NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey, we've had "Ask a Muslum" and "Ask an Athiest" so if figured.....why not?

Ask away.

Why do you not live in a commune?

*I tried to resist, but had to ask*

hippie :p

Why do you not live in a commune?

*I tried to resist, but had to ask*

hippie :p

Do you know how hard it is to find communes with internet access? :rolleyes:

That there have been over two dozen Communist states. All but five of them are now gone, and of that 5, one is rapidly democratizing (China) and one is a basketcase (North Korea).

Do you still hold out hope for a worldwide Communist revolution, and if so, why?

PS: Saying that there has never been a truely Communist state is not a valid arguement.

Do you know how hard it is to find communes with internet access? :rolleyes:

You caught my point.

That there have been over two dozen Communist states. All but five of them are now gone, and of that 5, one is rapidly democratizing (China) and one is a basketcase (North Korea).

Do you still hold out hope for a worldwide Communist revolution, and if so, why?

PS: Saying that there has never been a truely Communist state is not a valid arguement.

Actually, it partly is. There has never been a truely communist state. the USSR wasn't even close, same with the sattelite states. The closest anyone has ever come is Communist China, and while that revolution was marked with initial disaster, once they got is started the economy sorta-worked.

If your asking if I believe in Marx's vision of communism as an inevitabily, no. Communism, while it is a superior system, is at odds with people's base nature and the forces of entropy. While I think it will rise again, I do not hold it as if it was some divine prophesy.

But yes, i do still hold out hope. Communism (or attempts at it) has been marred with disaster in the past, but early capitalism was harder on the working classes then communism ever was. Capitalimsm has had thousands of years to be perfected to it's current form, so it's no small wonder that it has been more effective. But if we learn from our mistakes, and don't make the same blunders the previous attempts made, it could work. And all it would take it ONE state that is truely equal for the rest of the world to follow suite. Lead by example and all that.

Actually, it partly is. There has never been a truely communist state. the USSR wasn't even close, same with the sattelite states. The closest anyone has ever come is Communist China, and while that revolution was marked with initial disaster, once they got is started the economy sorta-worked.

If your asking if I believe in Marx's vision of communism as an inevitabily, no. Communism, while it is a superior system, is at odds with people's base nature and the forces of entropy. While I think it will rise again, I do not hold it as if it was some divine prophesy.

But yes, i do still hold out hope. Communism (or attempts at it) has been marred with disaster in the past, but early capitalism was harder on the working classes then communism ever was. Capitalimsm has had thousands of years to be perfected to it's current form, so it's no small wonder that it has been more effective. But if we learn from our mistakes, and don't make the same blunders the previous attempts made, it could work. And all it would take it ONE state that is truely equal for the rest of the world to follow suite. Lead by example and all that.

Except that any prolitarian revolution has to include... PEOPLE. Once you have people involved, disagreements, bickering, and power plays begin.
I submit that the various Communist nations were as close to an attempt at Marxism as could be achieved by their cultures.

OTOH, if you believe that the prolitariat needs to be stateless first, the Revolution will NEVER come. Catch-22.

Having been to 4 (now ex-) Communist nations, I disagree that it is a superior system. Perhaps it is meant to be a more humanist ECONOMIC system than Capitalism, but it has proven to be a much worse POLITICAL system.

Capitalism has had hundreds, not thousands of years. You really don't have a middle class until the rise of Mercantilism.
And, in a way, the Communist system should have worked better, as it was built on a foundation which (in theory!) took into account the "failures" of Capitalism.

Sure. But what country will that be? None of the EU will convert. Nor will the US/Canada/Australia/New Zealand/Japan. Russia? Possible, but not likely. Even if it did, it couldn't rebuild itself to 1962 levels (it's economic peak, comparitively) without 20 years of another Stalin.
Where does that leave? Africa has no economies worth talking about. The Middle East would *never* convert, as Communism is incompatible with Islam and has a "Jewish tint". So we're left with China. And they're slowing converting the other way...

There are no nations that currently fit the bill, that's true, but a first world nation is going to hit a depression sooner or later. And when capitalism breaks down, suddenly the alternatives dont' seem so bad.

communism simply does not work, because it expects the best of a piss-poor species: Humans. Capitalism, and democracy fail due to the fact that they expect the best from a piss-poor species...human.

There are no nations that currently fit the bill, that's true, but a first world nation is going to hit a depression sooner or later. And when capitalism breaks down, suddenly the alternatives dont' seem so bad.

But history doesn't bear you out! There have been several depressions since the writing of the Manifesto, including the biggest one in history (in the US, starting in 1929). Yet during that time, not a SINGLE first world nation went Communist!

If you're saying we need a Great, Great Depression to achieve Communism, I'd say the whole thing is a bad idea to begin with! :)

Whats the CURRENT or ACTUAL definition of Communism? There's so many different types of it now.

China consider themselves communist, but have a free market.

Except that any prolitarian revolution has to include... PEOPLE. Once you have people involved, disagreements, bickering, and power plays begin.
I submit that the various Communist nations were as close to an attempt at Marxism as could be achieved by their cultures.

OTOH, if you believe that the prolitariat needs to be stateless first, the Revolution will NEVER come. Catch-22.

Having been to 4 (now ex-) Communist nations, I disagree that it is a superior system. Perhaps it is meant to be a more humanist ECONOMIC system than Capitalism, but it has proven to be a much worse POLITICAL system.

Capitalism has had hundreds, not thousands of years. You really don't have a middle class until the rise of Mercantilism.
And, in a way, the Communist system should have worked better, as it was built on a foundation which (in theory!) took into account the "failures" of Capitalism.

Sure. But what country will that be? None of the EU will convert. Nor will the US/Canada/Australia/New Zealand/Japan. Russia? Possible, but not likely. Even if it did, it couldn't rebuild itself to 1962 levels (it's economic peak, comparitively) without 20 years of another Stalin.
Where does that leave? Africa has no economies worth talking about. The Middle East would *never* convert, as Communism is incompatible with Islam and has a "Jewish tint". So we're left with China. And they're slowing converting the other way...
Capitalism has had several thousand years, though not continuously, the Romans for example had a large middle class, the people of equestrian rank.

Also, you left out India, surely a nation which might feel the benefits...?

YES!!! finally a fellow communist. unlike other "hippy" communists who are just left wing students i am proud to say im a bona fida communist. i have read the communist manifesto i know that friedrich engels influence was hegel (great guy) know that stalinism is not communism (duh) i have read thomas paine's rights of man and the che guvera reader which was put together by the estudio of che guvera in havana o and che's real name is ernesto. the ussr started with its heart in the right place butfinished off badly and i think china does well but is now moving towards socialism not communism. in addition i have a question what is the true path of communism, marxism, leninism, maoism or stalinism?

YES!!! finally a fellow communist. unlike other "hippy" communists who are just left wing students i am proud to say im a bona fida communist. i have read the communist manifesto i know that friedrich engels influence was hegel (great guy) know that stalinism is not communism (duh) i have read thomas paine's rights of man and the che guvera reader which was put together by the estudio of che guvera in havana o and che's real name is ernesto. the ussr started with its heart in the right place butfinished off badly and i think china does well but is now moving towards socialism not communism. in addition i have a question what is the true path of communism, marxism, leninism, maoism or stalinism?

Every single one you just listed historyicly didn't work. We need to take the good parts from each one and create a NEW system.

But history doesn't bear you out! There have been several depressions since the writing of the Manifesto, including the biggest one in history (in the US, starting in 1929). Yet during that time, not a SINGLE first world nation went Communist!

Ah, but communism wasn't really around duing the big depressions. All we've had since then are small recessions.

I like China.
It makes more sense to me to mix the philosophies of communist and capitalist.
Blue Mars has a system created which is sort of a mix of the two.
Only it took massive natural catastrophes on Earth and global civil wars on both planets to make people look for a new way.

I like China.
It makes more sense to me to mix the philosophies of communist and capitalist.
Blue Mars has a system created which is sort of a mix of the two.
Only it took massive natural catastrophes on Earth and global civil wars on both planets to make people look for a new way.

"Blue mars" was an incredable book.

And yeah, maybe it will take migrating to another planet so we can start over to do it. But sooner or later SOMETHING is going to hit the reset button, and then communism has a chance.

"Blue mars" was an incredable book.

And yeah, maybe it will take migrating to another planet so we can start over to do it. But sooner or later SOMETHING is going to hit the reset button, and then communism has a chance.

I thought the weapons and methods used were very inventive.
Like the instant mass barbeque of the Bogdanovists.

Human nature is to only look to change something when it stops working.
We are after all mostly a herd species.

Having been to 4 (now ex-) Communist nations, I disagree that it is a superior system. Perhaps it is meant to be a more humanist ECONOMIC system than Capitalism, but it has proven to be a much worse POLITICAL system.

Communism isn't a political system at all. It's an economic system. The political system you're referring to is Stalinism. Communism could have any form of political system, really. It could be democratic, a dictatorship, totalitarian, anarchy...

Anyway, to the thread-starter: Your explanation of what is intended by Marx's "Dictatorship of the proletariat"?

Yeah, China's a great place to live!

YES!!! finally a fellow communist. unlike other "hippy" communists who are just left wing students i am proud to say im a bona fida communist. i have read the communist manifesto i know that friedrich engels influence was hegel (great guy) know that stalinism is not communism (duh) i have read thomas paine's rights of man and the che guvera reader which was put together by the estudio of che guvera in havana o and che's real name is ernesto. the ussr started with its heart in the right place butfinished off badly and i think china does well but is now moving towards socialism not communism. in addition i have a question what is the true path of communism, marxism, leninism, maoism or stalinism?

Hegel thought that the values of society are built on bloody power struggles. That men can be reduced to tools of historical progression. I don't consider him great at all. If your looking for the most destruction refutation of communism then look to Camus.
I like this quote, "Fascism never dreamed of freeing all men but by building up some and subjagating the rest. Communism tries to free all men by enslaving them all."
Even when you look to case studies of communism it is dripping with anti-democratic nature.
The gulags for instance were a translation of re-education from Marx and Engels in the real world. The problem with Marxism is that it won't admit its most gross mistakes. It is dogmatic and makes baseless assumptions much like a religion. Marx was a prophet for an armagheddon and a messionic state that never happened. There is no backup for any of his claims.
China was real communism? China only managed to kill the most out of all the communist regimes. Tell me what good did it do to kill all the artists? What good did it do to burn all of the books?
Ill tell you because Communism fears an enlightened populace. It fears democracy the instant you show it the beauty of human intelligence it cowers behind censorship.

YES!!! finally a fellow communist. unlike other "hippy" communists who are just left wing students i am proud to say im a bona fida communist. i have read the communist manifesto i know that friedrich engels influence was hegel (great guy) know that stalinism is not communism (duh) i have read thomas paine's rights of man and the che guvera reader which was put together by the estudio of che guvera in havana o and che's real name is ernesto. the ussr started with its heart in the right place butfinished off badly and i think china does well but is now moving towards socialism not communism. in addition i have a question what is the true path of communism, marxism, leninism, maoism or stalinism?

I think Stalinist is the only way to go. :sniper:

Communism isn't a political system at all. It's an economic system. The political system you're referring to is Stalinism. Communism could have any form of political system, really. It could be democratic, a dictatorship, totalitarian, anarchy...

Anyway, to the thread-starter: Your explanation of what is intended by Marx's "Dictatorship of the proletariat"?

IN THE LITERAL SENSE:

A democracy as the ruling system is the ultimate goal of course. And it is possible to have a democraticly elected socialist/communist government (see Britian). A dictatorships may be an easly nessicesity, but to not think this means stalinism. There are countries that have had benovolent, if harsh, dictators (see Singapore)

WHAT YOU MEANT:

The age of the greasy, dirty, worker who is in a steel plant for 12 hours a day is over. Now it is not so much a matter of protecting peoples lives from the capitalists, as it is protecting their intrests. For example, take all the CEO's who get paid 10million+ dollars a year, not including stock options. What if you took that money, that productivity in effect, and used it for somthing USEFULL instead of one mans greed. For the amount all the CEO's and Boards of Directors in the united states are paid, we could feed tens of thousands of starving poor. Take every major corporation, every bank and every investor. Take all the assets thier using to buy their family their third home in the bahama's and use it to do some GOOD dammit!

Marx's vision of a "dictatorship of the prolatariat" is unattainable. The people who run the busnesses will still run them, even if the exact people change. But that dosn't mean that those goods can't be shifted towards productive uses, instead of personal wealth and maintaining power.

[end rant]

IN THE LITERAL SENSE:

A democracy as the ruling system is the ultimate goal of course. And it is possible to have a democraticly elected socialist/communist government (see Britian). A dictatorships may be an easly nessicesity, but to not think this means stalinism. There are countries that have had benovolent, if harsh, dictators (see Singapore)

WHAT YOU MEANT:

The age of the greasy, dirty, worker who is in a steel plant for 12 hours a day is over. Now it is not so much a matter of protecting peoples lives from the capitalists, as it is protecting their intrests. For example, take all the CEO's who get paid 10million+ dollars a year, not including stock options. What if you took that money, that productivity in effect, and used it for somthing USEFULL instead of one mans greed. For the amount all the CEO's and Boards of Directors in the united states are paid, we could feed tens of thousands of starving poor. Take every major corporation, every bank and every investor. Take all the assets thier using to buy their family their third home in the bahama's and use it to do some GOOD dammit!

Marx's vision of a "dictatorship of the prolatariat" is unattainable. The people who run the busnesses will still run them, even if the exact people change. But that dosn't mean that those goods can't be shifted towards productive uses, instead of personal wealth and maintaining power.

[end rant]
Hear hear!

Actually, it partly is. There has never been a truely communist state. the USSR wasn't even close, same with the sattelite states. The closest anyone has ever come is Communist China, and while that revolution was marked with initial disaster, once they got is started the economy sorta-worked.

If your asking if I believe in Marx's vision of communism as an inevitabily, no. Communism, while it is a superior system, is at odds with people's base nature and the forces of entropy. While I think it will rise again, I do not hold it as if it was some divine prophesy.

