NationStates Jolt Archive

I have all my life been on the far right of the political spectrum, most probably because it was hammered into me at a very early age that there is nothing worse than Communism. For the longest time, there was no doubt in mind that this was true, it had always felt quite natural that the Communist was my opposite, and for me the embodiment of all that is wrong with the world. Recently, however, things have very much changed. I won't go into details as to what brought on this change. Suffice it to say that after about two weeks of intensive self-reflection I have come to the conclusion that I am at heart a Communist. Not a Socialist, not a Liberal, but a Communist. I am, deep down, a damn red. My politics thus far have been based more on "clanish" loyalties than on my own concrete observations, but I can no longer fight for the wrong side of the political struggle. I can no longer lie to myself.

So, I'm reaching out to my fellow Communists, if you are out there, and I'm asking you to help me find that great pool of Communists which must gather somewhere on the internet. Please friends, post your comments, the advice you may have, and any links you may want to share to important websites and forums. So ya, I hope there's someone out there who can help. ;)

I'm not quite that far left sry..

Why not read the Communist Manifesto? It should be readily available at any library or bookstore, and would go a long way to familiarizing yourself with Marxism. I'd guess you could most likely find it online somewhere...

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

Whaddaya know. First hit on Google. There ya go, get readin'...tovarisch!

I wish the US listened to Joe McCarthy. :(

The man was a fucking patriot, a fucking hero.

I wish the US listened to Joe McCarthy. :(

The man was a fucking patriot, a fucking hero.

What? It's rather well-documented that all of his evidence was false, and he was using it solely as a political tactic - I don't think he ever successfully accused a real communist.

What? It's rather well-documented that all of his evidence was false, and he was using it solely as a political tactic - I don't think he ever successfully accused a real communist.

We need someone to finally persecute Communists in America.

What? It's rather well-documented that all of his evidence was false, and he was using it solely as a political tactic - I don't think he ever successfully accused a real communist.

Tell that to the children of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, two Communists who were executed in 1953.

We need someone to finally persecute Communists in America.

No, you don't; you're not in need of someone to finally persecute anybody at all. But you know that.

*happy place*

And rightfully fucking so.

No, tragically so. But you know that.

*still in a happy place*

We need someone to finally persecute Communists in America.

Yeah, clearly any political party that dares to disagree with the government so drastically must be persecuted. I bet communists wouldn't even allow us our basic right to assembly! :rolleyes:

Tell that to the children of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, two Communists who were executed in 1953.

Not accused by McCarthy, AFAICT. He may have jumped on the bandwagon later, but so did many.

I dunno what dream world communists live in, I seriously do not. These people think that people want to work for eachother? That people want to do hard work only to be equal when they can easily find the easiest thing in the world to do and half ass at it and still be equal?

Communists live in a fucking dream world, they serious do.

Why not read the Communist Manifesto? It should be readily available at any library or bookstore, and would go a long way to familiarizing yourself with Marxism. I'd guess you could most likely find it online somewhere...

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

Whaddaya know. First hit on Google. There ya go, get readin'...tovarisch!

LOL, I have read the Communist Manifesto. I suppose I'm not as much looking to be educated as to what Communism is, but for information as to where I can find Communist forums, interesting sites, etc.

The title of the thread clearly states that it is closed to idiots, and yet still people charge in to rant about how jolly good it is that some people were murdered. Hurrah for oppression and murder, hurrah!

Anyway, erm, well done on the whole thinking-for-yourself thing, Presgreif. I mean, assuming that you're not a neo-conservative agent hoping that your political opponents will expose themselves and their associates to your hit/snatch-squads.

[narrows eyes and turns up collar]

I dunno what dream world communists live in, I seriously do not. These people think that people want to work for eachother? That people want to do hard work only to be equal when they can easily find the easiest thing in the world to do and half ass at it and still be equal?

Communists live in a fucking dream world, they serious do.

Every time I read something like that it just looks like, "I'm a selfish bastard; everyone else must be too."

As I've Noted In The Thread's Title, This Thread Is Closed To Flamers. You Will Be Reported To The Mods, and Action Will Be Taken Against You.
So please, stop spamming my thread with useless garbage. I did not ask for one-liners from anti-communists.

People accuse Communism of failing for one huge reason: human lazyness. I don't disagree with that on the idea; however, there is a very good way to avoid this issue.
The issue would be resolved by intergrating economic socialism one slowly, piece by piece, one generation at a time. For example, free education for all would be provided in the first generation. Educate every citizen well enough for several generations, and people will no longer wish to sit on their butts watching the Simpsons all day; they'll want to do all they can to help people.
Now, I technically use the word Communism to refer to failed socialism, using countries like Soviet Russia and Vietnam as an example. I also use the word Facism to represent failed socialism; Hitler comes to mind here.
Economic Socialism is actually far more democratic than capitalism; it doesn't leave people on the streets fighting to survive. In fact, if a government follows the model I have provided, within a century it may even be able to eliminate money completely.
I leave you with something a friend of mine once said, which is also his country's, Popartrea, mantra: "Silly rabbit! Socialism isn't inherently totalitarian!"

The title of the thread clearly states that it is closed to idiots, and yet still people charge in to rant about how jolly good it is that some people were murdered. Hurrah for oppression and murder, hurrah!

