that the enterprise belongs to them."

Instead of workers control/self management the Bolshevik's called for "the strictest and country-wide accounting and control of production and distribution of goods."

Lenin praised the capitalist German WW1 system as 'something centralised, calculated, controlled and socialised' and called for it's emulation.

By 1918 strikers were being imprisoned. Others were being fined their wages. Lenin called for the Cheka to use direct "revolutionary coercion" against the "unstable and the wavering elements among the masses themselves". There is no support for these ideas in Marxes work and I defy you to find some.

Zinoviev's assertion that "'every class conscious worker must realise that the dictatorship of the working class can only be realised through the dictatorship of its vanguard, that is, through the communist party." is directly against Marx's teachings on working class self emancipation.

I could do this a lot more but that's probably enough for you to be going on with for now. To summarise I'll quote Shlyapnikov, a leader member of the Russian Worker's Opposition who observed in 1922 "(Lenin) said yesterday that the proletariat as a class did not exist in Russia. Permit me to congratulate you on being the vanguard of a non-existent class."

And your precious government killed 100+ million people in the last century.

I weep for the Axis war dead. Come on, gimme that "every American president is a war criminal" horseshit.

Lenin killed more innocents than the American government did in two centuries. Let's not even start on Mao or Stalin.

Mao killed thousands upon thousands of people for no real reason on his way to power. He was a blood thirsty tyrant and nothing better.

So where does the mass murder of dissidents come in? Socialism or communism? Or both?That'd be Leninism. Or capitalist supported fascists like Pinochet. Are you deliberately avoiding the subject of the Paris Commune as it doesn't support your theory?

Letila, you are right that Stalin and Mao are not real communists, but that does not make the theory of any kind of communism any more wrong-headed. Furthermore, there are examples of where communism has existed in its true form (most of them in the United States of all places), and the results, while less bloody, are not any better. I live in Upstate New York, where there are many commune societies, including the original one, Chattauqua. A few months ago in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, there was a small piece on why these communes are failing. One would have to really read through the nice language to figure out the reason: the intelligent and able all leave. Who can blame them? I have read many communist books, and you are correct, communism is democratic, not dictatorial. And that is why it is bad. Could you imagine Albert Einstein's, Marie Curie's or Thomas Edison's vote on something having to do with their own work or the fruits of that work counting just as much as the vote of any mediocrity? What is so wrong about there being differences in wealth? If a person is more intelligent and harder-working, shouldn't they have something to show for it?
That is why the only people who advocate communism are intellectuals in their stuffy ivory towers, while when communism is actually implemented, it degenerates into thug rule. The morons will eventually take over, since they are the benificiaries of such a system, and their brains don't have the capacity to understand anything other than violence.
One last thing- fascism and capitalism have little to do with each other. It is obvious that you have no idea what capitalism or fascism really are. The defining characteristic of capitalism are the recognition of two aspects of property rights 1) the right to hold property and 2) the right of the owner to dispose of it as he/she wishes. Communism recognizes neither. Capitalism recognizes both. Fascism recognizes the first, but denies the second, essentially making the owner merely a custodian of land that the government uses. This may not seem too consistant with history, but that is because fascists would give freedom to favoured businesses, and in supposedly capitalist America, there is abuse of eminent domain (an aspect of communism) and the enviro-nazis of the EPA will not allow a person to use a part of their own property if that agency deems it a "wetland" (an aspect of fascism).

So you're right when you say no one has followed Marx to the letter. However, many people followed a significant portion of his ideas. It would be intellectually dishonest to exclude those people from the Marxist faith simply because they weren't purists... or because it's convenient to ignore or revise history.

The Holy Word, the Paris Commune is such an isolated, out of place incident that Communism can't base it's whole success on it. Besides, that hardly lasted long enough.

That'd be Leninism. Or capitalist supported fascists like Pinochet. Are you deliberately avoiding the subject of the Paris Commune as it doesn't support your theory?

It's easy for you to say Marxism wouldn't kill any dissidents because you simply define Marxism as a body of ideas and conveniently exclude practitioners of those (or some of those) ideas as other deviant forms.

Pinochet was a fascist. I don't agree with his politics. Using him to taint capitalism is a favorite leftist tactic; it is also total bullshit.

The Paris Commune didn't have time to start killing people. It didn't last long enough.

So you're right when you say no one has followed Marx to the letter. However, many people followed a significant portion of his ideas. It would be intellectually dishonest to exclude those people from the Marxist faith simply because they weren't purists... or because it's convenient to ignore or revise history.It's not that they didn't follow Marx to the letter. (Just because I'm a Marxist doesn't mean I belive that you can take Marxes work as some holy writ and ignore the fact that the worlds changed greatly since when he wrote them). But the bits that Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao et al ignored, in particular self emancipation of the working class and the absolutely democratic nature of the workers movement aren't periphral to Marx. They're central planks of the ideology. So to ignore them if you call yourself a Marxist is like being a pacifist who supports violence. It's simply a contradiction in terms.