But yes, i do still hold out hope. Communism (or attempts at it) has been marred with disaster in the past, but early capitalism was harder on the working classes then communism ever was. Capitalimsm has had thousands of years to be perfected to it's current form, so it's no small wonder that it has been more effective. But if we learn from our mistakes, and don't make the same blunders the previous attempts made, it could work. And all it would take it ONE state that is truely equal for the rest of the world to follow suite. Lead by example and all that.
i ahve to disagree with you on the china point
actually china was far away from socialism beceause it went from fuedalism to socialism and not from capitalism to socialism like in marxes theory, i'm not saying its an impossible task but a real hard one
and i could give proof that china was farrest away from socialism but i'm lazy

There are no nations that currently fit the bill, that's true, but a first world nation is going to hit a depression sooner or later. And when capitalism breaks down, suddenly the alternatives dont' seem so bad.
sorry, i have to disagree with you again,
the muslim belief and communism go together smoothly dunno about the jewish but i do know that marx, trotsky and a lot of other communists are jewish (10% of the iraqi's are communist)

sorry, i have to disagree with you again,
the muslim belief and communism go together smoothly dunno about the jewish but i do know that marx, trotsky and a lot of other communists are jewish (10% of the iraqi's are communist)

See? Misery inspiries communism, 10% aint bad.

YES!!! finally a fellow communist. unlike other "hippy" communists who are just left wing students i am proud to say im a bona fida communist. i have read the communist manifesto i know that friedrich engels influence was hegel (great guy) know that stalinism is not communism (duh) i have read thomas paine's rights of man and the che guvera reader which was put together by the estudio of che guvera in havana o and che's real name is ernesto. the ussr started with its heart in the right place butfinished off badly and i think china does well but is now moving towards socialism not communism. in addition i have a question what is the true path of communism, marxism, leninism, maoism or stalinism?
CHINA isn't even close to socialism or communism and it WAS close to socialism
they call themselves market-communists but thats the same as an anarchist calling himself an authoritarian-anarchist

Hey, we've had "Ask a Muslum" and "Ask an Athiest" so if figured.....why not?

Ask away.
Why does Communism seem so anti-religious? Many countries that try it turn anti-religious...so why?

i want to answer :rolleyes:
but its not my topic :D

Capitalism has had several thousand years, though not continuously, the Romans for example had a large middle class, the people of equestrian rank.

Also, you left out India, surely a nation which might feel the benefits...?

If you count that as Capitalism, sure. Then the free bread and circuses of Rome were early Communism, no? :)

India? The country benefiting from outsourcing like a child to a teat? The country which still has a huge poor population and still has a remnant of a caste system? No, I don't think they'll go Communist...

Communism isn't a political system at all. It's an economic system. The political system you're referring to is Stalinism. Communism could have any form of political system, really. It could be democratic, a dictatorship, totalitarian, anarchy...

Anyway, to the thread-starter: Your explanation of what is intended by Marx's "Dictatorship of the proletariat"?

You can't have an economic system without a political system to support it, and vice versa. QED.
Further, you can't have any form of Communism with the exception of dictatorship/totalitarian:
Democratic: Impossible, as the communist works to destroy the burgeios. In doing so, he is destroying any Democratic process, as he is disenfrancising by force.
Anarchy: There is no government, so you can't redistribute goods by using anything but force. Ipso facto, that's not Communism, that's theft!

Why does Communism seem so anti-religious? Many countries that try it turn anti-religious...so why?

Well....a few reasons.

Because any religion that has "chosen people" is in conflict with the idea. In a totally equal system, you can't be more chosen then anybody else.

Because religion implies there is a higher authority then the government, and while this isn't implicitly linked to communism, thoughout history most communist governments have claimed they are the ultimate power.

Because Marxism holds that religion is another thing holding the workers down.

Because a large part of religion is seeking fullfillment where your dead-end job offers none. In a totally merit-based system, hard work is all it takes to do well.

And because many religions have undertones that imply ownership.

You can't have an economic system without a political system to support it, and vice versa. QED.
Further, you can't have any form of Communism with the exception of dictatorship/totalitarian:
Democratic: Impossible, as the communist works to destroy the burgeios. In doing so, he is destroying any Democratic process, as he is disenfrancising by force.
Anarchy: There is no government, so you can't redistribute goods by using anything but force. Ipso facto, that's not Communism, that's theft!

Wrong, Britan voted the socialists into power over and over again dispite the fact that what they were doing clearly DIDN'T WORK.

Belief in an idea is all it takes.

Ah, but communism wasn't really around duing the big depressions. All we've had since then are small recessions.

Communist Manifesto: 1847
Great Depression: 1929-1939

Wrong, Britan voted the socialists into power over and over again dispite the fact that what they were doing clearly DIDN'T WORK.

Belief in an idea is all it takes.

The last time I checked, Socialism did not equal Communism. Or do you call Sweden a Communist State?

Communist Manifesto: 1847
Great Depression: 1929-1939

....Your point?

Anarchy was invented during the stone ages, it wasn't aroung during the victorian era.

Besides, the country was held together during the great depression by FDR great leadership. He also instiuted a number of "new deal" policies that, while they arn't communist, are defintily socialist.

The last time I checked, Socialism did not equal Communism. Or do you call Sweden a Communist State?

My POINT is that just because communism may not increase the voters wealth, dosn't mean they won't vote it into power.

....Your point?

Anarchy was invented during the stone ages, it wasn't aroung during the victorian era.

Besides, the country was held together during the great depression by FDR great leadership. He also instiuted a number of "new deal" policies that, while they arn't communist, are defintily socialist.

Um... no. Anarchy is the state of no government. It has been around as long as there has been government, and has never "not been around". http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=anarchy

That's a great American point of view. How about Germany, France, England, Spain, Italy... my point is that there has yet to be a single nation that went Communist due to *economic* reasons.

As for the history point: You said-
Originally Posted by Muru
Ah, but communism wasn't really around duing the big depressions. All we've had since then are small recessions

I countered with-
Originally Posted by Markreich
Communist Manifesto: 1847
Great Depression: 1929-1939
...pointing out that Communism was 70 years old when the world entered the biggest depression it had ever had.

I'm sorry if you don't like contrary point of views, but I'm just pointing out that your arguement has a logical flaw, IMHO.

My POINT is that just because communism may not increase the voters wealth, dosn't mean they won't vote it into power.

Why on earth would someone vote to reduce their wealth?

The fact is that revolution comes from the middle, never from the rich or the poor. The American, French, and Russian Revolutions all prove this. And the middle only wants change when it sees itself sliding into becoming poor.

So I still posit that if we have to have a depression worse than 1929-1939 to get people to vote Communist, it's a bad idea anyway.

Um... no. Anarchy is the state of no government. It has been around as long as there has been government, and has never "not been around". http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=anarchy

That's a great American point of view. How about Germany, France, England, Spain, Italy... my point is that there has yet to be a single nation that went Communist due to *economic* reasons.

As for the history point: You said-
Originally Posted by Muru
Ah, but communism wasn't really around duing the big depressions. All we've had since then are small recessions

I countered with-
Originally Posted by Markreich
Communist Manifesto: 1847
Great Depression: 1929-1939
...pointing out that Communism was 70 years old when the world entered the biggest depression it had ever had.

I'm sorry if you don't like contrary point of views, but I'm just pointing out that your arguement has a logical flaw, IMHO.


Nothing ever happens for purely economic reasons, it would be stupid to say that people flock to communism when things go bad.

People flock to communism when things to bad and they loose faith in their leaders. It's the difference between saying "It's just bad times" and saying "this is the systems fault."

Oh, and anarchy is a modern-day political movement.

Why on earth would someone vote to reduce their wealth?

The fact is that revolution comes from the middle, never from the rich or the poor. The American, French, and Russian Revolutions all prove this. And the middle only wants change when it sees itself sliding into becoming poor.

So I still posit that if we have to have a depression worse than 1929-1939 to get people to vote Communist, it's a bad idea anyway.

I'm talking short run wealth reduction here.

Nothing ever happens for purely economic reasons, it would be stupid to say that people flock to communism when things go bad.

People flock to communism when things to bad and they loose faith in their leaders. It's the difference between saying "It's just bad times" and saying "this is the systems fault."

Oh, and anarchy is a modern-day political movement.

True. But it's a major motivator.

False.
No government has ever gone Communist after loosing faith in their leaders, in *every* case is was in an armed Revolution fermented by outside forces. This is true of every one of the Satellites (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, etc -- by USSR), Vietnam and North Korea (by USSR & China), China (by US taking Kai-Shek's side after WW2 and making a mess of things in their civil war), Cuba (by USSR) and USSR itself (WW1 was the Catalyst, but the Germans aided in getting leaders like Trotsky and Lenin where they needed to be and what they needed.
Further proof was Cuba's attempt to ferment revolution in Africa and South America in the 50s and 60s, until the death of Che.

It may *also* be a modern political movement, but let's face it, it's heyday was pre-WW1 when it managed to kill a US President, a Tsar, a French Premier and several other world leaders.

Originally Posted by Muru
My POINT is that just because communism may not increase the voters wealth, dosn't mean they won't vote it into power.

Originally Posted by Markreich
Why on earth would someone vote to reduce their wealth?
The fact is that revolution comes from the middle, never from the rich or the poor. The American, French, and Russian Revolutions all prove this. And the middle only wants change when it sees itself sliding into becoming poor.
So I still posit that if we have to have a depression worse than 1929-1939 to get people to vote Communist, it's a bad idea anyway.

I'm talking short run wealth reduction here.

It doesn't really matter. You may idealize it thus, but historically it has never happened.

Unless you can site a counter example?

But history doesn't bear you out! There have been several depressions since the writing of the Manifesto, including the biggest one in history (in the US, starting in 1929). Yet during that time, not a SINGLE first world nation went Communist!

If you're saying we need a Great, Great Depression to achieve Communism, I'd say the whole thing is a bad idea to begin with! :)
Actually, if a capitilist country's growth rises to fast(our example the U.S.) then
eventually it would grow at it's peak and shoots down. This hasn't happened yet due to the small number of capitilist countries that grew so fast. Now modernized econimies are starting to do this.

True. But it's a major motivator.

False.
No government has ever gone Communist after loosing faith in their leaders, in *every* case is was in an armed Revolution fermented by outside forces. This is true of every one of the Satellites (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, etc -- by USSR), Vietnam and North Korea (by USSR & China), China (by US taking Kai-Shek's side after WW2 and making a mess of things in their civil war), Cuba (by USSR) and USSR itself (WW1 was the Catalyst, but the Germans aided in getting leaders like Trotsky and Lenin where they needed to be and what they needed.
Further proof was Cuba's attempt to ferment revolution in Africa and South America in the 50s and 60s, until the death of Che.

It may *also* be a modern political movement, but let's face it, it's heyday was pre-WW1 when it managed to kill a US President, a Tsar, a French Premier and several other world leaders.


Yeah, so foreingers armed rebels, your point? The rebels were there before, and hand support before.

It doesn't really matter. You may idealize it thus, but historically it has never happened.

Unless you can site a counter example?

Again, Britian. The workers kept voting in a system that CLEARLY didn't work in the short run on the promises of long term again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markreich
True. But it's a major motivator.

False.
No government has ever gone Communist after loosing faith in their leaders, in *every* case is was in an armed Revolution fermented by outside forces. This is true of every one of the Satellites (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, etc -- by USSR), Vietnam and North Korea (by USSR & China), China (by US taking Kai-Shek's side after WW2 and making a mess of things in their civil war), Cuba (by USSR) and USSR itself (WW1 was the Catalyst, but the Germans aided in getting leaders like Trotsky and Lenin where they needed to be and what they needed.
Further proof was Cuba's attempt to ferment revolution in Africa and South America in the 50s and 60s, until the death of Che.

It may *also* be a modern political movement, but let's face it, it's heyday was pre-WW1 when it managed to kill a US President, a Tsar, a French Premier and several other world leaders.

Yeah, so foreingers armed rebels, your point? The rebels were there before, and hand support before.

You really are boring to debate. All you say is "your point"?

Okay... you said that people vote Communist in bad economic times and when they lose faith in their system of government.

I'm pointing out that no Communist nation was ever formed in a vote, but always with the coercion of outside influences and armed conflict.

Therefore, your arguement is not defensible, QED.

But history doesn't bear you out! There have been several depressions since the writing of the Manifesto, including the biggest one in history (in the US, starting in 1929). Yet during that time, not a SINGLE first world nation went Communist!

If you're saying we need a Great, Great Depression to achieve Communism, I'd say the whole thing is a bad idea to begin with! :)
But in US you have a two-party system, no wonder that communist parties got no votes. IN europe openly communit partie could get 10-20 % of the votes.

Again, Britian. The workers kept voting in a system that CLEARLY didn't work in the short run on the promises of long term again.

You're not making much sense here.

Support your arguement. Didn't work how? *How* are they voting? For what party? When? In what numbers? According to the list below, there seems to be no real constituency for Communist voting at all!

http://www.fact-index.com/u/uk/uk_general_election__2001.html

UK General Election, 2001:

Party 1997 gains losses 2001
Labour 419 2 8 413
Conservatives 165 9 8 166
Liberal Democrats 46 8 2 52
Scottish National Party 6 0 1 5
Plaid Cymru 4 1 1 4
Independents 1 1 1 1

Share of Votes:
Labour 40.7%
Conservatives 31.7%
Liberal Democrats 18.3%
others 9.3%

But in US you have a two-party system, no wonder that communist parties got no votes. IN europe openly communit partie could get 10-20 % of the votes.

In some European nations, yes.
But my point was that no Communist has ever been elected as a head of state, and that no Democracy has ever voted to become Communist.

I deliberately listed nations, and am not just counting the US.

sorry, i have to disagree with you again,
the muslim belief and communism go together smoothly dunno about the jewish but i do know that marx, trotsky and a lot of other communists are jewish (10% of the iraqi's are communist)
But there is only one think that Marx makes clear, religion is foolery created to lure the masses into obidience (I know it is wrong spelling), and hence doesn't fit with any religion...