Anyway, erm, well done on the whole thinking-for-yourself thing, Presgreif. I mean, assuming that you're not a neo-conservative agent hoping that your political opponents will expose themselves and their associates to your hit/snatch-squads.

[narrows eyes and turns up collar]

LOL, nope, I'm not a neo-conservative agent. :D

You'd be fucking suprised, I swear you would. Go make a survey. I want you to.

One more of these, and it will be taken up with the Mods. This is your last warning.

People accuse Communism of failing for one huge reason: human lazyness. I don't disagree with that on the idea; however, there is a very good way to avoid this issue.
The issue would be resolved by intergrating economic socialism one slowly, piece by piece, one generation at a time. For example, free education for all would be provided in the first generation. Educate every citizen well enough for several generations, and people will no longer wish to sit on their butts watching the Simpsons all day; they'll want to do all they can to help people.
Now, I technically use the word Communism to refer to failed socialism, using countries like Soviet Russia and Vietnam as an example. I also use the word Facism to represent failed socialism; Hitler comes to mind here.
Economic Socialism is actually far more democratic than capitalism; it doesn't leave people on the streets fighting to survive. In fact, if a government follows the model I have provided, within a century it may even be able to eliminate money completely.
I leave you with something a friend of mine once said, which is also his country's, Popartrea, mantra: "Silly rabbit! Socialism isn't inherently totalitarian!"

Hmm, this is very interesting. You have given us something worthwhile to ponder. ;)

Thank you. It occurred to me while I was pondering my country's backstory for an RP that has arisen in my region; I thought of that whole thing in about five minutes. ^_^

so what kind of communism are we talking about here? tell me your conception of the general outline of your beliefs about how a society should be.

i see that you all discuss about communism and some even agree with it. But I bet that you have never ever lived in a communist regime :headbang: . Why do you people discuss about something you don't know. Did you know that in Chine it wasn't legal to acces foreign sites (I don't know how it's now...)? Did you know that you had lots of money, but nothing to buy with? Did you know that food was rationalised? Did you know that you had 5 breads for 5 people in a family? And there are many other, but... I would not know if you would understant what I'd say, becouse you did not suffer this regime! :mad:

I'm trying to think of some material or communities that I might offer up for interest, but to be honest I'm rather on my own anyway. It probably doesn't help that I don't yet subscribe to a single theory in every regard. Look at me, I'm a communist and I don't entirely agree with Marx, or anybody else I've never met!
To illustrate the point, despite not being religious, not admiring the Libyan system, and being aware that the author himself admits that it is not a communistic work, I found some things to admire in The Green Book (Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi). A shame, then, that some people find it hard to practice what they preach (and incase anybody starts on with the nice theory, bad practice thing, I should find that piece in The Times about how wildly far from their declared morals are most right-wing sectors of American society).

(Well, all right, it was mostly the snappy one-liners that I enjoy reciting, but it is what it is!)

i see that you all discuss about communism and some even agree with it. But I bet that you have never ever lived in a communist regime :headbang: . Why do you people discuss about something you don't know. Did you know that in Chine it wasn't legal to acces foreign sites (I don't know how it's now...)? Did you know that you had lots of money, but nothing to buy with? Did you know that food was rationalised? Did you know that you had 5 breads for 5 people in a family? And there are many other, but... I would not know if you would understant what I'd say, becouse you did not suffer this regime! :mad:

I was raised in Communist Poland and the USSR. Thanks for coming out.

i see that you all discuss about communism and some even agree with it. But I bet that you have never ever lived in a communist regime :headbang: . Why do you people discuss about something you don't know. Did you know that in Chine it wasn't legal to acces foreign sites (I don't know how it's now...)? Did you know that you had lots of money, but nothing to buy with? Did you know that food was rationalised? Did you know that you had 5 breads for 5 people in a family? And there are many other, but... I would not know if you would understant what I'd say, becouse you did not suffer this regime! :mad:
I reiterate what my friend said: "Silly rabbit! Socialism isn't inherently totalitarian!"

I reiterate what my friend said: "Silly rabbit! Socialism isn't inherently totalitarian!"

But can it exist without it?

But can it exist without it?

yes

We need someone to finally persecute Communists in America.

Is it prosecution you want or are you really calling for persecution? Rather revealing slip of the tongue, I'd say since extremes, whether on the right or the left tend to slide from prosecuting criminal acts to persecuting anybody who doesn't think they same they do. :rolleyes:

yes

Doubt it.

There's a reason why there hasn't been a pure "Communist" state...

i see that you all discuss about communism and some even agree with it. But I bet that you have never ever lived in a communist regime :headbang: . Why do you people discuss about something you don't know. Did you know that in Chine it wasn't legal to acces foreign sites (I don't know how it's now...)? Did you know that you had lots of money, but nothing to buy with? Did you know that food was rationalised? Did you know that you had 5 breads for 5 people in a family? And there are many other, but... I would not know if you would understant what I'd say, becouse you did not suffer this regime! :mad:

A few obvious (apparently blindingly so) points:
1)That's not communism.
2)Try living in the majority share of the modern capitalist world. Watch out for landmines, you're walking too close to 1st world oil concerns, Human Commodity!

But can it exist without it?

You were warned several times. Unfortunatly, you can't just let be. So I'll go report you to the mods now.