Pinochet was a fascist. I don't agree with his politics. Using him to taint capitalism is a favorite leftist tactic; it is also total bullshit.I didn't say he was a capitalist. I said he was supported by certain factions within capitalism. Do you deny this?

The Paris Commune didn't have time to start killing people. It didn't last long enough.What evidence was there that this would have happened?

You're starting to exhaust the world supply of strawmen, Pan-Arab Israel.

You're starting to exhaust the world supply of strawmen, Pan-Arab Israel.


what the hell dose that meen?

Pinochet was a fascist. I don't agree with his politics. Using him to taint capitalism is a favorite leftist tactic; it is also total bullshit.



Because of Pinochet, Chile has the best economy in South America.

It's not that they didn't follow Marx to the letter. (Just because I'm a Marxist doesn't mean I belive that you can take Marxes work as some holy writ and ignore the fact that the worlds changed greatly since when he wrote them). But the bits that Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao et al ignored, in particular self emancipation of the working class and the absolutely democratic nature of the workers movement aren't periphral to Marx. They're central planks of the ideology. So to ignore them if you call yourself a Marxist is like being a pacifist who supports violence. It's simply a contradiction in terms.

Indeed. Perhaps you consider the political details of Marxist theory to be more important. But I personally consider the consequences to personal liberty and property rights far more important, and Marx and all practitioners agree on that particular issue.

I didn't say he was a capitalist. I said he was supported by certain factions within capitalism. Do you deny this?

Not at all. However, Cuba/Soviet puppet Allende fostered more violence and killed more people than Pinochet did.

What evidence was there that this would have happened?

Oh I dunno. It happened every time a similar scenario occured in history.

I didn't say he was a capitalist. I said he was supported by certain factions within capitalism. Do you deny this?


?
He was a strong proponent of free trade

You're starting to exhaust the world supply of strawmen, Pan-Arab Israel.

Here's some free advice: grow up, don't be so gullible and stop smoking weed.

I'm not sure, although the Communists and Anarchists seem to think we're all a bunch of capitalist pigs who don't give shit about anything but money. Funny thing is that they think we use the same arguments over and over, yet with all the failures of countries like China, the USSR and Cuba, they resort to isolated events like the Paris Commune or simply say that the only true Communists were never in power or they still think that Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Che and Marx were actually good people at heart who just messed up a little. Believe me, they're the ones beginning to sound repetative.

Because of Pinochet, Chile has the best economy in South America.

As though the people who died don't matter. Truly sickening.

Ya but damn if all those Russian and Chinese killed matter either, eh Letila.

As though the people who died don't matter. Truly sickening.

If you were so concerned with bodycounts, you wouldn't be a communist. Or an anarchist. Or whatever the fuck you are.

Communsim is awsome-my camp is basicly a commune, we work, clean, "bond". It's even based on socialistic values

Communsim is awsome-my camp is basicly a commune, we work, clean, "bond". It's even based on socialistic values

you live in a commune?

If you were so concerned with bodycounts, you wouldn't be a communist. Or an anarchist. Or whatever the fuck you are.

Green pacifist anarcho-communist. Anarchists have killed far less people than government.

you live in a commune?

Yea, some summer camp his parents paid for. LOL! :)

As though the people who died don't matter. Truly sickening.

A few thousand people died. But how many people would not be alive if not for the economic success of the nation?

Green pacifist anarcho-communist. Anarchists have killed far less people than government.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. How old are you again, 17? Trust me, you're going to get a big slice of humble pie once you get out of high school.

Wow...thank you so much for posting this! I've been trying to explain stuff like this to my friends for AGES and they just don't understand it...you do make it rather clear.

Although, I'm not sure if it's been mentioned before because I'm too lazy to read the other posts, I think that there are other incentives to work, also. Like, I think that one incentive for people to work is that when you're producing food for everybody else, you start to care about their welfare. Like, in capitalism, people's main concern is themselves. Since communism is just the opposite, a main priority of people is to help everybody else. You produce your goods so that everybody else can benefit from them. In capitalism, the only reason to produce your goods isn't because you're worried about the welfare of the consumer, it's because if the consumer doesn't buy the products, then the seller doesn't make any money. Boo frickin' woo for them. Anyways, you rock my world, thanks so much for posting that.