In some European nations, yes.
But my point was that no Communist has ever been elected as a head of state, and that no Democracy has ever voted to become Communist.

I deliberately listed nations, and am not just counting the US.
Ok, sure. But still, if it wasn't for the depression the social democrats would never have been able to get that the popularity the have. It is a fact that people vote left in bad times, and it wouldn't surprise if a communist party ever get the majority of the votes.

sorry, i have to disagree with you again,
the muslim belief and communism go together smoothly dunno about the jewish but i do know that marx, trotsky and a lot of other communists are jewish (10% of the iraqi's are communist)
Not exactly true. Marx's father was Jewish, but converted to Christianity along with the entire Family when Marx was a child. He obviously wasn't a practicing member of any religion: Religion is the opiate of the masses, according to Marx.

You really are boring to debate. All you say is "your point"?

Okay... you said that people vote Communist in bad economic times and when they lose faith in their system of government.

I'm pointing out that no Communist nation was ever formed in a vote, but always with the coercion of outside influences and armed conflict.

Therefore, your arguement is not defensible, QED.

My POINT was that a communist democracy, once established, can hold together. Not that it would be the way it came about. Besides, in all of those cases, the government violently suppressed communists. What other options did they have?

You're not making much sense here.

Support your arguement. Didn't work how? *How* are they voting? For what party? When? In what numbers? According to the list below, there seems to be no real constituency for Communist voting at all!

http://www.fact-index.com/u/uk/uk_general_election__2001.html

UK General Election, 2001:

Party 1997 gains losses 2001
Labour 419 2 8 413
Conservatives 165 9 8 166
Liberal Democrats 46 8 2 52
Scottish National Party 6 0 1 5
Plaid Cymru 4 1 1 4
Independents 1 1 1 1

Share of Votes:
Labour 40.7%
Conservatives 31.7%
Liberal Democrats 18.3%
others 9.3%


I was refering to the mostly-socialist labor party and the massive depression that resulted from their failed ideas.

Ok, sure. But still, if it wasn't for the depression the social democrats would never have been able to get that the popularity the have. It is a fact that people vote left in bad times, and it wouldn't surprise if a communist party ever get the majority of the votes.

Exactly, just because it hasn't happened yet dosn't mean it can't.

I'm tired of hearing McCarthy brain-washed capitalists always repeating the same propaganda.

"Communism can't work because it has never worked before."
"Communism can't work because Stalin killed millions of people."
"Communism can't work because Lenin is gay".

Try something which makes more sense please. You can't be that dumb. Use your brain, try to understand how it works or how it doesn't work and then try to argue, but please stop repeating again and again the same old propaganda it is really really boring in the long run.

Ok, sure. But still, if it wasn't for the depression the social democrats would never have been able to get that the popularity the have. It is a fact that people vote left in bad times, and it wouldn't surprise if a communist party ever get the majority of the votes.

People may vote left in bad times, depending. In Weimar Germany, they voted right and brought in the Nazis. Usually they vote for CHANGE. :)

I'd be shocked in the Communists are *ever* voted in anywhere. Simply put, the wide majority of people on the planet are religious, and would not vote Communist.

The irony is that places that might vote Communist would never get the chance, as they're already totalitarian. And once a Republic/Democracy is achieved (and by achieved, I mean actually has had 2 elections where power is transferred), Communism becomes a less palatable idea.

I'm tired of hearing McCarthy brain-washed capitalists always repeating the same propaganda.

"Communism can't work because it has never worked before."
"Communism can't work because Stalin killed millions of people."
"Communism can't work because Lenin is gay".

Try something which makes more sense please. You can't be that dumb. Use your brain, try to understand how it works or how it doesn't work and then try to argue, but please stop repeating again and again the same old propaganda it is really really boring in the long run.

Heya, old buddy.
Okay, refute my posts, then.
Or, come up with a scenario where a prosperous state will vote Communist within the next... 50 years. The US, Canada, whatever. :)

My POINT was that a communist democracy, once established, can hold together. Not that it would be the way it came about. Besides, in all of those cases, the government violently suppressed communists. What other options did they have?

A Communist Democracy is impossible by definition, as Communist ideology (I've read the Manifesto over half a dozen times) is at war with religion and the borguiose. In that, you cannot have a democracy if you're fighting with everyone whom is not a "worker".

Once estabished? How? Even IF (by some miricle) a Communist party were to win a majority in a Democratic nation, it still needs to stand re-election. Once in, it would need to eradicate the opposition and the need for elections in order to bring the Revolution to fruition.

May I have some proof of this repression?

Heya, old buddy.
Okay, refute my posts, then.
Or, come up with a scenario where a prosperous state will vote Communist within the next... 50 years. The US, Canada, whatever. :)Yeah because you think the bourgeois will want communism?
You are dreaming.
And the french revolution was started by the king perhaps?

Markreich:
Support your arguement. Didn't work how? *How* are they voting? For what party? When? In what numbers? According to the list below, there seems to be no real constituency for Communist voting at all!

I was refering to the mostly-socialist labor party and the massive depression that resulted from their failed ideas.

Are you British? I'm not, so I cannot quantify that the labour party failed or not. What depression?

These one line answers of yours are poor, BTW. If you can't support your arguements with examples and commentary, or indeed even redress my retorts, then it's not much of a debate, is it?

A Communist Democracy is impossible by definition, as Communist ideology (I've read the Manifesto over half a dozen times) is at war with religion and the borguiose. In that, you cannot have a democracy if you're fighting with everyone whom is not a "worker".

Once estabished? How? Even IF (by some miricle) a Communist party were to win a majority in a Democratic nation, it still needs to stand re-election. Once in, it would need to eradicate the opposition and the need for elections in order to bring the Revolution to fruition.

May I have some proof of this repression?Go read the manisfesto again.
Mandatory work for ALL -> EVERYBODY is a worker.

Yeah because you think the bourgeois will want communism?
You are dreaming.
And the french revolution was started by the king perhaps?

If you've been reading the thread, my point was that the bourgeois WON'T vote in Communism...

If you've been reading the thread, my point was that the bourgeois WON'T vote in Communism...Sorry I didn't read the thread. I was expecting to encounter the usual "but humans are greedy, they won't work" and stuff like "but communism want to put everybody down the lowest common denominator" and that kind of things that are so irritating I couldn't bother to read yet another thread full of ignorant capitalist propaganda non-sense.
I will read it then. All apologies.

Well....a few reasons.

Because any religion that has "chosen people" is in conflict with the idea. In a totally equal system, you can't be more chosen then anybody else.

Because religion implies there is a higher authority then the government, and while this isn't implicitly linked to communism, thoughout history most communist governments have claimed they are the ultimate power.

Because Marxism holds that religion is another thing holding the workers down.

Because a large part of religion is seeking fullfillment where your dead-end job offers none. In a totally merit-based system, hard work is all it takes to do well.

And because many religions have undertones that imply ownership.
but communism and religion can go together verry well, like on cuba...

Sorry I didn't read the thread. I was expecting to encounter the usual "but humans are greedy, they won't work" and stuff like "but communism want to put everybody down the lowest common denominator" and that kind of things that are so irritating I couldn't bother to read yet another thread full of ignorant capitalist propaganda non-sense.
I will read it then. All apologies.

None necessary. I know what drain it can be to read threads. :)

Communists are full of hate. They dehumanise people by calling them borgeois so that there's a boogey man to blame everything on. If the proletariat don't believe in communism, it's because they're brainwashed. However, the rich are completely responsible for their own actions.

Rich communists are hated by poor commnists, and poor communists are hated by even poorer communists.

Saying that, it has worked breifly in the past (Was it Italy or Spain?) and only collapsed there because it was destroyed by outside forces. But on a large scale, the only way to maintain it is by being most uncooly authoritarian.

If you've been reading the thread, my point was that the bourgeois WON'T vote in Communism...

But their are more workers then their are captialists. The majority wins.


but communism and religion can go together verry well, like on cuba...

They CAN. They just usually don't.

Are you British? I'm not, so I cannot quantify that the labour party failed or not. What depression?

These one line answers of yours are poor, BTW. If you can't support your arguements with examples and commentary, or indeed even redress my retorts, then it's not much of a debate, is it?

Your retort was along the lines of "This never happened", not much to retort.

The british labor party socialized all major industry, specificly coal and the railroads (as the two largest ones). They employed x3 to x4 as many workers as they actually needed because the government woudln't implement cost-effective mining methods that requiered less methods. Within a decade or so, the country was completly paralized by massive strikes, rolling blackouts, and companies filing for bankrupcy en-masse.

And the workers, sitting in homes without power, light, heat, and even food in some cases, continued to vote for the Labor party until it reached the point where all of britian was in a state of emergency. And even then, Labor didn't loose by that much.

Or, come up with a scenario where a prosperous state will vote Communist within the next... 50 years. The US, Canada, whatever.

Yeah, that's right. I can predict events that will happen 20, 30 years from now. And then know how they will effect things 20 years after they happen.

Communists are full of hate. They dehumanise people by calling them borgeois so that there's a boogey man to blame everything on. If the proletariat don't believe in communism, it's because they're brainwashed. However, the rich are completely responsible for their own actions.

Rich communists are hated by poor commnists, and poor communists are hated by even poorer communists.

Saying that, it has worked breifly in the past (Was it Italy or Spain?) and only collapsed there because it was destroyed by outside forces. But on a large scale, the only way to maintain it is by being most uncooly authoritarian.

The phrase.......

Rich communists

Indicates you have no idea what your talking about.

((SOrry if i put in some parts that were already said, i only got to the middle of page 4)

Communism CANNOT because for it to be effective there needs to be a totalarian dictatorship, and Communism puts down all notions of freedom. Humans, once they witness freedom and ownership, can NOT resist it's alure. Human beings are meant to be free, and even this petty "democracy" you would have in a communist state, it would still be false. That would imply that someone is HIGHER than you, or someone is SPECIAL. And those things are not something which should be in a country where "the power is to the Workers" The only way you could make a succesfull communist country is if you brainwashed everyone(like in the Award winning book The Giver.

((SOrry if i put in some parts that were already said, i only got to the middle of page 4)

Communism CANNOT because for it to be effective there needs to be a totalarian dictatorship, and Communism puts down all notions of freedom. Humans, once they witness freedom and ownership, can NOT resist it's alure. Human beings are meant to be free, and even this petty "democracy" you would have in a communist state, it would still be false. That would imply that someone is HIGHER than you, or someone is SPECIAL. And those things are not something which should be in a country where "the power is to the Workers" The only way you could make a succesfull communist country is if you brainwashed everyone(like in the Award winning book The Giver.

All people are not created equal, this is a simple fact. A working communist state would have to be a mertocracy.

But their are more workers then their are captialists. The majority wins.

They CAN. They just usually don't.

Your retort was along the lines of "This never happened", not much to retort.

The british labor party socialized all major industry, specificly coal and the railroads (as the two largest ones). They employed x3 to x4 as many workers as they actually needed because the government woudln't implement cost-effective mining methods that requiered less methods. Within a decade or so, the country was completly paralized by massive strikes, rolling blackouts, and companies filing for bankrupcy en-masse.

And the workers, sitting in homes without power, light, heat, and even food in some cases, continued to vote for the Labor party until it reached the point where all of britian was in a state of emergency. And even then, Labor didn't loose by that much.

Yeah, that's right. I can predict events that will happen 20, 30 years from now. And then know how they will effect things 20 years after they happen.

There are? News to me. What do you call a worker and a capitalist?
Is a white color worker that earns $90k (USD) a year a worker or a capitalist? How about 50k?
Manufacturing is highly automated these days, and Communist thought does not take into account this. I doubt that the Starbucks clerks are going to hatch a Communist Revolution. They're PART of the capitalist system. Unions, for all the rhetoric, are deadwood.
The majority indeed wins. And historically, that's NEVER been the Communists.

Exactly! With the total failure of Communism at the election box, there is nothing to retort.

More proof that capitalism is a better system.

That was a post to Pylos, not you. However, if you can't, then that just goes to show that the Communists have no plan, no hope. QED.

There are? News to me. What do you call a worker and a capitalist?
Is a white color worker that earns $90k (USD) a year a worker or a capitalist? How about 50k?
Manufacturing is highly automated these days, and Communist thought does not take into account this. I doubt that the Starbucks clerks are going to hatch a Communist Revolution. They're PART of the capitalist system. Unions, for all the rhetoric, are deadwood.
The majority indeed wins. And historically, that's NEVER been the Communists.

Exactly! With the total failure of Communism at the election box, there is nothing to retort.

More proof that capitalism is a better system.

That was a post to Pylos, not you. However, if you can't, then that just goes to show that the Communists have no plan, no hope. QED.

Bingo!

Although if Starbucks launched a revolution it would crush the army! Without any coffee to jump-start the average american morning, they will have captured everything before we even get over our FRiday-night hangovers!

Go read the manisfesto again.
Mandatory work for ALL -> EVERYBODY is a worker.

Are you talking about *after* a revolution?

The point was the electibility of a Communist Goverment and for a "Democratic Communism" to work.

So either you've replace the word "citizen" with "worker", or you have non-worker classes, as not everyone is part of the Communist party in a Democratic system. Ipso facto, a Democratic Communism is not a possibility, as Communism cannot govern with other parties, as this would preclude there being an actual revolution!

Are you talking about *after* a revolution?

The point was the electibility of a Communist Goverment and for a "Democratic Communism" to work.

So either you've replace the word "citizen" with "worker", or you have non-worker classes, as not everyone is part of the Communist party in a Democratic system. Ipso facto, a Democratic Communism is not a possibility, as Communism cannot govern with other parties, as this would preclude there being an actual revolution!

Yes! Power to the Coffee people!

((OOC: Yes, i know that was THE gayest(no insult intended to homosexual people. Its just a saying), worst thought out, and most utterly stupid post i've ever made but i just couldnt stop the urge!))

Hey, we've had "Ask a Muslum" and "Ask an Athiest" so if figured.....why not?

Ask away.

Are you a peaceful communist (like Letila) or a bloodthirsty one (like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, etc.)?