You were warned several times. Unfortunatly, you can't just let be. So I'll go report you to the mods now.

This is a general fucking forum, unless the mods tell me not to post here I will continue to do so.

Lay off the profanity. Just because it is the General forum does not mean abuse is tolerated. It is also extremely bad form to thread hijack. -- Katganistan

You were warned several times. Unfortunatly, you can't just let be. So I'll go report you to the mods now.

He was asking a legitimate question there. There is nothing wrong with that.

This is a general fucking forum, unless the mods tell me not to post here I will continue to do so.

This is my thread. You have hijacked it.

He was asking a legitimate question there. There is nothing wrong with that.

His "legitimate question" was off topic. Or did you even bother to read the first post?

I have all my life been on the far right of the political spectrum, most probably because it was hammered into me at a very early age that there is nothing worse than Communism. For the longest time, there was no doubt in mind that this was true, it had always felt quite natural that the Communist was my opposite, and for me the embodiment of all that is wrong with the world. Recently, however, things have very much changed. I won't go into details as to what brought on this change. Suffice it to say that after about two weeks of intensive self-reflection I have come to the conclusion that I am at heart a Communist. Not a Socialist, not a Liberal, but a Communist. I am, deep down, a damn red. My politics thus far have been based more on "clanish" loyalties than on my own concrete observations, but I can no longer fight for the wrong side of the political struggle. I can no longer lie to myself.

So, I'm reaching out to my fellow Communists, if you are out there, and I'm asking you to help me find that great pool of Communists which must gather somewhere on the internet. Please friends, post your comments, the advice you may have, and any links you may want to share to important websites and forums. So ya, I hope there's someone out there who can help. ;)

I did a quick google search and found marx-manifesto.org. I didn't go to the site myself, but it was recommended if you want to discuss communism.

Hope that helps. :)

His "legitimate question" was off topic. Or did you even bother to read the first post?

Both the thread and the question dealt with communism which is a lot better than some of the tangents get on is some threads.

I did a quick google search and found marx-manifesto.org. I didn't go to the site myself, but it was recommended if you want to discuss communism.

Hope that helps. :)

I'll check it out, thanks. ;)

Presgrief, you fail to comprehend the point behind a "General" forum...

Presgrief, you fail to comprehend the point behind a "General" forum...

It covers a wide range of subjects. This thread's subject is clearly described in the first post. That doesn't mean that you can come in and do the opposite, unless you're okay with him coming into every thread you ever make and talking about how you should be killed and just rambling on.

Quick, somebody, draw a line under this annoying tangent.

Presgrief, you fail to comprehend the point behind a "General" forum...

No, you seem to fail to comprehend the point. If you want to go talk about how great you are and how everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, make a thread about it. That's the point of General forum. Don't intentionally hijack his thread because you feel like it.

Presgrief, you fail to comprehend the point behind a "General" forum...

And you fail to comprehend the point behind "discussion", something which, contrary to popular belief, is not constructed from people shouting what fucking wankers other people are.

You had a valid point that communism could never work, just as any system could never work properly, because some selfish bastard will always exploit the system. Unfortunately, that was lost because your main thrust was that communists should all be brutally slaughtered.

It covers a wide range of subjects. This thread's subject is clearly described in the first post. That doesn't mean that you can come in and do the opposite, unless you're okay with him coming into every thread you ever make and talking about how you should be killed and just rambling on.

Quick, somebody, draw a line under this annoying tangent.

annoying tangent
________________

communism is actually a really noble and good idea. only thing is it doesn´t work quite the way old karl planned it. But it definately ain´t anything evil or frightening. It would bring life back into what it was let´s say...in america before the settlers. the tribes shared evertyhing and all that. THe communist hunt in america is quite intresting actually,...isn´t it suppose to be the land of liberty and free thought. nota place where democracy is made the only option. yanks actually are slaves of their system

as a native Cuban, if you lived
in communist Cuba I dont think
you would like it.
Santa- nita, Havaii and Heck Hell
the same.

communism is actually a really noble and good idea. only thing is it doesn´t work quite the way old karl planned it. But it definately ain´t anything evil or frightening. It would bring life back into what it was let´s say...in america before the settlers. the tribes shared evertyhing and all that. THe communist hunt in america is quite intresting actually,...isn´t it suppose to be the land of liberty and free thought. nota place where democracy is made the only option. yanks actually are slaves of their system

On the last part, indeed, a lot of the clichés hold true. The party-political system most of us are familiar with is just another tool by which one group dictates to another. The capitalist bent makes needy consumers of its subjects, and (here's where the Green Book comes in handy) a person in need is a slave indeed.

I am always irked to hear the term democracy used to describe our current system in an absolute fashion. It isn't proper democracy. Democracy is government by the people, Party democracy is government on behalf of the people. Representation is a denial of participation.

It's surprisingly little comfort to know that counter-revolutionaries will eventually come to realise that revolution is an extension of evolution and that it is not a fight between us and them but a matter of progress that will benefit them, too. It is, presumably, harder to execute somebody when you finally understand that they're on your side.

I'm not sure if this is getting too far away from what you wanted to get out of the thread, but I thought it wouldn't hurt too much to express some of my understanding on the wider matter. I'll stop.

as a native Cuban, if you lived
in communist Cuba I dont think
you would like it.
Santa- nita, Havaii and Heck Hell
the same.