Wow...thank you so much for posting this! I've been trying to explain stuff like this to my friends for AGES and they just don't understand it...you do make it rather clear.

Although, I'm not sure if it's been mentioned before because I'm too lazy to read the other posts, I think that there are other incentives to work, also. Like, I think that one incentive for people to work is that when you're producing food for everybody else, you start to care about their welfare. Like, in capitalism, people's main concern is themselves. Since communism is just the opposite, a main priority of people is to help everybody else. You produce your goods so that everybody else can benefit from them. In capitalism, the only reason to produce your goods isn't because you're worried about the welfare of the consumer, it's because if the consumer doesn't buy the products, then the seller doesn't make any money. Boo frickin' woo for them. Anyways, you rock my world, thanks so much for posting that.

LOL!

Indeed. Perhaps you consider the political details of Marxist theory to be more important. But I personally consider the consequences to personal liberty and property rights far more important, and Marx and all practitioners agree on that particular issue.In terms of land (as opposed to personal property) ownership you're quite right. Where does Marx call for restrictions on personal liberty?


Not at all. However, Cuba/Soviet puppet Allende fostered more violence and killed more people than Pinochet did.Source?


Oh I dunno. It happened every time a similar scenario occured in history.Surely by that argument every believer in capitalism is responsible for child chimney sweeps.

Funny thing is that they think we use the same arguments over and over, yet with all the failures of countries like China, the USSR and Cuba, they resort to isolated events like the Paris Commune or simply say that the only true Communists were never in power or they still think that Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Che and Marx were actually good people at heart who just messed up a little. Believe me, they're the ones beginning to sound repetative.I think you'll find I did a bit more then that. I went through point by point significant breaks between Lenin (who is after all who Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Castro etc. stem from) and Marxist theory. The only evidence your side has left for those countries being communist is that they "said they were". In which case refer back to my previous comments on the German Democratic Republic.

In terms of land (as opposed to personal property) ownership you're quite right. Where does Marx call for restrictions on personal liberty?

I consider property rights to be tied to personal liberties. Oh, again, I cannot help but raise historical precendents of communist tyranny.

Source?

http://frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9725

Considering how the author is a communist, I tend to believe he is ignoring the consequences Allende's rule.

Surely by that argument every believer in capitalism is responsible for child chimney sweeps.

WTF? All capitalists seek the abolishment of safe working conditions? OK then...

...and I'm pretty sure chimneys outdate capitalism....

I consider property rights to be tied to personal liberties. Oh, again, I cannot help but raise historical precendents of communist tyranny.Elaborate. How do you think having the right to own property (in the Marxist sense of the word) is tied to personal liberty? Oh, again, I cannot help but raise the fact that I've already conclusively shown that Lenin and his myriad variants weren't Marxists.



http://frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9725

Considering how the author is a communist, I tend to believe he is ignoring the consequences Allende's rule.You'll have to talk me through it. I can't see any reference to back up your claim that Allende killed more people then Pinochet.


WTF? All capitalists seek the abolishment of safe working conditions? OK then...The crucial words there were "surely by that argument...". Considering you hold Marx responsible for crimes committed by people who were demonstratably not Marxists, surely it's only consistent for you to take responsibility for crimes committed by those who certainly were capitalists. The fact that they were obviously not capitalists in the modern sense of the word is neither here nor there, by your logic.

Elaborate. How do you think having the right to own property (in the Marxist sense of the word) is tied to personal liberty?

If you can't even see that, then there's no point talking to you.

You'll have to talk me through it. I can't see any reference to back up your claim that Allende killed more people then Pinochet.

Allende allowed Cuba to arm and incite violence that ended up killing him as well. Pinochet killed about 20000 people, the latter months of the Allende era saw many people dead. It's hard to get good numbers but the left seem to have a knack for high body counts. ;)

The crucial words there were "surely by that argument...". Considering you hold Marx responsible for crimes committed by people who were demonstratably not Marxists, surely it's only consistent for you to take responsibility for crimes committed by those who certainly were capitalists. The fact that they were obviously not capitalists in the modern sense of the word is neither here nor there, by your logic.

Whatever floats your boat. I already stated my reasons for lumping together all those psychopaths as Marxists. If you sleep easier at night knowing those people "aren't really Marxists", so be it.

Allende allowed Cuba to arm and incite violence that ended up killing him as well. Pinochet killed about 20000 people, the latter months of the Allende era saw many people dead. It's hard to get good numbers but the left seem to have a knack for high body counts. ;)


This site claims that Pinochet killed 3.2k people

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pinochet.htm

If you can't even see that, then there's no point talking to you.Evasion of the question.