Are you a peaceful communist (like Letila) or a bloodthirsty one (like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, etc.)?

THATS why Letila utterly despises the U.S., he/she/it is a freedom hating communist!(and yes, communism is the Anti-freedom)

(and yes, communism is the Anti-freedom)

Agreed.

Your retort was along the lines of "This never happened", not much to retort.

The british labor party socialized all major industry, specificly coal and the railroads (as the two largest ones). They employed x3 to x4 as many workers as they actually needed because the government woudln't implement cost-effective mining methods that requiered less methods. Within a decade or so, the country was completly paralized by massive strikes, rolling blackouts, and companies filing for bankrupcy en-masse.

And the workers, sitting in homes without power, light, heat, and even food in some cases, continued to vote for the Labor party until it reached the point where all of britian was in a state of emergency. And even then, Labor didn't loose by that much.


Umm which decade would this be? Last I checked we Brits voted the Conservative party in for two decades (or there abouts) with the Labour party dotting in now and again. So could you please clarify which decade (because honestly nothing bad meant, I am curious, since my recent British history only covers up to 1946 and then from 1980 onwards). Oh yes and when referring to Britain please call our Railways by their correct name, we have no such thing as a Railroad in this country. :)

Example of Communist opression:

Hungary: 1950's

Hungary in a move vastly supported by the people tries to break free of the Soviet Bloc and ousts the Communist Dictator. After a few days, however, Soviet Tanks come in and blast the hell outta everything.

Tianamen Square:1989

Thousands of Protesters flock the CHinese Capital of Beijing. Within a few days, Here comes the signature COmmunist move: send in the tanks into an undefended group of people. Thousands murdered by Chinese soldiers.

American Situations similar:

Philipines: Early 20th Century

Philipinos rebel, U.S. crushes Philipino rebellion. However, U.S. tries to work out deal with Philipines for independence and such. U.S. fixes damage caused by putting down revolt. Philipines gains independence in 1946.

Peace Protests: 1960's

Thousands march the streets of americas cities in Protest to the Vietnam war. Few, if ANY, people die only when the protest break into riots. No tanks or heavy infantry sent in.

___________________________________________________________-

Who's got the better system NOW?

Why on earth would someone vote to reduce their wealth?

The fact is that revolution comes from the middle, never from the rich or the poor. The American, French, and Russian Revolutions all prove this. And the middle only wants change when it sees itself sliding into becoming poor.

So I still posit that if we have to have a depression worse than 1929-1939 to get people to vote Communist, it's a bad idea anyway.

Actually revolution does not always come from the middle. May I point out the German revolutions of 1918. First revolution in October was a revolution staged from above whereby the Kaiser accepted General Ludendorff's advise to grant Germany a Parliamentary democracy. Then in November the revolution from below began started by the the mutiny at Kiel naval base, this mutiny spread to all of the ports then the German soldiers and workers began to set up councils and demand a republic. The government that was born from this had not even wanted power nor expected to have it granted to them; this government was led by the Social Democrat party (not a revolutionary party).

As for the Russian revolutions, the first in 1905, began in the October when the St. Petersberg printers went on strike followed by the railway workers who started a national strike which spread rapidly throughout the rest of Russian industry. The first Soviets were formed by the workers who had begun the strike action. Furthermore these activities spread to the countryside where riots started and, the peasants like the workers set up their own unions to manage their affairs. This revolution was a spontaneous revolution not organised by any of the revolutionary parties within Russia at the time; and succeeded in securing for the Russian people the Imperial Duma which granted them a limited say in government.

The second revolution in february 1917 was likewise a spontaneous revolution started by the workers not by any of the revolutionary factions and by 2nd march (Julian calendar) the Generals who, -concerned about failing disipline and concerned that they maybe shot, had joined the revolution- with the Duma informed the Tsar that he must abdicate. The next day the government was taken over by the Dual power of the Provisional government and the Petrograd soviet.

There you are, four instances in two countries where revolution was not started by the petit-bourgeoise, but by the bourgeoise or the proletariat. :)

The phrase.......

[Rich Communists]

Indicates you have no idea what your talking about.

Bizzare... most communists I've come across are trust fund Tommies n' Tammies from university...

Example of Communist opression:

Hungary: 1950's

Hungary in a move vastly supported by the people tries to break free of the Soviet Bloc and ousts the Communist Dictator. After a few days, however, Soviet Tanks come in and blast the hell outta everything.

the year for the hungarian revolt was 1956. it is an example of stalinist oppression - which is odd, because it was the ussr's move away from stalinism that prompted the whole thing. but then again, what the hungarians were calling for was the one thing that authoritarian marxists of all stripes will violently crush - a libertarian socialist society, with workers' councils and everything. authoritarians hate that shit. but by and large, the people involved in the revolt were communists themselves, so using it as an example of general communist oppression is slightly misleading.

Heh, Heh. What an amusing thread, debate on systems of governance always amuse me. Seeing as all systems have been designed by humans they are all doomed to failure and debasement. But anyone seeking to have a really relevent discussion on the governance should read at least the following texts;
Plato - The Republic
Marx - The Communist Manifesto
Lao Tzu - Tao Te Ching

From what I can see there have been just as many failures of democracy as of communism. In fact democracy failed over 2000 years ago and I really don't see how any thing has changed now.

Are you talking about *after* a revolution?

The point was the electibility of a Communist Goverment and for a "Democratic Communism" to work.

So either you've replace the word "citizen" with "worker", or you have non-worker classes, as not everyone is part of the Communist party in a Democratic system. Ipso facto, a Democratic Communism is not a possibility, as Communism cannot govern with other parties, as this would preclude there being an actual revolution!It doesn't make sense.
Capitalism is anti-democratic by this same standard.
Capitalism -> the bourgeois minority rules.
Communism -> everybody rules.

How can you call communism un-democratic?
I don't get your logic really.

I think you are arguing that communism can't be installed via democracy, but not that communism can't be democratic.
If so, you are right that it can't be installed by democracy, but it is because we don't have democracy, not because communism is not democratic.
Actually we need communism for having democracy. So a communist revolution can be a democratic revolution at the same time.

There are? News to me. What do you call a worker and a capitalist?
Is a white color worker that earns $90k (USD) a year a worker or a capitalist? How about 50k?
Manufacturing is highly automated these days, and Communist thought does not take into account this. I doubt that the Starbucks clerks are going to hatch a Communist Revolution. They're PART of the capitalist system. Unions, for all the rhetoric, are deadwood.
The majority indeed wins. And historically, that's NEVER been the Communists.

Exactly! With the total failure of Communism at the election box, there is nothing to retort.

More proof that capitalism is a better system.

That was a post to Pylos, not you. However, if you can't, then that just goes to show that the Communists have no plan, no hope. QED.

Anyone who works for a steady salary is a worker, it's not that complicated.

The majority indeed wins. And historically, that's NEVER been the Communists.

Irrelevant.

Are you talking about *after* a revolution?

The point was the electibility of a Communist Goverment and for a "Democratic Communism" to work.

So either you've replace the word "citizen" with "worker", or you have non-worker classes, as not everyone is part of the Communist party in a Democratic system. Ipso facto, a Democratic Communism is not a possibility, as Communism cannot govern with other parties, as this would preclude there being an actual revolution!

I'm sorry...but i didn't understand a work of that. could you rephrase it?

Are you a peaceful communist (like Letila) or a bloodthirsty one (like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, etc.)?

I don't advocate government overthrow if that's what your asking. But i do believe that there are some problems that are best solved by the strategic and carefull application of violence.

Umm which decade would this be? Last I checked we Brits voted the Conservative party in for two decades (or there abouts) with the Labour party dotting in now and again. So could you please clarify which decade (because honestly nothing bad meant, I am curious, since my recent British history only covers up to 1946 and then from 1980 onwards). Oh yes and when referring to Britain please call our Railways by their correct name, we have no such thing as a Railroad in this country. :)

Right after WWII, when socialism was the "in" thing. The labors partys reign was mostly ended with the election of margaret thatcher.

Example of Communist opression:

Hungary: 1950's

Hungary in a move vastly supported by the people tries to break free of the Soviet Bloc and ousts the Communist Dictator. After a few days, however, Soviet Tanks come in and blast the hell outta everything.

Tianamen Square:1989

Thousands of Protesters flock the CHinese Capital of Beijing. Within a few days, Here comes the signature COmmunist move: send in the tanks into an undefended group of people. Thousands murdered by Chinese soldiers.

American Situations similar:

Philipines: Early 20th Century

Philipinos rebel, U.S. crushes Philipino rebellion. However, U.S. tries to work out deal with Philipines for independence and such. U.S. fixes damage caused by putting down revolt. Philipines gains independence in 1946.

Peace Protests: 1960's

Thousands march the streets of americas cities in Protest to the Vietnam war. Few, if ANY, people die only when the protest break into riots. No tanks or heavy infantry sent in.

___________________________________________________________-

Who's got the better system NOW?

Wow, you've proven that stalinism and maoism are violent. Come back when you have a clue what were talking about. Communism is an ECONOMIC SYSTEM.

Bizzare... most communists I've come across are trust fund Tommies n' Tammies from university...

So you apprantly don't know many.

THATS why Letila utterly despises the U.S., he/she/it is a freedom hating communist!(and yes, communism is the Anti-freedom)

It's he, and he's an anarchist, I think it's a little hard being against freedom and to be an anarchist at the same time. :rolleyes:

It's also logical that Communism ought to be the superior system compared Capitalism, as Communism was created BECAUSE capitalism failed, therefore it won't have all the flaws that capitalism has. People say that real Communism doesn't exist today and never works, but nor does real capitalism. Countries like america, which is a haven for industrialists, and even though is the closest state to achieving pure capitalism, still has some Communism in their policies, since the fat capitalist pigs in the White House are afraid of Revolution, so they counter it by using some Communist principals in their national laws to keep the people happy.

Wow, you've proven that stalinism and maoism are violent. Come back when you have a clue what were talking about. Communism is an ECONOMIC SYSTEM.

Wow, OF COURE OF KNOW THAT IDIOT!

But can you name me ONE Communist Democracy? HHHMMMMM??

And for Communism to REALLY work, there MUST be a dictator! Or else it befuddles the entire system!

Wow, OF COURE OF KNOW THAT IDIOT!

But can you name me ONE Communist Democracy? HHHMMMMM??

And for Communism to REALLY work, there MUST be a dictator! Or else it befuddles the entire system!
Lol. Name one man who snort cocaïn and who have a duck.
-> snorting cocaïn and having a duck is not possible.

Come on use your brain.

Why would we need a Great Depression to turn Communist?? People change and hey guess what United States: you are far from a democracy. A seemingly non-corrupt nation could easily, but slowly, turn their nation in the direction of Communism, and with the way government controls everything and everyone nowadays the people would just follow...like an ant following a trail of sugar...


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Forgive me if I am mistaken in my understanding of Communism but, isn't the point of Communism to work for the good of the state?
So, how could Democracy, which is suppose to work for the people and try to protect individual rights, work with Communism? This is of coarse if we are talking about a Democracy as it is defined.

The only reason I see Communism failing is because people want to work for themselves and not so much the state. Which is why Capitalism is so popular.

And many people have seen so many "Communist" nations fail them may not want to try to run that type of economy again.

Why would we need a Great Depression to turn Communist?? People change and hey guess what United States: you are far from a democracy. A seemingly non-corrupt nation could easily, but slowly, turn their nation in the direction of Communism, and with the way government controls everything and everyone nowadays the people would just follow...like an ant following a trail of sugar...


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

But why would a government that benefits from Intervened (sp?) Capitalistm and Corporations want to create a Communist country? If it would be better for their pockets in some way... maybe, but it wouldn't... ASAT.

Forgive me if I am mistaken in my understanding of Communism but, isn't the point of Communism to work for the good of the state?
So, how could Democracy, which is suppose to work for the people and try to protect individual rights, work with Communism? This is of coarse if we are talking about a Democracy as it is defined.

Communism is NOT "working for the good of the state", at some point you could say it is working for the good of every individual. Once again everyone: "Communism is an economical system not political", most anarchists are communists too, how can they think of working for the state?.

Democracy is about political rights, it should be logically together with civil rights (since people would not vote against their own rights, theoretically), but not necessarely. Besides that, a truly Communist country would be much more democratic (talking about civil rights) than a lot of today's republics, that of democratic have very little if something at all. A lot of republics today are what is sterotipically called "banana republics" and as such the rights of the people are close to inexistant, even if they are "democratic" and "capitalist".

In my opinion, a truly communist state would be only posible together with direct democracy.

The only reason I see Communism failing is because people want to work for themselves and not so much the state. Which is why Capitalism is so popular.

As already explained, you don't work for the state in true communism. Capitalism is not popular, it is impossed, if you check a poll that was made here in the NS general forum, you'll see that the political position between free market - state capitalism - socialism - communism, is quite divided.

And many people have seen so many "Communist" nations fail them may not want to try to run that type of economy again.

Exactly, neither do communists, we want true communism not totalitarian socialism.

Whatever man, there isnt even a snowbal's chance in hell that i am EVER going to give up all my stuff to everybody. Remember in Communism you own nothing(or everything, depenind on how ye see it.)

Come to think of it, Democratic Capitalism is the ONLY proven society/government/economic system! So call 1-800-CAPITALISM today so you can buy capitalism for only $19.95!

((Actually, with communism thered be no telemarketing, so meh.))

Say, Mr Communist, do you like noodles? ^^

Say, Mr Communist, do you like noodles? ^^

Lol!

Whatever man, there isnt even a snowbal's chance in hell that i am EVER going to give up all my stuff to everybody. Remember in Communism you own nothing(or everything, depenind on how ye see it.)

Come to think of it, Democratic Capitalism is the ONLY proven society/government/economic system! So call 1-800-CAPITALISM today so you can buy capitalism for only $19.95!

((Actually, with communism thered be no telemarketing, so meh.))
Another teenager that thinks being witty counts for anything.

I don't know about you Muru, but:
IGNORED

I don't blame "THe Lightning Star" Somehow.