Did you miss the bit where we dismissed this line of argument as completely irrelevant?
If you lived on the bottom of the capitalist system, in its reject bin in Sub Saharan Africa in sight of oil rigs and under its guns where you grew your vegetables in other people's filth because you weren't rich enough to be allowed into the supermarket, you'd probably step over your own mother to get to Cuba. Or to the fricking middle ages.

On the last part, indeed, a lot of the clichés hold true. The party-political system most of us are familiar with is just another tool by which one group dictates to another. The capitalist bent makes needy consumers of its subjects, and (here's where the Green Book comes in handy) a person in need is a slave indeed.

I am always irked to hear the term democracy used to describe our current system in an absolute fashion. It isn't proper democracy. Democracy is government by the people, Party democracy is government on behalf of the people. Representation is a denial of participation.

It's surprisingly little comfort to know that counter-revolutionaries will eventually come to realise that revolution is an extension of evolution and that it is not a fight between us and them but a matter of progress that will benefit them, too. It is, presumably, harder to execute somebody when you finally understand that they're on your side.

I'm not sure if this is getting too far away from what you wanted to get out of the thread, but I thought it wouldn't hurt too much to express some of my understanding on the wider matter. I'll stop.

Well, what I wanted to get out of this thread was cool links. :D
But otherwise, I must say that I find the thoughts you have outlined above to be very insightful. Its strange that through all the spam and flamming, there are still a couple of people who actually pose very interesting thoughts. You've given me mutch to ponder, and as a wannabe philosopher I must say I can imagine no greater gift. So here, have a kiss. ;)

practised it the way it is supposed to work.

One of the reasons is since the state
has to own and run everything there
can be no opposition to anything and
that creates an automatic dictatorship.

The European Socialist Democracys
concentrate more on providing social services
than state ownership of everything.

That is what makes them work as
European Socialist Democracys.

With diffrent political partys
and points of view.

Santa- nita.

Well, as I say, I'm not exactly swimming in far-left contacts myself, but since I mentioned it, here, read The Green Book (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/readgb.htm). It's not actually a communist text, I don't agree with everything in it, and I'm aware that it is far from the reality created in Libya, but as a politically interested amature I found it at least worth reading, anyway.

Well, as I say, I'm not exactly swimming in far-left contacts myself, but since I mentioned it, here, read The Green Book (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/readgb.htm). It's not actually a communist text, I don't agree with everything in it, and I'm aware that it is far from the reality created in Libya, but as a politically interested amature I found it at least worth reading, anyway.

Ya, I haven't seen this thing before. I'll be sure to read it, thanks for the COOL LINK :)

I think it is important to make the following point. There is a big difference between Marxism and Communism. Communism is Marxism-Leninism and as such is in some ways quite different. The main difference is that Leninism deals with how to transfer power to the working class whereas Marxism (or dialectical materialism to give it its proper name) is a philosophy - a description of the world around us. Marxism says what is wrong and suggests what might be the solution but says nothing about how to achieve it. I have found that Lenin's works are very much rooted in their time and place and should be read with that in mind. It is also important to note that Lenin said that the transition to socialism and then communism would happen in different ways in different places. I would highly recommend reading Marx and Engels smaller works. Capital is a bit heavy going to begin. Also it would be worth you taking a left or communist newspaper. However don't take others' ideas without reading for yourself and always stay open to finding out new things. Some communists fall into the trap of: "well now I know this thats all I need to know."
If you want a list of suggested reading then telegram my nation and I would be happy to give you mine.
BTW I am an ex-communist, at one point I was chairperson of the Young Communist League in Britain. now I am a kind of freelance Marxist :)

I wish everyone could get their point across as poetically as that.

By the way. Presgreif, you might want to look at nologo.org. It's not actually related to communism (it's the anti-globalisation movement) but I find it fascinating.

Have you ever read Ragged Trousered Philanthropists (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index%3Dstripbooks%3Arelevance-above%26rank%3Drelevance20041029rank%26field-keywords%3Dragged%252520trousered%26store-name%3Dbooks/102-4174374-4188147) by Robert Tressell?

Another recommendation - not about communism, but still worth a read - is In Defense of Globalization (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index%3Dstripbooks%3Arelevance-above%26rank%3Drelevance20041029rank%26field-keywords%3Din%252520defense%252520of%252520globalization%26store-name%3Dbooks/102-4174374-4188147) by Jagdish Bhagwati.

Have you ever read Ragged Trousered Philanthropists (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index%3Dstripbooks%3Arelevance-above%26rank%3Drelevance20041029rank%26field-keywords%3Dragged%252520trousered%26store-name%3Dbooks/102-4174374-4188147) by Robert Tressell?

Another recommendation - not about communism, but still worth a read - is In Defense of Globalization (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index%3Dstripbooks%3Arelevance-above%26rank%3Drelevance20041029rank%26field-keywords%3Din%252520defense%252520of%252520globalization%26store-name%3Dbooks/102-4174374-4188147) by Jagdish Bhagwati.
Everyone on the left should read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. In fact everyone should.read it. If that doesn't make you angry at the oppression inherent in unfetered capitalism, nothing will.