Allende allowed Cuba to arm and incite violence that ended up killing him as well. Pinochet killed about 20000 people, the latter months of the Allende era saw many people dead. It's hard to get good numbers but the left seem to have a knack for high body counts. ;)
No source provided.


Whatever floats your boat. I already stated my reasons for lumping together all those psychopaths as Marxists. If you sleep easier at night knowing those people "aren't really Marxists", so be it.Another evasion. (Your reasoning from what I remember was "because I say so without any proof")


You're gonna fit in great among the right on here.

Why is every anti-Communist portrayed as a right wing idiot by the Commies. I know of Socialists and Liberals that are anti-Communist. Plus whats the deal with sources, I could have made up the Manifesto, given many Communist haven't read the damn thing. I did get it off a website though.

I'm an anarchist, not a Marxist.
You're a marxist. Every single argument you ever put forth is Marx. Everthing you say is Marx. You. Are. A. Marxist. Deal.

They are communism, but unlike Marxism, they don't advocate government at all.
If we're supposed to take Marx at his word, he stated that the state would wither and die. No government.

So how you are distinguishable from a Marxist?

Answer: you aren't. You're. A. Marxist.

I feel bad to jump to the back from the first page but I saw the original post and the second post and the second one disgusted me so much I had to write this.
Communist Mississippi describes the worst representation of communism that exists and has the American programing in his mind that it was true communism. This, my friends, is called Bolshvism. Marx described and coined Communism as a revolution of people sick of working for their tyrannical bosses and then taking control of all property.
Don't be an ignorant American. Read a book.

And by the way, Marxism=Communism. Just so you know.

Why is every anti-Communist portrayed as a right wing idiot by the Commies. I know of Socialists and Liberals that are anti-Communist. Plus whats the deal with sources, I could have made up the Manifesto, given many Communist haven't read the damn thing. I did get it off a website though.I don't. Bottle's staunchly anti communist and she isn't an idiot. Neither's Biff Pileon. Neither is Purely Euclid. I could go on but I won't. Sources are important if a) you're going to claim things like "Allende killed more people then Pinochet" as historical fact and b) if you're going to claim that Lenin was following Marxist theory then the fact that a cursory examination of Marx shows you he wasn't is valid.


If we're supposed to take Marx at his word, he stated that the state would wither and die. No government.

So how you are distinguishable from a Marxist?

Answer: you aren't. You're. A. Marxist.Are you not going to accuse me of being a Marxist as well? ;)

Evasion of the question.

Or you're just too brainfucked to understand why property rights are important. I can't even explain, the right is so primitive.

No source provided.

And your sources? I've yet see anything other than faith statements from you.

Another evasion. (Your reasoning from what I remember was "because I say so without any proof")

No, disengagement. It is futile to argue this point with someone who insists that Mao, Lenin and Stalin aren't Marxists.

So guys, you can say your a Marxist but not a Communist but they are the same thing. Read the Manifesto if your not sure what to believe, it's full of great stuff.

Are you not going to accuse me of being a Marxist as well? ;)
J'accuse.

But it wouldn't do any good, since you admit to it and take all the fun out of it. Bastard.

They didn't impliment the goals of communism. They weren't reallly communist at all.

The point isn't whether or not they succeeded in a "true communism", the point is that they, like many others who tried communism, failed....HORRIBLY.

Quoted from a good friend of mine:

People are bad. They aren't as concerned with others than themselves. They usually don't wish ill on each other, they just want to be ahead of the other guy. Drive better cars. Have more beautiful/handsome mates. Have more dough. Have a nicer house, faster conmputer, bigger lawn, bigger lawn mower, fancier pet, et cetera. Socialism is not for these people, as it forces everyone into the same middle-class tax bracket even though one guy is a stockbroker and the other is a Whopper-flopper at Burger Tyrant. Secondly, these bad people are in government, which may cause our minimal impartial government to skim off the top of the gross national product more than it deserves to. Keep these problems in mind, for I will address them later. Now we go on to our (cough) buddy (cough) communism.
We have Marx, a down-and-out loser in German capitalist society who lives with his pal Frederick Engels. He's a smart cookie, no doubt, because he comes up with a long list of things that make capitalism unfair. The objectives of labor and management are at odds over profits. Labor, the majority (remember that democracy is beginning to get in vogue in Europe at this time), wants higher wages, which cuts into profits. Management, the minority, wants higer profits, which cuts into wages (excluding management's of course)! Marx also came up with the idea of historic oppression: Management oppresses labor in the name of profits to the level of subsistence--labor makes just enough money to survive, but no more. In lassez-faire economies such as America's in the mid- to late-1800s, this was often the case. If anyone doubts it, look at the mining company towns and railroad labor practices of the time. Mr. Marx looks at this and determines that labor can't take this crap forever. Eventually they will revolt and create a new government and economy that is fair to the laborer. To Marx, this perfect economy would be communism. This is where Marx and I part. In communism, labor works in the factories and mines and shops, and the government gets the profits. The government, which already owns the profits , is to dole out the profits equally to everyone. Right. Seeing Russia's depressed economy even after a decade without communism, it doesn't look like the government did its part. It didn't help that most communistic economies have single-party systems. The Party gets the money and labor gets shafted. Again.