Even school text books, give the definition of communism as being 'Command economy, with a totalitarian dictator or a centralized government system with no political opposition allowed'.

So to say that Communism, or the true definition to it, is just being a Economy system?

I'm a clearly confused. please elaborate for me the current or TRUE meaning to communism. Because clearly no nation currently is TRUELY communist.

Who controls the economic questions?
What to Produce, How much to produce?

If it's not the government centralized, then it's by DEmand and Supply?

Forgive me if I am mistaken in my understanding of Communism but, isn't the point of Communism to work for the good of the state?
So, how could Democracy, which is suppose to work for the people and try to protect individual rights, work with Communism? This is of coarse if we are talking about a Democracy as it is defined.Well you have a McCarthy version of democracy definition. Demorcacy is the rule of the people. What you call "the state" like it was some kind of specter aimed at destroying the world is in fact the people. If you work for the state, you work for the people, unless the state is an oligarchy, where you work for the rich, or a tyrany where you work for the tyran.

The only reason I see Communism failing is because people want to work for themselves and not so much the state. Which is why Capitalism is so popular.
And this is exactly the point of communism. People want to work for themselves, not for the bourgeois. In Capitalism, you work for the corporations who own your house, your car and your wife. They rent it back to you, but you have to work for them. This is an oligarchy, where the owners don't work (those who have the stock shares) and the workers are enslaved.

And many people have seen so many "Communist" nations fail them may not want to try to run that type of economy again.
It has not really failed, not so much as capitalism.
You are under the impression that capitalism works because you are a owner (a bourgeois), but if you look at the proletarian side, many people are starving and people are working for $1 per day for you to sustain your opulous life. Really it doesn't work so well on the other side.
The "failure" of communism you talk about are accidents of history. Look at the USSR. Sure Stalin killed millions of people in gulags, but he was at war with the Nazis and the USSR ended the nazi regime almost single handedly. After the rebuilding, the USSR invented the first satelitte and inspired the world. It finally fell because of the cold war, but look at russia now. Capitalist Russia is a catastrophe. The proletaires are dying. The USSR was a superpower, now Capitalist Russia is struggling to save what is left of its old glory. If you put it in perspective, there was no unemployment then and it was a power house.

Well you have a McCarthy version of democracy definition. Demorcacy is the rule of the people. What you call "the state" like it was some kind of specter aimed at destroying the world is in fact the people. If you work for the state, you work for the people, unless the state is an oligarchy, where you work for the rich, or a tyrany where you work for the tyran.
And this is exactly the point of communism. People want to work for themselves, not for the bourgeois. In Capitalism, you work for the corporations who own your house, your car and your wife. They rent it back to you, but you have to work for them. This is an oligarchy, where the owners don't work (those who have the stock shares) and the workers are enslaved.

It has not really failed, not so much as capitalism.
You are under the impression that capitalism works because you are a owner (a bourgeois), but if you look at the proletarian side, many people are starving and people are working for $1 per day for you to sustain your opulous life. Really it doesn't work so well on the other side.
The "failure" of communism you talk about are accidents of history. Look at the USSR. Sure Stalin killed millions of people in gulags, but he was at war with the Nazis and the USSR ended the nazi regime almost single handedly. After the rebuilding, the USSR invented the first satelitte and inspired the world. It finally fell because of the cold war, but look at russia now. Capitalist Russia is a catastrophe. The proletaires are dying. The USSR was a superpower, now Capitalist Russia is struggling to save what is left of its old glory. If you put it in perspective, there was no unemployment then and it was a power house.

so was communist russia! YOu dont know how much EVERYONE suffered, do you?

All communism has ever done is RUIN countries! Cuba=used to be moderatly rich. Cuba after communist took over= REALLY poor.

And dont you remember the U.S. in WWII! Sure, the Communists took Berlin, but only after we had managed to blast Germany to bits, destroyed their allies, captured France, destroyed their navy and airforce, gave the russians ALOT of supplies, and took care of the Japanesse for 'em.

I don't blame "THe Lightning Star" Somehow.

Even school text books, give the definition of communism as being 'Command economy, with a totalitarian dictator or a centralized government system with no political opposition allowed'.

So to say that Communism, or the true definition to it, is just being a Economy system?

I'm a clearly confused. please elaborate for me the current or TRUE meaning to communism. Because clearly no nation currently is TRUELY communist.

Who controls the economic questions?
What to Produce, How much to produce?

If it's not the government centralized, then it's by DEmand and Supply?It's always demand and supply which controls the economy.
The market is something natural, it has nothing to do with the economic system.
In capitalism, the oligarchs control the production.
In communism, the (hopefully democratic) government control the production.

Capitalism is a planned economy as well.

so was communist russia! YOu dont know how much EVERYONE suffered, do you?

All communism has ever done is RUIN countries! Cuba=used to be moderatly rich. Cuba after communist took over= REALLY poor.

And dont you remember the U.S. in WWII! Sure, the Communists took Berlin, but only after we had managed to blast Germany to bits, destroyed their allies, captured France, destroyed their navy and airforce, gave the russians ALOT of supplies, and took care of the Japanesse for 'em.Sure.
Do you get history books not written by McCarthy over there?

Sure.
Do you get history books not written by McCarthy over there?

WE DID DAMMIT!

You just wont appreciate the fact that without the U.S. the world would all be under Hitler or Tojo's rule...

I can't listen to this any more...

I mean, seriously! Why would someone disrespect the millions who fought and died to keep the world free! Why would they act in SUPPORT of the most vile and evil dictatorship in the history of man! WHY! Is it because they are trying to show off? Or are they REALLY sadistic and evil enough to TRUELY believe in evil?

The world shall never know.

WE DID DAMMIT!

You just wont appreciate the fact that without the U.S. the world would all be under Hitler or Tojo's rule...

I know I was going to ignore you but... <sigh> the 20 million casualties the russian had was just because they were inept, not because the germans took the war over there, right? :p

Who controls the economic questions?
What to Produce, How much to produce?

Besides what Psylos already answer: If you acknowledge that Communism is an econimical system, then how do you propose that it answer to those questions? How does "capitalism" answer to them? It doesn't, politics, or the lack of them and complete rule of primal necessities, answer that.

It's always demand and supply which controls the economy.
The market is something natural, it has nothing to do with the economic system.
In capitalism, the oligarchs control the production.
In communism, the (hopefully democratic) government control the production.

Capitalism is a planned economy as well.

But how does the government value Demand and Supply without a monetary system?

Whens there's too many oranges in everybodies cabinet and not enough blankies? :D

So if the government controls the people where they should work. Like if there's not enough wheat. They assign 1 million workers to be wheat farmers. What if they don't want to plant wheat? But they all want a nice cushion office job? Wouldn't everybody want a nice cushion office job?

I can't listen to this any more...

I mean, seriously! Why would someone disrespect the millions who fought and died to keep the world free! Why would they act in SUPPORT of the most vile and evil dictatorship in the history of man! WHY! Is it because they are trying to show off? Or are they REALLY sadistic and evil enough to TRUELY believe in evil?

The world shall never know.

Really, then don't. Anyway, the world would be a lot better place without america. You call killing INNOCENT iraqi civilians an act of 'liberation'?You call lauching tomahawk cruise missiles at populated Iraqi town centres freeing them?And you say we are 'vile'and 'evil'?But then again, I don't suppose capitalist media tell you the TRUTH.

Besides what Psylos already answer: If you acknowledge that Communism is an econimical system, then how do you propose that it answer to those questions? How does "capitalism" answer to them? It doesn't, politics, or the lack of them and complete rule of primal necessities, answer that.

Capitalism answers them by demand and supply. with Money.

Like if theres not enough food, and lots of people would be hungry, people would pay any price to have food.

So some become farmers because they want to make more money, because food sells.

In capitalism, the oligarchs control the production.
In communism, the (hopefully democratic) government control the production.

to put it another way, it comes down to who owns the factories and stores. in every example of a capitalist system, something on the order of .5 to 1% of the population owns 50% of the total productive capacity in it - with that number increasing to near 100% within the top 10-15%. this leads to gross distortions in wealth distribution, as well as having an large impact on the political and social relations within the country. ownership is power, and capitalism, by its very nature, invests onwership in a ridiculously tiny minority.

The Lightning Star should know better that you can never really convince people of anything in forums.

Look at the forums where people are bashing each other non-stop about their religions. It's been fought about in Forums since the beginning of the internet. :D

But it's good Q&A and good place for information.

Capitalism answers them by demand and supply. with Money.

Like if theres not enough food, and lots of people would be hungry, people would pay any price to have food.

So some become farmers because they want to make more money, because food sells.

And capitalism also corrupts one's mind, body and soul with money

But how does the government value Demand and Supply without a monetary system?

Whens there's too many oranges in everybodies cabinet and not enough blankies? :D

So if the government controls the people where they should work. Like if there's not enough wheat. They assign 1 million workers to be wheat farmers. What if they don't want to plant wheat? But they all want a nice cushion office job? Wouldn't everybody want a nice cushion office job?

psylos is in favor of markets, so you aren't going to get very far down this road.

to put it another way, it comes down to who owns the factories and stores. in every example of a capitalist system, something on the order of .5 to 1% of the population owns 50% of the total productive capacity in it - with that number increasing to near 100% within the top 10-15%. this leads to gross distortions in wealth distribution, as well as having an large impact on the political and social relations within the country. ownership is power, and capitalism, by its very nature, invests onwership in a ridiculously tiny minority.

Yup. Thats very true.

But it doesn't mean that a 'worker' can't aspire to be Ogliarch's as well. Because the way I see it, is either we have ONE Ogliarch (Which is the government), or MANY Ogliarchs. There's lots of people that from rags they learn something smart and sell it and become rich.

But as under a communist society, with the Government controlling everything, and everybody is given an equal ammount of wealth. There's not much room for dreams or aspirations of becoming better than the person beside you. Because there's no real reward for it.

psylos is in favor of markets, so you aren't going to get very far down this road.

In favor of markets. So it means it isn't Communism anymore is it? :p

Basically capitalism only bearly exists becuase of our instincts, but if we changed them, then it won't

But how does the government value Demand and Supply without a monetary system?
I stop you there. Communist is not about suppressing money.

And capitalism also corrupts one's mind, body and soul with money.

Basically capitalism only bearly exists becuase of our instincts, but if we changed them, then it won't.

Corruption is subjective in the capitalist society because it's based on Demand and Supply.

Like for example = You ask me to build a bridge. The cost to build a bridge is worth 100 dollars. I tell quote to you the price that it is 300 dollars.

You have the choice to pay 300 dollars to me, or go to someone else who can build for you the bridge cheaper. It's demand and supply. You can quote any price, as long as you build the bridge properly.

But what happens is that I take the 300 dollars, and build you a 50 dollar bridge. Then thats corruption.
----------------------------------
It's true that PURE communism is nearly devoided of corruption. But I think it breeds laziness among the workers. :(

Unless you got some type of Propoganda that could turn humans into ants. :D

In favor of markets. So it means it isn't Communism anymore is it? :p
markets are not opposed to communism.

Yup. Thats very true.

But it doesn't mean that a 'worker' can't aspire to be Ogliarch's as well. Because the way I see it, is either we have ONE Ogliarch (Which is the government), or MANY Ogliarchs. There's lots of people that from rags they learn something smart and sell it and become rich.

But as under a communist society, with the Government controlling everything, and everybody is given an equal ammount of wealth. There's not much room for dreams or aspirations of becoming better than the person beside you. Because there's no real reward for it.Communism is not about giving equal amount to everybody.
It is about giving equal rights.

I stop you there. Communist is not about suppressing money.

If it isn't about getting rid of money. Then who pays the people? Are they all paid the same ammount? If they are paid the same ammount, then money would become useless.

Nah, don't need propaganda, once humans realise that they can work not for themselves, but for mankind, then we'll be in that stage where capitalism would be no use

Corruption is subjective in the capitalist society because it's based on Demand and Supply.

Like for example = You ask me to build a bridge. The cost to build a bridge is worth 100 dollars. I tell quote to you the price that it is 300 dollars.

You have the choice to pay 300 dollars to me, or go to someone else who can build for you the bridge cheaper. It's demand and supply. You can quote any price, as long as you build the bridge properly.

But what happens is that I take the 300 dollars, and build you a 50 dollar bridge. Then thats corruption.
----------------------------------
It's true that PURE communism is nearly devoided of corruption. But I think it breeds laziness among the workers. :(

Unless you got some type of Propoganda that could turn humans into ants. :DI think you didn't understand it all.

If it isn't about getting rid of money. Then who pays the people? Are they all paid the same ammount? If they are paid the same ammount, then money would become useless.
No they're not paid the same amount.
People are paid by the government.

Communism is not about gibing equal amount to everybody.
It is about giving equal rights.

Blarg. now I'm getting more confused.

But isn't "equal rights" equal proportion of the countries production?

Because we're talking about the economy system here.

Example:

A = Farms apples
B = Farms Corns
C = Farms Wheat

A+B+C, at the end of the month get the divided number of apples, corns and wheats they've managed to farm.

Am i on the same track of mind here?

No they're not paid the same amount.
People are paid by the government.

How can people be not paid the same? How can you divide up the tasks? Considering everything being equal. Equal rights?

Can you pay a office clerk who sits 24/7 at the computer
more than a farmer who works his butt off at the farm?

Capitalism answers them by demand and supply. with Money.

Psylos has already explained that demand and supply exists without taking into account under what economical system a society is, it existed before free market theories and it will exist after them.

Like if theres not enough food, and lots of people would be hungry, people would pay any price to have food.

So some become farmers because they want to make more money, because food sells.

In Communism is even easier, people do what is needed, whether by their own choice (anarchy/democracy) or by the state's mandate (aristocracies and totalitarian regimes).

More people become farmers because it pays, until there are too many farmers, a surplus of food and most of them go broke... yeah, that works! :rolleyes:

But as under a communist society, with the Government controlling everything, and everybody is given an equal ammount of wealth. There's not much room for dreams or aspirations of becoming better than the person beside you. Because there's no real reward for it.