Everyone on the left should read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. In fact everyone should.read it. If that doesn't make you angry at the oppression inherent in unfetered capitalism, nothing will.

Equally, everyone should read my second recommendation (or something like it) - if you don't know any of the arguments behind globalization, you have no right to attack it. You might not agree with it all, but most of his argument makes a lot of sense, and he's not endorsing "unfetered" capitalism.

He is, however, an arrogant egoist, which makes the book at times unintentionally very funny. Like when he spends half a page criticising other people for misusing a term that he coined (the Wall St-Treasury Complex). He also confuses England, Britain and UK, which is amusing for someone who once lived there.

Equally, everyone should read my second recommendation (or something like it) - if you don't know any of the arguments behind globalization, you have no right to attack it. You might not agree with it all, but most of his argument makes a lot of sense, and he's not endorsing "unfetered" capitalism.

He is, however, an arrogant egoist, which makes the book at times unintentionally very funny. Like when he spends half a page criticising other people for misusing a term that he coined (the Wall St-Treasury Complex). He also confuses England, Britain and UK, which is amusing for someone who once lived there.
I haven't read that particular book, but I agree. To criticise something effectively, to dismiss something with confidence you really do need to understand it. Anyone on the left tends to find sooner or later that they are on the defensive and if you don't have a good understanding of capitalism as it was and is you will find yourself being confused by the arguements of the right. Know your enemy, in other words!

I heard about something called "worker rule in working areas" or something like that. I can't find it anymore. Does anybody know about something like this? (It is a movement in the US aimed at defending worker interests).

Equally, everyone should read my second recommendation (or something like it) - if you don't know any of the arguments behind globalization, you have no right to attack it. You might not agree with it all, but most of his argument makes a lot of sense, and he's not endorsing "unfetered" capitalism.


Actually, some neo-marxists believe that globalisation is vital to the rise of communism. People tend to move to the cities more, which means that they are exposed to new ideas which they wouldn't be if they were still a peasant class, working in the countryside. They are also given a more tangible idea of their exploitation, as they are likely to see rich people and they work alongside others who are exploited (which is another important factor - because they are grouped together with other members of the proletariat class, they can organise into unions and similar organisations). The peasant class can do little, as they are scattered throughtout the countryside and have little concept of their exploitation (or so the theory states).

There's a bit more but I can't really be bothered to look in my sociology textbook.

I heard about something called "worker rule in working areas" or something like that. I can't find it anymore. Does anybody know about something like this? (It is a movement in the US aimed at defending worker interests).
Do you have any more details about it?

Well, as a communist of undetermined genus I can say that I don't entirely think of capitalism as the enemy, as I see politics and economics as evolutionary, and I don't see chimpanzees as my enemy (unless they're screeching and flinging feces at me and trying to rip off my arms or something, the chimps, that is, not the capitalists... so much). Of course the extremes, tangents, and corruptions of obsolescent capitalism are often manifest in evil deeds and movements, and these are enemies, but there is no need to consider the morality of their motivation when their realisation is bloody murder. The same corruptions are true, of course, further on the evolutionary march left, manifest in dead-end off-shoots like National Socialism and Stalinism, and these will be treated the same if they ever present themselves against me in argument.

I had another point in relation, I think. Oh, I was going to say something of my mild resentment at the term communism being monopolised by theories related to or manifest in the Soviet Union. They were just theories, after all, and communism is not just a theory but an inevitable stretch somewhere ahead in the progress of human civilisation. Marxism-Leninism is a theory of communism, rather than communism some alternate name for Marxism-Leninism.

Actually, some neo-marxists believe that globalisation is vital to the rise of communism. People tend to move to the cities more, which means that they are exposed to new ideas which they wouldn't be if they were still a peasant class, working in the countryside. They are also given a more tangible idea of their exploitation, as they are likely to see rich people and they work alongside others who are exploited (which is another important factor - because they are grouped together with other members of the proletariat class, they can organise into unions and similar organisations). The peasant class can do little, as they are scattered throughtout the countryside and have little concept of their exploitation (or so the theory states).
Classical Marxism is firmly rooted in the idea of the state. It insists that in order to change the balance of power you need to control the state. The arguement between communists and so-called euro-communists (who were "neo-marxists) in the 1980s in Britain lead to the collapse of the communist party. The Marxists founded a new party while the euro-communists gradually abandoned all marxist-leninist ideas and finally closed the original party down. The classical communist would point out that globalisation is based on a capitalist idea of it, it is not internationalism but is a method whereby the richer capitalist countries get to exploit the poorer. They would say that you cannot use a system such as this to bring about socialism and that power comes through the workers controlling the state. Euro-communists thought that at the time (of Thatcher) as the EU was more left than her it could act as a balance on her and therfore the EU was the way to socialism - control it and control the nations second. It failed as an idea because the EU is a capitalist idea formed by capitalist states. To change the EU you first have to change the states in it. Phew., haven't had to do political analysis for quite a while!