Or you're just too brainfucked to understand why property rights are important. I can't even explain, the right is so primitive.
Stop evading. Explain why the right to own property (in the traditional sense of landlords etc., not in terms of personal property) is part of personal liberty. Do non-land owners not have personal liberty?


And your sources? I've yet see anything other than faith statements from you.
The only claim I've made is that Lenin et al did not follow Marxist ideology. And I backed that up with quotes from the Bolsheviks. I haven't said that Allende didn't kill more people then Pinochet. I've merely said you've provided us with no proof for that allegation.


No, disengagement. It is futile to argue this point with someone who insists that Mao, Lenin and Stalin aren't Marxists.And yet when I pointed out that Mao, Lenin and Stalin weren't following integral parts of Marxist ideology here It's not that they didn't follow Marx to the letter. (Just because I'm a Marxist doesn't mean I belive that you can take Marxes work as some holy writ and ignore the fact that the worlds changed greatly since when he wrote them). But the bits that Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao et al ignored, in particular self emancipation of the working class and the absolutely democratic nature of the workers movement aren't periphral to Marx. They're central planks of the ideology. So to ignore them if you call yourself a Marxist is like being a pacifist who supports violence. It's simply a contradiction in terms. you replied

Indeed. Perhaps you consider the political details of Marxist theory to be more important. But I personally consider the consequences to personal liberty and property rights far more important, and Marx and all practitioners agree on that particular issue.Indeed is a sign of agreement I believe. So you fully accepted that the Bolsheviks broke with Marx on the selfemancipation of the workers and full democracy within the workers movement and that they were crucial parts of Marxism. And you have also made clear that you have no argument on personal liberty apart from the issue of property rights. That's why you need to demonstrate what you mean. It's not only an important part of your argument, it's all you've got left.

Since no-one has put up a link to the Communist Manifesto or a constitution of any modern or recent Communist country so we can actually debate something other than statistics of how many people people of various banners have killed and personal opinions of Communism, I'd say this debate is pretty pointless. No info, just a lot of sabre-rattling.

Like Communist Mississippi, im inclined to break down this post. My answers in red.

Its a bit belated but im kinda pissed at Letila and the late TAR's repeated propaganda posts (not to mention the more recent Texstanbul and MKULTRA.)

It seems that there are so many myths about communism that it's not even funny. Most people don't even seem to know what it is. Thus, it's time I refute some myths and do some explaining. Maybe that will help turn the tide in favor of anarcho-communism. Anarcho-Communism is an oxymoron and would be better dubbed liberal socialism. This isnt a stable system, partially since it cant stay competitive with more productive and faster-advancing free market societies, and in a large society will eventually become a more conventional socialism, like what is beginning to happen to much of Europe.