If the government is a direct democracy... what's the problem? You are getting everything you need, giving what you can and trying to improve at what you do because in that way not will you only improve your own lifestyle, but everyone else's.

And then you hear american leaders talk about patriotism, but then Bush talking against raising taxes? What's more patriotic than to give the product of your work to all (including yourself of course). If the government is truly a democracy then there's no problem on having the government manage everything... but what am I ranting about... THE USA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY AND NO CAPITALIST COUNTRY COULD EVER BE ONE.

How can people be not paid the same? How can you divide up the tasks? Considering everything being equal. Equal rights?

Can you pay a office clerk who sits 24/7 at the computer
more than a farmer who works his butt off at the farm?
Say a software developper is more hard to find than a farmer. You pay the software developer more than the farmer so more people will become software developers until the supply of developers is rationalized. That's the market.

Yes! Power to the Coffee people!

((OOC: Yes, i know that was THE gayest(no insult intended to homosexual people. Its just a saying), worst thought out, and most utterly stupid post i've ever made but i just couldnt stop the urge!))

ROTFLMAO!!

Actually, it partly is. There has never been a truely communist state. the USSR wasn't even close, same with the sattelite states. The closest anyone has ever come is Communist China, and while that revolution was marked with initial disaster, once they got is started the economy sorta-worked.

If your asking if I believe in Marx's vision of communism as an inevitabily, no. Communism, while it is a superior system, is at odds with people's base nature and the forces of entropy. While I think it will rise again, I do not hold it as if it was some divine prophesy.

But yes, i do still hold out hope. Communism (or attempts at it) has been marred with disaster in the past, but early capitalism was harder on the working classes then communism ever was. Capitalimsm has had thousands of years to be perfected to it's current form, so it's no small wonder that it has been more effective. But if we learn from our mistakes, and don't make the same blunders the previous attempts made, it could work. And all it would take it ONE state that is truely equal for the rest of the world to follow suite. Lead by example and all that.

I know that this is probably too late to respond, but I cannot resist on this charge that capitalism has existed for thousands of years. This is simply a non-true statement. Market economies have existed for roughly 3.5 thousand years but these were mainly barter economies years, but monetary capitalism has only existed as a theory since the late 1700's. Before that a system of government controlled trusts called mercantilism existed in Europe. Capitalism has arguably had a much more radical effect on improving the lives of the working class in countries that adopted it immediately (US and Western Europe) just so long as a little bit of government control is exercised to avoid abuses.

Anyone who works for a steady salary is a worker, it's not that complicated.

Irrelevant.

So Donald Trump is a worker. But wait! You're at war with the gentry... WHICH IS IT? By your definition of worker, everyone is one. All you've done is replace "citizen" with "worker". Yet that is NOT what Marx & Engles had in mind!

Nah. I'd say that it proves Communism a failed irrelevancy. Or can you come up with a reason WHY it is irrelevant? I thought not.

It doesn't make sense.
Capitalism is anti-democratic by this same standard.
Capitalism -> the bourgeois minority rules.
Communism -> everybody rules.

How can you call communism un-democratic?
I don't get your logic really.

I think you are arguing that communism can't be installed via democracy, but not that communism can't be democratic.
If so, you are right that it can't be installed by democracy, but it is because we don't have democracy, not because communism is not democratic.
Actually we need communism for having democracy. So a communist revolution can be a democratic revolution at the same time.

I'll disagree a little here:

Republic (Capitalist or not) -> the people elect rulers for a set period of time
Communism -> the people are led by a select few, whom never get around to giving up power.

Note that every Soviet Premier died in or soon after leaving office. In Capitalist nations, this is usually not the case. :)
My main criticism here is that Communism is always said to be an economic system, but it is also a political one. Whereas you CAN have a Capitalist Monarchy or Republic. Communism is both, and as such it has the inherent strength to work for a set list of goals, but it also has the weakness of being so monolithic in nature that it often stifles its own growth in various areas.

Basically, Communism is NOT democratic, as once it is in power the Party tends to stifle any possible dissent.

Yes, that is right. However, I cannot think of a single successful Communist society with one exception: The Spartans. And they had no money. Literally, they refused the idea of currency.

I disagree again. We most certainly do NOT need Communism to have a Democracy.

I do agree that you can have what you say, but that is only in one single place: Utopia. It can only happen in novels or movies. ;)

Here is my plan for installing communism :

1/ abolish inheritance (as a way to expropriate the bourgeois), or limit it to something like $50 000 maximum. This way, the big capitalists cannot pass their corporation to their children. This first step will lead to step 2.
/2 nationalize the banking industry, because the banking industry is at the root of all investment and it makes no sense at all to have it in private hands.

There you go. You have implemented communism. There was no blood bath, no mass starvation and no end of the world. Happy?

This is hardly an utopia.

I'll disagree a little here:

Republic (Capitalist or not) -> the people elect rulers for a set period of time
Communism -> the people are led by a select few, whom never get around to giving up power.

Note that every Soviet Premier died in or soon after leaving office. In Capitalist nations, this is usually not the case. :)
My main criticism here is that Communism is always said to be an economic system, but it is also a political one. Whereas you CAN have a Capitalist Monarchy or Republic. Communism is both, and as such it has the inherent strength to work for a set list of goals, but it also has the weakness of being so monolithic in nature that it often stifles its own growth in various areas.

Basically, Communism is NOT democratic, as once it is in power the Party tends to stifle any possible dissent.

Yes, that is right. However, I cannot think of a single successful Communist society with one exception: The Spartans. And they had no money. Literally, they refused the idea of currency.

I disagree again. We most certainly do NOT need Communism to have a Democracy.

I do agree that you can have what you say, but that is only in one single place: Utopia. It can only happen in novels or movies. ;)
Those you call the rulers are in fact the puppets of the real rulers.
You claim that in capitalism there is democracy, but if the bourgeois are allowed to control big corporation and mass pieces of land, which power does the government have exactly? In this case, the corporations have more power than the government. Even if the government was democratic, your society would still be controlled by the corporations therefore your society would not be democratic.
So what is the government exactly?
Is it the one who control the country or the puppet who let the other control everything?

This is hardly an utopia.

Utopia, in the sense of a theorical system that is phisically impossible for the time it is thought on, was impossible to be applied to communism at any of its stages. That something is hard to achieve doesn't make it an utopia.

You don't need to denfend against such a claim.

But it doesn't mean that a 'worker' can't aspire to be Ogliarch's as well. Because the way I see it, is either we have ONE Ogliarch (Which is the government), or MANY Ogliarchs. There's lots of people that from rags they learn something smart and sell it and become rich.

But as under a communist society, with the Government controlling everything, and everybody is given an equal ammount of wealth. There's not much room for dreams or aspirations of becoming better than the person beside you. Because there's no real reward for it.

false dilemma - there is the other option of no oligarchs whatever. this can be accomplished by giving everyone equal ownership of the productive capacity of a society (everybody owns a share essentially), or by striving to create a society where ownership of the means of production is divided up evenly - with each group in society owning the m of p in proportion with the percent of society they make up (divide society into fifths and each fifth would own 20% of the m of p, etc).

most communists i know, especially those of a libertarian variety, do not want exactly equal distributions of wealth. they really want equal opportunity of acquiring wealth, undistorted by class structure and privilege, for all people.

Utopia, in the sense of a theorical system that is phisically impossible for the time it is thought on, was impossible to be applied to communism at any of its stages. That something is hard to achieve doesn't make it an utopia.It is a slow process.
It is hard because the bourgeois will resist any kind of expropriation.
I don't call it an utopia either.

It is a slow process.
It is hard because the bourgeois will resist any kind of expropriation.
I don't call it an utopia either.

Yeah, sorry. My point was that you didn't need to defend against such a claim. I edited the post you quoted, but not fastly enough.

I'll disagree a little here:

Republic (Capitalist or not) -> the people elect rulers for a set period of time
Communism -> the people are led by a select few, whom never get around to giving up power.

Note that every Soviet Premier died in or soon after leaving office. In Capitalist nations, this is usually not the case. :)
My main criticism here is that Communism is always said to be an economic system, but it is also a political one. Whereas you CAN have a Capitalist Monarchy or Republic. Communism is both, and as such it has the inherent strength to work for a set list of goals, but it also has the weakness of being so monolithic in nature that it often stifles its own growth in various areas.

Basically, Communism is NOT democratic, as once it is in power the Party tends to stifle any possible dissent.

Yes, that is right. However, I cannot think of a single successful Communist society with one exception: The Spartans. And they had no money. Literally, they refused the idea of currency.

I disagree again. We most certainly do NOT need Communism to have a Democracy.

I do agree that you can have what you say, but that is only in one single place: Utopia. It can only happen in novels or movies. ;)

False analogy. Please explain how communism is inherently linked to an oppressive one party sysem.

In Communism, is there room for peope to worship God(s)?

In Communism, is there room for peope to worship God(s)?

No jihads, and no overthrowing the government. Other then that, yes.

No jihads, and no overthrowing the government. Other then that, yes.




Ok so I assume then that there is always a one party rule?

Here is my plan for installing communism :

1/ abolish inheritance (as a way to expropriate the bourgeois), or limit it to something like $50 000 maximum. This way, the big capitalists cannot pass their corporation to their children. This first step will lead to step 2.
/2 nationalize the banking industry, because the banking industry is at the root of all investment and it makes no sense at all to have it in private hands.

There you go. You have implemented communism. There was no blood bath, no mass starvation and no end of the world. Happy?

This is hardly an utopia.

50k in most rural areas is pretty sweet.

Great way to totally halt economic activity, if that is what you are after. Banks make NOTHING on normal transactions -- checking, savings, etc. Most profits are made on credit cards and loans. If you nationalize the banks, there is no competition. Rates at all banks would be the same. The consumer would suffer, and so would the banks -- as their stockpiles of cash dwindle.

No, you've implemented economic chaos. And why on Earth would people actually LET this happen in a republic/democratic state?

Exactly. It is purgatory. And it isn't feasible.

Big governments that control everything worry me, especially when they aren't elected. Also, citizens should be able to own their own businesses, although inheritance does benefit certain people that otherwise would bearly get their grade 12.

Originally Posted by Markreich
I'll disagree a little here:

Republic (Capitalist or not) -> the people elect rulers for a set period of time
Communism -> the people are led by a select few, whom never get around to giving up power.

Note that every Soviet Premier died in or soon after leaving office. In Capitalist nations, this is usually not the case.
My main criticism here is that Communism is always said to be an economic system, but it is also a political one. Whereas you CAN have a Capitalist Monarchy or Republic. Communism is both, and as such it has the inherent strength to work for a set list of goals, but it also has the weakness of being so monolithic in nature that it often stifles its own growth in various areas.

Basically, Communism is NOT democratic, as once it is in power the Party tends to stifle any possible dissent.

Yes, that is right. However, I cannot think of a single successful Communist society with one exception: The Spartans. And they had no money. Literally, they refused the idea of currency.

I disagree again. We most certainly do NOT need Communism to have a Democracy.

I do agree that you can have what you say, but that is only in one single place: Utopia. It can only happen in novels or movies.


False analogy. Please explain how communism is inherently linked to an oppressive one party sysem.

Another one liner, eh?
Ok. But for you to refute this post, you have to CITE something.

From the Communist Manifesto, II p.28 (in my edition):
"The Communists are futher repraoched with desiring to abolish countires and nationality. The workingmen have no country." (So, how can you be a part of something you by definition cannot believe in?)

Now, it is obvious that the Communist Party cannot peacefully coexist in a powersharing arrangement in a nation with other parties. I'll futher point out the total failure of every Communist party in Republics (Italy, Spain, Greece, South Africa, etc.) to ever win an election or form a coalition that stood for even a year.

Those you call the rulers are in fact the puppets of the real rulers.
You claim that in capitalism there is democracy, but if the bourgeois are allowed to control big corporation and mass pieces of land, which power does the government have exactly?
In this case, the corporations have more power than the government. Even if the government was democratic, your society would still be controlled by the corporations therefore your society would not be democratic.
So what is the government exactly?
Is it the one who control the country or the puppet who let the other control everything?

Conspiracy theory does not become you, Psy. :)
No, I claim that Democracy, Republics, Monarchies and even some Despots can be Capitalist.
The government has the same powers it would if the "big corps" didn't exist.
No, they really don't. If you believe that it's true of Modern America, can I point out the GE cleanup of the Hudson? Or Love Canal?

Obviously not what you think it is. :)
As opposed to Communism, where it's just the same thing?

50k in most rural areas is pretty sweet.

Great way to totally halt economic activity, if that is what you are after. Banks make NOTHING on normal transactions -- checking, savings, etc. Most profits are made on credit cards and loans. If you nationalize the banks, there is no competition. Rates at all banks would be the same. The consumer would suffer, and so would the banks -- as their stockpiles of cash dwindle.

No, you've implemented economic chaos. And why on Earth would people actually LET this happen in a republic/democratic state?

Exactly. It is purgatory. And it isn't feasible.

??

I don't following, the federal government sets intrest and loan rates as it. As the federal government (distrubtor of bonds), can brutally crush any bank they want just by ajusting the rates appropreatly.

Another one liner, eh?
Ok. But for you to refute this post, you have to CITE something.

From the Communist Manifesto, II p.28 (in my edition):
"The Communists are futher repraoched with desiring to abolish countires and nationality. The workingmen have no country." (So, how can you be a part of something you by definition cannot believe in?)

Now, it is obvious that the Communist Party cannot peacefully coexist in a powersharing arrangement in a nation with other parties. I'll futher point out the total failure of every Communist party in Republics (Italy, Spain, Greece, South Africa, etc.) to ever win an election or form a coalition that stood for even a year.

Yeah.......we just don't get along well with other people I guess. ;)

And I may not be able to cite somthing, but please endure this responce.

Communism is not a type of government that can share power easily, this is true. You go onto so that, therefore, since they can't form alliance with any other party they are doomed to fail. But I think you ignore two factors....

1) You can't interpert Marx literally. In a perfect world, we woudln't need countries. As this isn't a perfect world, we need to work with what we have.

2) Even if a communist party coudln't ally with others, you have ignored the possibility that it could gain a majority on it's own and thus win without support from other factions.