I think it is important to make the following point. There is a big difference between Marxism and Communism. Communism is Marxism-Leninism and as such is in some ways quite different. The main difference is that Leninism deals with how to transfer power to the working class whereas Marxism (or dialectical materialism to give it its proper name) is a philosophy - a description of the world around us. Marxism says what is wrong and suggests what might be the solution but says nothing about how to achieve it. I have found that Lenin's works are very much rooted in their time and place and should be read with that in mind. It is also important to note that Lenin said that the transition to socialism and then communism would happen in different ways in different places. I would highly recommend reading Marx and Engels smaller works. Capital is a bit heavy going to begin. Also it would be worth you taking a left or communist newspaper. However don't take others' ideas without reading for yourself and always stay open to finding out new things. Some communists fall into the trap of: "well now I know this thats all I need to know."
If you want a list of suggested reading then telegram my nation and I would be happy to give you mine.
BTW I am an ex-communist, at one point I was chairperson of the Young Communist League in Britain. now I am a kind of freelance Marxist :)

Actually, I think you need to recognize the difference between real Communism and Leninism. Leninism will ultimately
devolve into State beauracratic Capitalism - so it is actually a cousin of capitalism and is only using Marxist rhetoric to
justify it. real Communism IS Anarchism and Anarchism IS real Communism - the problem is - the Leninists have abused
the word Communism and made the world think that their form of state beauracratic Capitalism is Communism when it
is not. The International Labor Movement - i think - NEEDS to move beyond Leninism and towards a fusion of Anarchism
and Marxism.

I'm a Anarcho-Marxist BTW.

I wish everyone could get their point across as poetically as that.

By the way. Presgreif, you might want to look at nologo.org. It's not actually related to communism (it's the anti-globalisation movement) but I find it fascinating.

Thank you for another COOL LINK I'll be sure to check it out. :)

Have you ever read Ragged Trousered Philanthropists (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index%3Dstripbooks%3Arelevance-above%26rank%3Drelevance20041029rank%26field-keywords%3Dragged%252520trousered%26store-name%3Dbooks/102-4174374-4188147) by Robert Tressell?

Another recommendation - not about communism, but still worth a read - is In Defense of Globalization (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index%3Dstripbooks%3Arelevance-above%26rank%3Drelevance20041029rank%26field-keywords%3Din%252520defense%252520of%252520globalization%26store-name%3Dbooks/102-4174374-4188147) by Jagdish Bhagwati.

COOL LINK

Thanks so much!
Geez, I was really scared that this thread was lost forever. Now, all I see is a brilliant exchange of intelligent opinions. Its alot to take in at once, but its what I was hoping for. Thanks so much everyone! :)

Did you miss the bit where we dismissed this line of argument as completely irrelevant?
If you lived on the bottom of the capitalist system, in its reject bin in Sub Saharan Africa in sight of oil rigs and under its guns where you grew your vegetables in other people's filth because you weren't rich enough to be allowed into the supermarket, you'd probably step over your own mother to get to Cuba. Or to the fricking middle ages.

You can't argue that Africa is capitalist any more than one can argue Cuba is Communist. They both claim oppressive, corrupt governments.

im sorry that you believe in communism, im not flamming here but its been proven impossible over and over and always turns into some form of toltalitarian goverment were the rich are even richer and powerful than before the revolution, and true communism should not need any govening body, people would just do things for the good of the people and society, but that will never happen because the majority of people are greedy and selfish and would stab you in the back if it got them anywhere. and untill people change communism will never work

capitalism doesnt work but its just the best choice we have so far that or socialism but there pretty much the same when you break it down into actual practice

if you really hate capitalism/socialism dont turn to a goverment that has already failed. turning to communism is the same as if i dicided to be a absolute monarchist there are better forms of goverment out there and if you dont like any invent one of your own, if you remember communism didnt exist untill the 1800s and it just pop up all of a sudden with engle and marks

So you understand my point, then, TFM?

Actually, I think you need to recognize the difference between real Communism and Leninism. Leninism will ultimately
devolve into State beauracratic Capitalism - so it is actually a cousin of capitalism and is only using Marxist rhetoric to
justify it. real Communism IS Anarchism and Anarchism IS real Communism - the problem is - the Leninists have abused
the word Communism and made the world think that their form of state beauracratic Capitalism is Communism when it
is not. The International Labor Movement - i think - NEEDS to move beyond Leninism and towards a fusion of Anarchism
and Marxism.

I'm a Anarcho-Marxist BTW.
I agree that the ultimate aim of anarchy and communism is the same. I would say that your description of Leninsim is not how a Leninist would see it. They would say that their aim is the withering of the state. Communism is Maxism-Leninism, without the Leninism it is not communism.
My understanding of the dispute between anarchism and communism is that it centered around how quickly society could move towards the dissappearance of the state. Communists saying you need a period of socialism and anarchists saying why wait (simplified I know). I would also suggest that much of what you are hinting at in the phrase "State beauracratic Capitalism" has more to do with the post Lenin Stalinist state. Also the description of it as a capitalist state is something that communists hear regularly from the far left Trotskists and would say was a flawed idea. It is a matter of debate that is perhaps outside this poster's topic so lets agree to disagree on that one huh? :)

capitalism doesnt work but its just the best choice we have so far that or socialism but there pretty much the same when you break it down into actual practice
Does that mean we should all just roll over and say "ooh, go on then exploit me, there is no better way for me to live"? Course not, we have to keep trying to make things better. Any decent philosophy should be capable of change and that seems to be the lesson that the communist movement has taken from the colapse of the USSR - stagnation of ideas leads to stagnation of morals.

So you understand my point, then, TFM?