Communism--Society built on coerced labor, blind patriotism, and curtailed economic freedom. May or may not involve government distribution of benefits to workers. Many "communist" nations like Venezeula or Zimbabwe would be better dubbed kleptocracies, or "societies ruled by thieves."
Commune--A small group of communists free to eject dissidents and able to strictly control their workers, making them more viable. Although the Spanish ones are famous, they involved militarism and coercion. A better example are the christian societies that formed in North America like the Shakers.
Syndicate--A large publishing body, most often involved in journalism.

~~~FAQ~~~

Q: Isn't communism a dictatorship?

A: No, genuine communism has social classes and that includes no government officials. This is impossible. Any attempt to attain it will be intercepted by power hungry humans.

Q: Isn't communism inherently anti-religious?

A: No, the Bible has a number of strongly communistic messages in it. In fact, capitalism is more anti-religious, since it emphasizes profit and wealth so much and is based on greed. However, many revolutionaries also try to enforce atheism and destroy moral decency. Thus neither capitalism nor communism tends to be well suited to religion. Religiously motivated communist societies have existed in the past, however. Enforced celibacy is what killed one of those, the Shakers.

Q: What is communism, then?

A: Communism is characterized by two things, gift exchange and communal ownership and management of the means of production. Gift exchange means that people and worker syndicates agree to share the products of their labor and in return receive products they need. Anyone who doesnt comply risks grievous bodily harm or coercion to perform labor tasks. It differs from trading in that it emphasizes reputation rather than abstract exchange values. However, if one person is defined as a threat by the community or the ruling government, due to expressing opposing opinions or an out of place culture, their reputation is defiled and their lives made into hell if not taken from them.

Q: How does communal ownership and management work?

A: It works through direct democracy. Everybody gets a say and those who say the wrong things change their minds at risk of severe punishment from the communists. The means of production are owned by the community as a whole and meetings are held in the community to discuss how they are used to make sure that two people or syndicates don't get into an argument about who gets to use them at a certain time. They also prevent the "tragedy of the commons" by providing near absolute jurisdiction to a limited rage of idealists whose views are often dictated by whoever took power after an attempt to achieve "true communism."

Q: What motivation is there to work in communism?

A: Work would no longer be the dehumanizing task it is today, where many people spend 8 hours attaching bolts to a car or some other boring job. Instead, people might work for a few hours on one job and a few hours on another job. In addition, part of the agreement of being a member of a commune is making a contribution. There is no requirement to support slackers. This is a nice way of introducing coercion by starving people deemed to be "slackers" regardless of how hard they actually work. They just need to express a dangerous view. Also, this causes societal devolution by removing specialization, thus preventing most proper execution of tasks requiring skilled labor, largely since intellectual equality is impossible unless all are idiots.

ALSO

A: Forced cooperation, like that used by the spanish "anarchists" and the USSR.

Q: What ensures that worker syndicates produce enough?

A: Their reputations. If a syndicate produces too little or produces poor products, they will be viewed as unreliable. Other syndicates will decide not to share their products with them and give them instead to syndicates that will produce what is needed. In addition, they will not be well liked by the commune itself. We will just have to trust this will never be used as a means of repressing personal and political freedom, like a express desire to phase out of communism, refuse to share sacred or culturally significant artifacts, or seek greater wealth by marketing greater skills and quality.

Q: What ensures that the jobs that need to be done get done?

A: If there is more than enough of a product, then the communal agreements would require less from the syndicates making it. The syndicate workers would likely spend less time producing it since it was not needed as much. If more of a product is needed, a syndicate would likely encourage people, such as those doing jobs that don't have high product demand, to help them, balancing things out. This would be great if it wasnt for concerns of doing extra work for no reward or working to feed slackers whose skillpool prevents them from doing something useful at the time the same amount they feed the people doing the extra work.

Q: What about jobs that no one wants to do?

A: Those can be redistributed so that all members of a commune take a turn doing them. It would certainly provide a strong incentive not to waste things, so that garbage is reduced. This will also slowly evolve into intricate systems of avoiding the work which will eventually evolve into a hierarchical system as people with the ability to do other kinds of more important work resist coercion into undesirable jobs by holding their skills hostage.

Q: Is it really fair for the doctor to be paid no more than the garbageperson?

A: Most children want to be doctors, firefighters, etc. when they grow up. I've never in my life heard someone want to say they wanted to be a janitor because they wouldn't have to do much work. Teachers don't get paid much yet no one worries about capitalism not providing an incentive to teach. If money was abolished, it would be possible to become a teacher or doctor without having to pay so much, balancing the loss of privilege. [color=red]But alas, it seems that the less education costs, the more people choose to drop out of it early or end up doing badly, showing that available facilities can only raise skilled worker population to a ceiling. Some people simply dont have the will or physical ability to go further.

Q: Isn't communism a dictatorship?

A: No, genuine communism has social classes and that includes no government officials. Even Marx wanted the state to whither away eventually and become a true communist society.
It will become a dictatorship, or at best a totalitarian democracy.

Q: Isn't communism inherently anti-religious?