Conspiracy theory does not become you, Psy. :)
No, I claim that Democracy, Republics, Monarchies and even some Despots can be Capitalist.
The government has the same powers it would if the "big corps" didn't exist.
No, they really don't. If you believe that it's true of Modern America, can I point out the GE cleanup of the Hudson? Or Love Canal?

Obviously not what you think it is. :)
As opposed to Communism, where it's just the same thing?

Ahhhhhh, conspiracy.

And I would called the companies the 5th branch of government. And like the other branches (the 4th being the media), they have a lot of power, but some checks and balences.

??

I don't following, the federal government sets intrest and loan rates as it. As the federal government (distrubtor of bonds), can brutally crush any bank they want just by ajusting the rates appropreatly.

You do realize that if you go from bank to bank, the rates differ?
That's because they COMPETE. Some take riskier loans (higher rates), some take less risky ones (better odds of getting their cash back).

Even on a simple 30 mortgage at 6%, the bank will get back (assuming regular payments, etc) their money TIMES 2 at minimum.

Um, no they can't. Go read up on the Federal Reserve System.

There have been several depressions since the writing of the Manifesto, including the biggest one in history (in the US, starting in 1929). Yet during that time, not a SINGLE first world nation went Communist!


Just Ummm as a note.

First world basically (And originally) Referred to the Democratic West.
Second World was the Communist Bloc (For all intents and purposes)
And Third World was those not belonging to either.
Since the USSR and USA basically funded all those in the first and second world they had no real reason to change their political system.

Yeah.......we just don't get along well with other people I guess. ;)

And I may not be able to cite somthing, but please endure this responce.

Communism is not a type of government that can share power easily, this is true. You go onto so that, therefore, since they can't form alliance with any other party they are doomed to fail. But I think you ignore two factors....

1) You can't interpert Marx literally. In a perfect world, we woudln't need countries. As this isn't a perfect world, we need to work with what we have.

2) Even if a communist party coudln't ally with others, you have ignored the possibility that it could gain a majority on it's own and thus win without support from other factions.

1) Really? I can't use the patron of Communism to disprove *your* point? Man, I love your debating rules. :rolleyes:
So where does it end? Can we throw out that whole Dictatorship of the Prolitariat and the global revolution thing too?!?

2) Who said anything about alliance? I was saying they can't be EFFECTIVE in a government with other parties.
No, I've pointed out (an absurd number of times) that it's never happened and CANNOT happen.

Just Ummm as a note.

First world basically (And originally) Referred to the Democratic West.
Second World was the Communist Bloc (For all intents and purposes)
And Third World was those not belonging to either.
Since the USSR and USA basically funded all those in the first and second world they had no real reason to change their political system.


I go for the economic view, not the political one, though both are valid.

First World = The G7 and similar. USA, Canada, France, Japan, etc.
Second World = Better than 3rd world, but without the infrastructure of the 1st. Brazil, Romania, South Africa, etc.
Third World = The poor countries. See any starving kid TV commercial.
Fouth World = Nations so backwards that they make a 3rd world place look good. Chad, or Cambodia in the 80s, for example.

You do realize that if you go from bank to bank, the rates differ?
That's because they COMPETE. Some take riskier loans (higher rates), some take less risky ones (better odds of getting their cash back).

Even on a simple 30 mortgage at 6%, the bank will get back (assuming regular payments, etc) their money TIMES 2 at minimum.

Um, no they can't. Go read up on the Federal Reserve System.

Yes they can.

If a bank offers 6% intrest on their accounts, and the rate for government bonds is 7% where are people going to put their money?

1) Really? I can't use the patron of Communism to disprove *your* point? Man, I love your debating rules. :rolleyes:
So where does it end? Can we throw out that whole Dictatorship of the Prolitariat and the global revolution thing too?!?

2) Who said anything about alliance? I was saying they can't be EFFECTIVE in a government with other parties.
No, I've pointed out (an absurd number of times) that it's never happened and CANNOT happen.

1) That's like saying that every single idea you read in the bible applies to christanity today. Just because it has a lot of good ideas, it dosn't make Marx totally infallibale.

2) Back that statment up plz.
NO, you've shown that it hasn't, not that it can't.

50k in most rural areas is pretty sweet.

Great way to totally halt economic activity, if that is what you are after. Banks make NOTHING on normal transactions -- checking, savings, etc. Most profits are made on credit cards and loans. If you nationalize the banks, there is no competition. Rates at all banks would be the same. The consumer would suffer, and so would the banks -- as their stockpiles of cash dwindle.

No, you've implemented economic chaos. And why on Earth would people actually LET this happen in a republic/democratic state?

Exactly. It is purgatory. And it isn't feasible.
I think you don't understand what banks do.
Banks are the root of investment. They are not making their money out of little customers like you, by charging $1 per check or whatever.
Let me explain to you what a bank is.
A bank takes money and concentrates the capital of thousands of people in order to create a financial power strong enough to leverage the capital market.
Then they invest. they buy stock shares, thy buy corporations, they split it up in several parts and they sell it, all those kind of games.
For instance one of their favorite game is :
Buy company X, buy Y, supplier of company X, force company X to stock supplies from company Y. Company Y's stock shares go up because they sell more. Company X goes down because they buy more. Then they sell company Y. Then they tell company X to stop buying from company Y. Company Y goes down. Company X goes up because they use their accumulated supply.
Or they have this wonder : the warrants. They buy things in the future. They sell it before they have to pay for it. When they pay for it, of course the price is lower because they already sold it (the fact of selling it makes the price go down). They never loose because they have that financial power.
I could go on, they have thousands of financial tools they use to make money. I think you get the point that the $1 they get when they charge for checks is not where their money come from, or even from the loans.
Then they give back to you and to the share holders the dividends from the money they made.

For you to understand I will take a very controversial example.
Bill Gates. I'm not arguing whether or not he deserves the money he has. Let say he did indeed inovate and that he worked hard to create wealth, so let say he deserve his money. What you don't know is that Bill Gates owns less than 5% of Microsoft. Yes, that's right, less than 5%.
So who own the rest? The banks. Barkleys, HSBC and everything. Bill Gates, with all his money is still a minor actor in the playfield of the banks. They make the real money.
But what does the bank produce? I've assumed Bill Gates actually worked, but still he gets less than 5%. But did the banks work at all? Well no, they invest. Bill Gates need money (yes Bill Gates can not support Microsoft alone). They give him money and they take ownership. Then they get the benefits without working.

So you say the customers/investors would suffer if they couldn't get the most money without working. They would suffer indeed if they had to work for their money. But those who work would suffer less.

And you call that chaos but look at the stock market. I call that chaos.

Big governments that control everything worry me, especially when they aren't elected. Also, citizens should be able to own their own businesses, although inheritance does benefit certain people that otherwise would bearly get their grade 12.But you're not worried by big corporations controlling everything? I have to remind you that big corporations are not elected at all.

Another one liner, eh?
Ok. But for you to refute this post, you have to CITE something.

From the Communist Manifesto, II p.28 (in my edition):
"The Communists are futher repraoched with desiring to abolish countires and nationality. The workingmen have no country." (So, how can you be a part of something you by definition cannot believe in?)

Now, it is obvious that the Communist Party cannot peacefully coexist in a powersharing arrangement in a nation with other parties. I'll futher point out the total failure of every Communist party in Republics (Italy, Spain, Greece, South Africa, etc.) to ever win an election or form a coalition that stood for even a year.
In France (where I live), the PC (Parti Communiste) has a coalition with the greens and the socialists since at least 10 years.
So, your assumption is not obvious to me at all. Please justify.

Conspiracy theory does not become you, Psy. :)
No, I claim that Democracy, Republics, Monarchies and even some Despots can be Capitalist.
The government has the same powers it would if the "big corps" didn't exist.
No, they really don't. If you believe that it's true of Modern America, can I point out the GE cleanup of the Hudson? Or Love Canal?

Obviously not what you think it is. :)
As opposed to Communism, where it's just the same thing?
Please explain how a monarchy can be capitalist.
In a monarchy, everything is owned by the king, even the people are subjects of the king.
In Capitalism, everything is owned by the bourgeois.

What you can have is a half-assed monarchy, where the king owns a many thing but not everything and a half-assed capitalism where the rest is owned by the bourgeois cohabitating, just like you can have a half-assed commune where the people own part of the country cohabitating with a half-assed monarchy where the king owns the rest.

What we have in France with the coalition PC/PS/Greens is the PC pushing for increased tax on inheritance, and pushing for nationalization of big corporations. They can and do democratically coexist. So here you go your point is invalid.

You do realize that if you go from bank to bank, the rates differ?
That's because they COMPETE. Some take riskier loans (higher rates), some take less risky ones (better odds of getting their cash back).

Even on a simple 30 mortgage at 6%, the bank will get back (assuming regular payments, etc) their money TIMES 2 at minimum.

Um, no they can't. Go read up on the Federal Reserve System.Yeah and if we allow the banks to compete, the bourgeois can have the most return from their money.
What we want is to suppress the parasites and make those who want money work.

Yes they can.

If a bank offers 6% intrest on their accounts, and the rate for government bonds is 7% where are people going to put their money?

Are you serious?
All bank rates vary according to the prime rate. Not only do the banks get warning, but the fed cannot raise rates for specific banks. The tide raises or lowers all ships.

If the gov't bond rate were to change by that amount, it effects *all* markets. Bonds, borrowing, real estate... all are based off of the fed.

If the bank did (for whatever reason) want to increase to 7%, it could do so with ease, just by putting up a few higher risk loans to cover any loss of profit. Not that there be any -- most people would take 6% on an account waaaay ahead of 7% on a bond. You are aware that bonds are not liquid?

Back to the point: If the banks were nationalized, it'd remove all profitability from the banking sector. You'd either qualify for a loan, or you wouldn't. You'd have the UNIFIED minimum deposited amount, or you wouldn't.

Doesn't sound so good to me.
And where would I get new toasters from, HMM?? The fed wouldn't need to give away toasters, it's the only game in town! ;)

Yeah and if we allow the banks to compete, the bourgeois can have the most return from their money.
What we want is to suppress the parasites and make those who want money work.

The banks are for everyone to use... in fact, they're WORKER friendly, as they are some of the few investments that can be had at low entrances.

Or, are you calling interest on investment parasitic?
If so, your government just lost the economic race with anyone else.

Further, because you don't have interest, you pretty much don't have an economy... why invest if there is no benefit? And if you can't invest for your future, why work? To be at an eternal state of living hand to mouth?

Yeah, Communism sounds great! :p

Please explain how a monarchy can be capitalist.
In a monarchy, everything is owned by the king, even the people are subjects of the king.
In Capitalism, everything is owned by the bourgeois.

What you can have is a half-assed monarchy, where the king owns a many thing but not everything and a half-assed capitalism where the rest is owned by the bourgeois cohabitating, just like you can have a half-assed commune where the people own part of the country cohabitating with a half-assed monarchy where the king owns the rest.

What we have in France with the coalition PC/PS/Greens is the PC pushing for increased tax on inheritance, and pushing for nationalization of big corporations. They can and do democratically coexist. So here you go your point is invalid.

In a Monarchy, everything is NOT owned by a king! There is a Kingdom, yes. The King grants rights and privledges, yes. But:
1) Individuals are usually allowed to accumulate wealth.
2) The King often begins enterprises to create wealth, which are shared or licensed to vassals. This capitalist activity, as they are allowing for commerce on a profitable level.

Some examples of Capitalist Monarchial ventures:
Voyages of Columbus - Spain, 1490s - These were voyages to establish profitable trade with China and the East, not to discover new lands.
The East India Company - England 1600
The stock exchange - Most nations of the era, notably France in the 1700s.

Please substantiate "half-assed". :)

Pushing for, not having achieved. And, you'll note, the Communists are hardly in a power sharing arrangement -- they are a minor party at best.
My point still stands.

Further, because you don't have interest, you pretty much don't have an economy... why invest if there is no benefit?

interest is not the only benefit of investing. the primary benefit of investing is that it allows further creation of wealth. interest is merely a way for those that own the banks to skim off a good chunk of that newly created wealth for themselves - without doing any work themselves and only risking other people's money (and most of that risk falls to the person taking out the loan anyway).

1) That's like saying that every single idea you read in the bible applies to christanity today. Just because it has a lot of good ideas, it dosn't make Marx totally infallibale.

2) Back that statment up plz.
NO, you've shown that it hasn't, not that it can't.

1) It does! The Pontiff of the Church of Rome is infallible in matters of religious dogma. Beyond that, name JUST ONE idea from the Bible that you consider not applicable.

2) You're asking me to back up something? Kind of rich. Anyway, I already did. :)
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7301796&postcount=152

interest is not the only benefit of investing. the primary benefit of investing is that it allows further creation of wealth. interest is merely a way for those that own the banks to skim off a good chunk of that newly created wealth for themselves - without doing any work themselves and only risking other people's money (and most of that risk falls to the person taking out the loan anyway).

I was hoping they'd make that intuitive leap regarding creation of wealth on their own. :)

Sort of -- banks still take risk in the form of losses on bad loans. Recall the S&L scandals of the 80s, for an example.
Interest can work both ways -- while it is true that the bank makes money that way, they also need it to pay their bills and workers. They do work for it, btw. Finance is not as physically demanding as say, running press or digging ditches, but it is far, far more mentally gruelling.

Do you agree that Communism is a political religion, rather than merely an ideology?

(If someone's already asked this, I apologise - I'm not reading through 12 bleedin' pages of this!)

I think you don't understand what banks do.

I think you don't understand what I do for a living.

Banks are the root of investment. They are not making their money out of little customers like you, by charging $1 per check or whatever.

So far, so good.

Let me explain to you what a bank is.

Please, do. :)

A bank takes money and concentrates the capital of thousands of people in order to create a financial power strong enough to leverage the capital market.
Then they invest. they buy stock shares, thy buy corporations, they split it up in several parts and they sell it, all those kind of games.

Yep, you're still batting a thousand.