Absolutely

All I Survey, if I may say, that's a very lazy, naive take, and rather selfish. I don't want to have to again make the point that none of us sat here wasting our time on a personal computer are quite on the bottom of the capitalist world's system any more than we're living in a failed sham communism. If you had a more humane, considered, internationalist view, it wouldn't look so much like the status quo was okay.

Thanks so much!
Geez, I was really scared that this thread was lost forever. Now, all I see is a brilliant exchange of intelligent opinions. Its alot to take in at once, but its what I was hoping for. Thanks so much everyone! :)
We're doing our best I think! ;)

Hmmm . . . well, communism (in it's modern form, something a little different from what Marx had in mind) deprives people of freedom - freedom is almost as important as breathing; so, I'm afraid I can't support communism.

P.S. Does anyone know if it is legal to send recruiting messages to nations who have recently joined the UN, when you've seen them at the bottom of the UN page? I've heard it is, but have found NO articles on whether it is or is not legal . . .

Does that mean we should all just roll over and say "ooh, go on then exploit me, there is no better way for me to live"? Course not, we have to keep trying to make things better. Any decent philosophy should be capable of change and that seems to be the lesson that the communist movement has taken from the colapse of the USSR - stagnation of ideas leads to stagnation of morals.

I agree. There has never been a perfect ideology or a perfect system of government. Communism, like any other ideology, was an experiment in practice. The collapse of the Soviet Block did not signify the ultimate failure of the ideal, but the failure of a certain system used to apply it. I have commited myself to Communism (in the broadest interpretation of the term) because I personally feel that it is the most noble of ideals. It would seem to me that the goal of all Communists today would be to find a system of applying the ideal to life which is superior to its predecessor. Indeed, I think that we can already see signs of this in the European Union, if not the rest of the world.

Hmmm . . . well, communism (in it's modern form, something a little different from what Marx had in mind) deprives people of freedom - freedom is almost as important as breathing; so, I'm afraid I can't support communism.I think you are confused about what freedom means.

P.S. Does anyone know if it is legal to send recruiting messages to nations who have recently joined the UN, when you've seen them at the bottom of the UN page? I've heard it is, but have found NO articles on whether it is or is not legal . . .
-> Technical forum

Does that mean we should all just roll over and say "ooh, go on then exploit me, there is no better way for me to live"?

No, it just means that we have to recognise that all pure systems are flawed so we can take the best from each one - capitalism elements in society can achieve things that socialist ideals never can, and vice versa. You can't eliminate one or the other and expect society to flourish.

Hmmm . . . well, communism (in it's modern form, something a little different from what Marx had in mind) deprives people of freedom - freedom is almost as important as breathing; so, I'm afraid I can't support communism.

P.S. Does anyone know if it is legal to send recruiting messages to nations who have recently joined the UN, when you've seen them at the bottom of the UN page? I've heard it is, but have found NO articles on whether it is or is not legal . . .

cough*off-topic*cough
please go and post in the right for
um (probably Game Play).

I have all my life been on the far right of the political spectrum, most probably because it was hammered into me at a very early age that there is nothing worse than Communism. For the longest time, there was no doubt in mind that this was true, it had always felt quite natural that the Communist was my opposite, and for me the embodiment of all that is wrong with the world. Recently, however, things have very much changed. I won't go into details as to what brought on this change. Suffice it to say that after about two weeks of intensive self-reflection I have come to the conclusion that I am at heart a Communist. Not a Socialist, not a Liberal, but a Communist. I am, deep down, a damn red. My politics thus far have been based more on "clanish" loyalties than on my own concrete observations, but I can no longer fight for the wrong side of the political struggle. I can no longer lie to myself.

So, I'm reaching out to my fellow Communists, if you are out there, and I'm asking you to help me find that great pool of Communists which must gather somewhere on the internet. Please friends, post your comments, the advice you may have, and any links you may want to share to important websites and forums. So ya, I hope there's someone out there who can help. ;)

Is this thread also "closed" to all non-communists?

No, it just means that we have to recognise that all pure systems are flawed so we can take the best from each one - capitalism elements in society can achieve things that socialist ideals never can, and vice versa. You can't eliminate one or the other and expect society to flourish.
but society existed for thousands of years without capitalism. no system is permanent or perfect. Ideas are of their times so at some point in the future, whether we like it or not, whether communism ever happens or not, capitalism will become as outdated as feudalism. I can't accept the "end of history" arguement that post modernists created after the collapse of the USSR. Otherwise we might as well all give up and die off.

I read an anecdote that was attributed to Gorbachev...

A Soviet man walks down the road and finds a bottle. He rubs it and a genie comes out.

Genie: I will grant you one wish.

Man: My neighbor, Boris, owns 10 cows, while I only have 3.

Genie: So, you wish to also have 10 cows?

Man: No, I want you to shoot seven of Boris' cows.


Well, it's not exact because I lent out the book, but you get the idea. There are people who look at Paris Hilton and think, "I wish I had that sort of money." And then there are those that say, "I wish she was poor and miserable."