A: No, the Bible has a number of strongly communistic messages in it. In fact, capitalism is more anti-religious, since it emphasizes profit and wealth so much and is based on greed.
There is no such thing as capitalism, only mercantilism and the free market. The free market "emphasizes" neither profit wealth or greed, it emphasizes property rights which include the rights to give to charity or renounce material goods, whatever you want. It is about freedom. If people are greedy then that is their choice, so what? Weath maximisation is not high on most peoples' agendas anyway, although everyone wants to be comfortable.

Q: How does communal ownership and management work?

A: It works through direct democracy. The means of production are owned by the community as a whole and meetings are held in the community to discuss how they are used to make sure that two people or syndicates don't get into an argument about who gets to use them at a certain time. They also prevent the "tragety of the commons".


Direct democracy is the seed of the totalitarianism that will evolve.

How will you "make sure that two people or syndicates don't get into an argument about who gets to use them at a certain time"? Of course they will argue and then someone will be overruled by the majority.

"A camel is a horse designed by committee".

Q: What motivation is there to work in communism?

A: Work would no longer be the dehumanizing task it is today, where many people spend 8 hours attaching bolts to a car or some other boring job. Instead, people might work for a few hours on one job and a few hours on another job. In addition, part of the agreement of being a member of a commune is making a contribution. There is no requirement to support slackers
What makes you think that? If people valued varied work above the increased productivity of division of labour then that would happen in the free market. People would work a different job each day and accept lower wages for it. They don't. Why would they then do so in communism? There is still less incentive to work since you only get a tiny fraction of the gain from more output.

To top it all off, you offer the same "work or starve" deal you accuse the "capitalists" of making!

Q: What ensures that worker syndicates produce enough?

A: Their reputations. If a syndicate produces too little or produces poor products, they will be viewed as unreliable. Other syndicates will decide not to share their products with them and give them instead to syndicates that will produce what is needed. In addition, they will not be well liked by the commune itself.
Whips and chains will ensure that all work, for the greater good of course. These syndicates have no incentive to be efficient (they can't even measure efficiency) and this will inevitably lead to stagnation and regression.

Q: What ensures that the jobs that need to be done get done?

A: If there is more than enough of a product, then the communal agreements would require less from the syndicates making it. The syndicate workers would likely spend less time producing it since it was not needed as much. If more of a product is needed, a syndicate would likely encourage people, such as those doing jobs that don't have high product demand, to help them, balancing things out.
Mises has shown how socialists (or whatever you are calling yourself today) cannot rationally decide what to produce. Impoverishment and starvation will be the result of your system.

Q: What about jobs that no one wants to do?

A: Those can be redistributed so that all members of a commune take a turn doing them. It would certainly provide a strong incentive not to waste things, so that garbage is reduced.
Great. Now my kid dies while the doctor is out collecting bins.

Q: Is it really fair for the doctor to be paid no more than the garbageperson?

A: Most children want to be doctors, firefighters, etc. when they grow up. I've never in my life heard someone want to say they wanted to be a janitor because they wouldn't have to do much work. Teachers don't get paid much yet no one worries about capitalism not providing an incentive to teach. If money was abolished, it would be possible to become a teacher or doctor without having to pay so much, balancing the loss of privilege.
Most people want to be rockstars, footballers and actors or get drunk and play the x-box all day.

Since no-one has put up a link to the Communist Manifesto or a constitution of any modern or recent Communist country so we can actually debate something other than statistics of how many people people of various banners have killed and personal opinions of Communism, I'd say this debate is pretty pointless. No info, just a lot of sabre-rattling.
The full text of the Communist Manifesto can be found here: http://www.indepthinfo.com/communist-manifesto/index.shtml

If you look back earlier in the thread I've quoted various leading Bolsheviks in comparision to it.

Hey, I POSTED THE DAMN THING (Manifesto) earlier and no debated whether it wasn't legit or not.

Communism works on paper but can not work in reality.

Communism works on paper but can not work in reality.
It does not work even on paper, unless you mean in the same way 2+2=5 does.

It does not work even on paper, unless you mean in the same way 2+2=5 does.Id does work on paper, in the same way 2+2=4 does.

It works on paper the same way any religious text does. It states something that may sound great, but is actually an impossibility. However, although religions cannot be disproved, history has shown Communism/Marxism will not work as long as humans have free will to think until maybe we are all clones. I have nothing against people who support communism, I think its a great idea, but I'm a realist and not a believer.

A: Communism is characterized by two things, gift exchange and communal ownership and management of the means of production. Gift exchange means that people and worker syndicates agree to share the products of their labor and in return receive products they need. It differs from trading in that it emphasizes reputation rather than abstract exchange values.

As I have said before, people will not work for the sake of reputation. Human emotions are much stronger than having a high reputation with your neighbors.

Q: What motivation is there to work in communism?

A: Work would no longer be the dehumanizing task it is today, where many people spend 8 hours attaching bolts to a car or some other boring job. Instead, people might work for a few hours on one job and a few hours on another job. In addition, part of the agreement of being a member of a commune is making a contribution. There is no requirement to support slackers.Ok, so no welfare. And you say Communism is not heartless and cruel.