For instance one of their favorite game is :
Buy company X, buy Y, supplier of company X, force company X to stock supplies from company Y. Company Y's stock shares go up because they sell more. Company X goes down because they buy more. Then they sell company Y. Then they tell company X to stop buying from company Y. Company Y goes down. Company X goes up because they use their accumulated supply.

This example is interesting, as it can fall under anti-trust in some circumstances. You're also assuming a controlling interest in both firms, which is not terribly likely. I recall there being an investigation for a variant of this with some drug companies a few years back...
I'd hardly call it a favorite game.

Or they have this wonder : the warrants. They buy things in the future. They sell it before they have to pay for it. When they pay for it, of course the price is lower because they already sold it (the fact of selling it makes the price go down).

Sort of. You're right until the third sentance: it *may* be lower. Selling does not necessarily make the price go down, that depends on the demand.

They never loose because they have that financial power.

VERY untrue. The number of banks that actually invest in this manner and survive, much less get through their audits is low. Further, a bank is required to have $1 on hand for every $4 they lend or invest out. Are you perhaps talking about non-bank financial houses?

I could go on, they have thousands of financial tools they use to make money.

Well, they do have tools and multiple revenue streams. As for thousands, I think that an exaggeration. Hundreds, perhaps. ;)

I think you get the point that the $1 they get when they charge for checks is not where their money come from, or even from the loans.

Actually, you're the one who brought up the small accounts/$1 thing. And loans are a MAJOR part of most bank's income.

Then they give back to you and to the share holders the dividends from the money they made.

Yep.

For you to understand I will take a very controversial example.

Not really, just one that isn't very common.

Bill Gates. I'm not arguing whether or not he deserves the money he has. Let say he did indeed inovate and that he worked hard to create wealth, so let say he deserve his money. What you don't know is that Bill Gates owns less than 5% of Microsoft. Yes, that's right, less than 5%.

Actually, it's common knowledge. And it's 10%. (Please see link below)

So who own the rest? The banks. Barkleys, HSBC and everything. Bill Gates, with all his money is still a minor actor in the playfield of the banks. They make the real money.

Link, please? From: http://www.microsoft.com/msft/ar.mspx we see that the Board of Directors hold 14.27% (Including Gates & Ballmer).

But what does the bank produce? I've assumed Bill Gates actually worked, but still he gets less than 5%. But did the banks work at all? Well no, they invest. Bill Gates need money (yes Bill Gates can not support Microsoft alone). They give him money and they take ownership. Then they get the benefits without working.

Sounds fair to me. They *are* working, though. Just not with anything tangible.

So you say the customers/investors would suffer if they couldn't get the most money without working. They would suffer indeed if they had to work for their money. But those who work would suffer less.

WRONG! What I said was (and please, go reread my post) that there is no reason to invest without interest. That's two very different things.
I said that customers would suffer from the lack of competition if banks were nationalized.

And you call that chaos but look at the stock market. I call that chaos.

I'm not sure what your point is, here. I don't call Communism chaos. I call it economic suicide.

Interest can work both ways -- while it is true that the bank makes money that way, they also need it to pay their bills and workers. They do work for it, btw. Finance is not as physically demanding as say, running press or digging ditches, but it is far, far more mentally gruelling.

well, i'm with the mutualists and individualist anarchists on this one. the 'natural' interest rate should be something just about the cost of the book-keeping and other expenses - quite possibly a one-time fee, but is pushed higher by certain oligarchic and monopolistic factors.

well, i'm with the mutualists and individualist anarchists on this one. the 'natural' interest rate should be something just about the cost of the book-keeping and other expenses - quite possibly a one-time fee, but is pushed higher by certain oligarchic and monopolistic factors.

Ah, but the riddle, my friend, is what is that magic number? Inflation alone makes it hard enough to compute. A one-time fee? For life of transaction, or for transaction? Either way, it gets messy if one considers depreciation.

There is nothing oligarchic or monopolistic about interest!
Look them up in a dictionary. :)

The banks are for everyone to use... in fact, they're WORKER friendly, as they are some of the few investments that can be had at low entrances.

Or, are you calling interest on investment parasitic?
If so, your government just lost the economic race with anyone else.

Further, because you don't have interest, you pretty much don't have an economy... why invest if there is no benefit? And if you can't invest for your future, why work? To be at an eternal state of living hand to mouth?

Yeah, Communism sounds great! :pEconomic race my ass.
How does Angola participate in your economic race?
Your economic race is about the top imperialist countries and about which one will rape the third world the most.

Investment is not parasitic. Investors are parasitic. Let the state take the benefits of investment and redistribute it to the people or reinvest it. We don't need some big assed non-working people monopolizing private jets, luxury hotels and thousands of square kilometers of land. Those people don't work for their future, they benefit from the investments of the past. But if you look at the present, those who work can't work for their future because they have to pay for the past of the bourgeois, they are condemned to be at "an eternal state of living hand to mouth".

Something is wrong with your system because you give an unlimited reward to the workers. the first group of people living in capitalism will have a real meritocracy because they all start at the same level and they all have a chance, but those who succeed are rewarded with unlimited amount of resources they will pass to their children. The next group of people will have to pay for that reward so they are not given the same chance as their ancestors to live in your original meritocracy. So your meritocracy is being corrupted by the past rewards. If you want a sustainable meritocracy, you have to reward the present, but you can't reward the past without corrupting the present.

In a Monarchy, everything is NOT owned by a king! There is a Kingdom, yes. The King grants rights and privledges, yes. But:
1) Individuals are usually allowed to accumulate wealth.
2) The King often begins enterprises to create wealth, which are shared or licensed to vassals. This capitalist activity, as they are allowing for commerce on a profitable level.

Some examples of Capitalist Monarchial ventures:
Voyages of Columbus - Spain, 1490s - These were voyages to establish profitable trade with China and the East, not to discover new lands.
The East India Company - England 1600
The stock exchange - Most nations of the era, notably France in the 1700s.

Please substantiate "half-assed". :)

Pushing for, not having achieved. And, you'll note, the Communists are hardly in a power sharing arrangement -- they are a minor party at best.
My point still stands.Trade is not capitalism.
Capitalism was invented in 1789.
You have capitalism when the bourgeois own the production, which is in direct conflict with the king (or the vassals) owning it.

Communists are totalling 9% in France. They are the 4th party.

*Ask An Italian*

Trade is not capitalism.
Capitalism was invented in 1789.

Communists are totalling 9% in France. They are the 4th party.

Trade for profit is a central tenet of capitalism.
Not how I see it. Can you provide me with a link?

Gee, that's swell.
Did you get that by adding the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire and Parti Communiste Français totals together? :rolleyes:
They can't even agree to be the same party. Now *that* is working class brotherhood!! (chuckle)

Trade for profit is a central tenet of capitalism.
Not how I see it. Can you provide me with a link?

Gee, that's swell.
Did you get that by adding the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire and Parti Communiste Français totals together? :rolleyes:
They can't even agree to be the same party. Now *that* is working class brotherhood!! (chuckle)
You have capitalism when the bourgeois own the production, which is in direct conflict with the king or the vassals owning it.

Economic race my ass.
How does Angola participate in your economic race?
Your economic race is about the top imperialist countries and about which one will rape the third world the most.

Sorry, your ass is indeed in the economic race if you like it or not.
Well, if I were your (narrow-minded) version of a Capitalist, I could just say "I don't care". But I'm not, so I won't. Angola participates the best it can. That it has obsticles in it's path is bad, but they are not solely the responsibility of Capitalism or of foreign nations.

No, it's about progress, plain and simple.

Investment is not parasitic. Investors are parasitic. Let the state take the benefits of investment and redistribute it to the people or reinvest it.

So... if there's no benefit, why should anyone invest? QED.
Redistribute? Why? I thought you were AGAINST past rewards? How could you then distribute it to anyone? (You're in a paradox, with this idea.)
Reinvest? Forever?


We don't need some big assed non-working people monopolizing private jets, luxury hotels and thousands of square kilometers of land.

We ALSO don't need a welfare state where *generations* are paid to plop out babies and stay at home, either.

Those people don't work for their future, they benefit from the investments of the past.

And that is their good fortune and good planning. However, they ARE doing work in sheparding those moneys.

But if you look at the present, those who work can't work for their future because they have to pay for the past of the bourgeois, they are condemned to be at "an eternal state of living hand to mouth".

Who the heck is THAT? My father came from a Communist nation in 1969, speaking practically no English with about $30. I'm middle class today, and the family is well, thank you very much.
Everyone can work for their future. Conditions may vary with the individual, but it is inherently barred to no one.

I'm not saying that Capitalism is perfect, but I believe that well over half of the folks living hand to mouth do so due to their own errors.


Something is wrong with your system because you give an unlimited reward to the workers. the first group of people living in capitalism will have a real meritocracy because they all start at the same level and they all have a chance, but those who succeed are rewarded with unlimited amount of resources they will pass to their children.

Where to start? It's not an unlimited reward, it is a reward IF they can be productive and successful. We do not reward failure.
You're forgetting that the field was NEVER level -- people always come in from somewhere, some bringing in more. And over time that happens too. Heck, the Kennedys will have to start working again soon as the money is running out.

So it's hardly unlimited. It CAN be built upon, if the investments are sound. There are a lot of names from the past that are gone now because they made a bad choice.

The next group of people will have to pay for that reward so they are not given the same chance as their ancestors to live in your original meritocracy.

Pay how? By working their way up the ladder too? I don't mind it one bit myself...

So your meritocracy is being corrupted by the past rewards. If you want a sustainable meritocracy, you have to reward the present, but you can't reward the past without corrupting the present.

You assume I want anything that doesn't currently exist. I think the system, though not perfect, works.
And for the record: I never said that Capitalism is a meritocracy. :)

You have capitalism when the bourgeois own the production, which is in direct conflict with the king or the vassals owning it.

I'm sorry, please explain why I have to use a Communist POV to describe how Capitalism works? Vassals = bourgeois in this case.

Well, I personally like the political format where the people elect someone they trust to count the votes of the people on various issues. The single united nation would consist of many small city-states, making community a much more attainable goal, as it was in Old Africa and Native America, both of which had egalitarian communist societies in which the rights of women and children were considered equal to those of full-grown men. The representatives of the city-states would together count the overall national votes on the issue, and come to a conclusion decided by the people. Wouldn't that be nice? :)

The real obstacle, of course, was pointed out by Stalin himself: "It is not those who vote, but those who count the votes, with whom the power lies."

I'm sorry, please explain why I have to use a Communist POV to describe how Capitalism works? Vassals = bourgeois in this case.
Bingo.
The switch from monarchy to capitalism was just levelling the playing field and start again from 0. But there is not so much difference in the long run.

Pretty much the major reason that communism hasn't worked so far and probably won't, is that it has too many loopholes. Democracy is by no means perfect, but it's main attraction is that it keeps the tyrants out.

Have you ever read the book Animal Farm by Orwell? (sounds like a bad porno flick lol) Anyway, it's a satire on the russian revolution and it does an EXCELLENT job of portraying the easy slide into dictatorship.

Communism just leaves too many opportunities for powerhungry people or just those who don't really believe in the cause to slip through and take what they want, leaving those who trust to wallow. At least in democracy the leaders know that id they take too much they will be no longer leaders, because they can get voted out if they screw up.

Actually, it partly is. There has never been a truely communist state. the USSR wasn't even close, same with the sattelite states. The closest anyone has ever come is Communist China, and while that revolution was marked with initial disaster, once they got is started the economy sorta-worked.

If your asking if I believe in Marx's vision of communism as an inevitabily, no. Communism, while it is a superior system, is at odds with people's base nature and the forces of entropy. While I think it will rise again, I do not hold it as if it was some divine prophesy.

But yes, i do still hold out hope. Communism (or attempts at it) has been marred with disaster in the past, but early capitalism was harder on the working classes then communism ever was. Capitalimsm has had thousands of years to be perfected to it's current form, so it's no small wonder that it has been more effective. But if we learn from our mistakes, and don't make the same blunders the previous attempts made, it could work. And all it would take it ONE state that is truely equal for the rest of the world to follow suite. Lead by example and all that.
Carl Von Clauswitz when examining war will often forego accepted theoretical conclusions and usurp them with understood effects of reality.
SO I will defer to that common sense logic.
Communism can not be a superior system of governing people if the single underpinned flaw is that it is incompatible with human nature.
Let me demonstrate.
Water is the perfect fuel for combustion engines.
It has no pollutants to damge the enviorment, it is cheap, renewable, and readily plentiful.
All of that is true-
Yet because Water is completely incompatable with what I am intending it for, my statement is rendered obsurd.
The idea that Communism is Superior and at the same time completely unmanagable is obsurd.
Second the thousands of years you speak of, od you honestly believe MArx is the first to think of the Communist Ideal?
If so, you credit the man far more then he deserves.
Just my simple minded opinion.

Bingo.
The switch from monarchy to capitalism was just levelling the playing field and start again from 0. But there is not so much difference in the long run.

Monarchy, Republic, Democracy, Despotism... these are all GOVERNING systems. So is Communism. But Communism is ALSO an ECONOMIC system, like Capitalism, Mercantilism, or Feudalism. In this regard it is unique, with the possible exception of Fascism.

So: with the exception of Communism (since it is BOTH), you can mix and match any government and economic system, and it has BEEN done.
IE:
Monarchy, Fuedal: England under Henry V.
Monarchy, Mercantilistic: England under George III.
Monarchy, Capitalistic: England, modern. Or Lichtenstein or Luxemboug, take your pick.
Republic, Fuedal: Poland, pre-first partition. (Article 5 in their 1791 Constitution is what makes it technically not a Constitutional Monarchy.)
Republic, Mercantilistic: Just about every European nation in the 1800s.
Republic, Capitalistic: USA , esp. post Spanish American War

What can be confusing is that unlike in Communism (where there is an obvious change/break) other government types can have several facets of each ECONOMIC system going at the same time.

Start from 0? Not in my opinion. Since stone 2 was laid on stone 1 there has been NO zero! Even in the Russian Revolution, there was no going back to zero. And in most of the other nations (esp: Poland), it was even less so.