Q: What ensures that worker syndicates produce enough?

A: Their reputations. If a syndicate produces too little or produces poor products, they will be viewed as unreliable. Other syndicates will decide not to share their products with them and give them instead to syndicates that will produce what is needed. In addition, they will not be well liked by the commune itself.
Once again, human emotions such as laziness and a sense of unfairness rank way more importance in the human brain than having a reputation or "being well liked".

Q: What about jobs that no one wants to do?

A: Those can be redistributed so that all members of a commune take a turn doing them. It would certainly provide a strong incentive not to waste things, so that garbage is reduced.Riiiiiiight, like people wont just decide one day that they are not going to put out the trash and decide to sit inside.

Q: Is it really fair for the doctor to be paid no more than the garbageperson?

[quote=]A: Most children want to be doctors, firefighters, etc. when they grow up. I've never in my life heard someone want to say they wanted to be a janitor because they wouldn't have to do much work. Teachers don't get paid much yet no one worries about capitalism not providing an incentive to teach. If money was abolished, it would be possible to become a teacher or doctor without having to pay so much, balancing the loss of privilege.
No, its not fair at all. Those doing the jobs that require higher skill levels and higher levels of education should get more than those with lower skill levels. IN capitalism, every man or woman has an equal opportunity to have such education and high skill jobs.

No, its not fair at all. Those doing the jobs that require higher skill levels and higher levels of education should get more than those with lower skill levels. IN capitalism, every man or woman has an equal opportunity to have such education and high skill jobs.So someone doing a job that requires a long apprenticeship, say a bricklayer, should get paid more then a company director. And you may have missed it before, but I've posted a source several times that shows that the idea that capitalist society is a genuine meritocracy is a myth- see http://eprints.ouls.ox.ac.uk:81/eursoj/hdb/Volume_17/Issue_02/abstracts/170081.sgm

This "communism" you speak of sounds like a utopian dream. To facilitate your defense communism, do you have any examples where this system has worked? Surely, this excellent and flawless system must be the best way to govern a society. One wonders what has been preventing its formation for 5 million years? Care to explain Letila?

As I have said before, people will not work for the sake of reputation. Human emotions are much stronger than having a high reputation with your neighbors.

How do you know? People do things all the time because they are considered cool.

Ok, so no welfare. And you say Communism is not heartless and cruel.

Don't give me that. Most capitalists are far less forgiving. You said so yourself that people won't work for reputation alone. So why do you have a problem with a safeguard in case that is true?

Once again, human emotions such as laziness and a sense of unfairness rank way more importance in the human brain than having a reputation or "being well liked".

Unfairness? I think it's unfair that capitalists get paid so much more than workers, but that doesn't mean I will refuse to work.

Riiiiiiight, like people wont just decide one day that they are not going to put out the trash and decide to sit inside.

They will if they don't want their house to stink.

No, its not fair at all. Those doing the jobs that require higher skill levels and higher levels of education should get more than those with lower skill levels. IN capitalism, every man or woman has an equal opportunity to have such education and high skill jobs.

And I suppose the rich kids who inherit millions of dollars worked hard for years to get where they are.

So someone doing a job that requires a long apprenticeship, say a bricklayer, should get paid more then a company director.

No. If there were a million brain surgeons, they would not be paid as much. But being that smart, they could easily do something else.

I'm sure nearly all company directors could manage to become bricklayers if they wanted to. But I doubt many bricklayers could make the switch. Furthermore - how much schooling/training is actually required to learn how to lay brick?

This "communism" you speak of sounds like a utopian dream. To facilitate your defense communism, do you have any examples where this system has worked? Surely, this excellent and flawless system must be the best way to govern a society. One wonders what has been preventing its formation for 5 million years? Care to explain Letila?
Paris Commune.

Communism will never work,(//EDIT - On a global scale). I'm sorry, but there will always be people that are seeking an advantage over others. It's just the way it is. I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm just stating a very depressing fact about human nature.

No. If there were a million brain surgeons, they would not be paid as much. But being that smart, they could easily do something else.

I'm sure nearly all company directors could manage to become bricklayers if they wanted to. But I doubt many bricklayers could make the switch. Furthermore - how much schooling/training is actually required to learn how to lay brick?
Maybe that was a bad example- I don't actually know that much about bricklaying. The basic premise still remains the same though. Do you agree with _Susa_ that wages should depend on amount of training/education? How many company directors do you think could build a car engine?

Maybe that was a bad example- I don't actually know that much about bricklaying. The basic premise still remains the same though. Do you agree with _Susa_ that wages should depend on amount of training/education? How many company directors do you think could build a car engine?

I'd say there is a definate correlation between training time and pay - because less people have the ability to get a PhD (versus a high school dimploma). Then again, we don't need many people with a doctorate in latin.

Maybe there aren't many company directors who can take apart a transmission, but there are plenty of other people who can.

It should balance itself out - if it were easy to become a qualified CFO, more people would do it, and the salaries would decrease.

So in conclusion - training and education in an in-demand field should be paid more - but only because they will produce more. Spending 20 years studying a dead language shouldn't get you anywhere.