It is a shame how many self proclaimed socialists aren't as interested in the improvement of their own lives as they are with bringing others down to their level.

but society existed for thousands of years without capitalism. no system is permanent or perfect. Ideas are of their times so at some point in the future, whether we like it or not, whether communism ever happens or not, capitalism will become as outdated as feudalism. I can't accept the "end of history" arguement that post modernists created after the collapse of the USSR. Otherwise we might as well all give up and die off.
Capitalism might die, but things will evolve from it - hence capitalist elements will survive. I'm not saying I'm happy as things are - just that I'm not after some kind of "revolution" where we change everything.

It is a shame how many self proclaimed socialists aren't as interested in the improvement of their own lives as they are with bringing others down to their level.

Is it three? Oh, oh, seven? Or is it just, "the sort of people" that exist in your head and not in reality?

Sorry, that sounded a bit harsh, but, really now...

Is this thread also "closed" to all non-communists?

This thread was originaly intended to be a place where I could attain interesting links from fellow Communists concerning our ideology. A discussion has emerged however, which, I suppose, I could have expected. Anyone who wishes to participate in an intelligent and constructive manner is welcome to do so, no matter what side they should take. I simply won't tolerate people spamming up my thread with idiotic hate posts, is all.

It is a shame how many self proclaimed socialists aren't as interested in the improvement of their own lives as they are with bringing others down to their level.

Some people just can't stand success. That's why they want to get rid of Grammar Schools in the UK. Erm, perhaps Grammar Schools are successful because they're good? Perhaps energies should be focussed on improving Comprehensive Education.

Socialism should be about bringing everyone up to the same level.

Capitalism might die, but things will evolve from it - hence capitalist elements will survive. I'm not saying I'm happy as things are - just that I'm not after some kind of "revolution" where we change everything.

Don't worry, we kept the Queen going through capitalism, I'm sure that we'll turn Canary Wharf into a nice Phalanstery or something by which to remember the old ways.

Some people just can't stand success. That's why they want to get rid of Grammar Schools in the UK. Erm, perhaps Grammar Schools are successful because they're good? Perhaps energies should be focussed on improving Comprehensive Education.

Socialism should be about bringing everyone up to the same level.

Very well said, I agree whole heartedly.

Is it three? Oh, oh, seven? Or is it just, "the sort of people" that exist in your head and not in reality?

Sorry, that sounded a bit harsh, but, really now...

Uh, what?

I'm talking about socialised misery. It is one thing to talk about a system and its benefits to society - and quite another to simply complain about Bill Gates. I've run into both.

Capitalism might die, but things will evolve from it - hence capitalist elements will survive. I'm not saying I'm happy as things are - just that I'm not after some kind of "revolution" where we change everything.
Revolution doesn't have to be a violent sudden change, it can also be gradual and non-violent. I personally feel that the violent sort is an absolute last resort.

Well, as a communist of undetermined genus I can say that I don't entirely think of capitalism as the enemy, as I see politics and economics as evolutionary, and I don't see chimpanzees as my enemy (unless they're screeching and flinging feces at me and trying to rip off my arms or something, the chimps, that is, not the capitalists... so much). Of course the extremes, tangents, and corruptions of obsolescent capitalism are often manifest in evil deeds and movements, and these are enemies, but there is no need to consider the morality of their motivation when their realisation is bloody murder. The same corruptions are true, of course, further on the evolutionary march left, manifest in dead-end off-shoots like National Socialism and Stalinism, and these will be treated the same if they ever present themselves against me in argument.

I had another point in relation, I think. Oh, I was going to say something of my mild resentment at the term communism being monopolised by theories related to or manifest in the Soviet Union. They were just theories, after all, and communism is not just a theory but an inevitable stretch somewhere ahead in the progress of human civilisation. Marxism-Leninism is a theory of communism, rather than communism some alternate name for Marxism-Leninism.

If I understand your point correctly, communist socialism is an inevitable societal advancement of human civilization.

I very much disagree, communist socialism is one of the oldest organizational forms of human society. This is apparent in the primative societies of north africa's Bushmen, or the western north american Aboriginals prior to european colonization. In a small group, a difficult enviroment, where all belongings of the tribe are nescessary to the tribes survival, all possesions must owned by the tribe and distributed upon need.

When humans began to form social groups numbering in the hundreds and thousands, where all members and their possesions were not vital to the groups survival, the system became nonessential and unweildy. The total of the hunters kill and the farmers crop were no longer vital to the survival of the larger group. Food, craft, and services could be traded between members of a group for the sole profit of those members, instead of being distributed or for the profit of the group.

Revolution doesn't have to be a violent sudden change, it can also be gradual and non-violent. I personally feel that the violent sort is an absolute last resort.

Fair point.

Some people just can't stand success. That's why they want to get rid of Grammar Schools in the UK. Erm, perhaps Grammar Schools are successful because they're good? Perhaps energies should be focussed on improving Comprehensive Education.

Socialism should be about bringing everyone up to the same level.
Getting rid of grammer schools is not about hating success. Its about the idea that if the rich and powerful can opt out then they have no interest in making sure that what the rest of us get is up to standard. If their kids went to the same schools as us how long do you think it would be before comprehensive education had enough money for the books and smaller classes that at the moment thy only provide for their own children?
And I agree, socialism should absolutely be about bringing people up to a level.

I very much disagree, communist socialism is one of the oldest organizational forms of human society. This is apparent in the primative societies of north africa's Bushmen, or the western north american Aboriginals prior to european colonization. In a small group, a difficult enviroment, where all belongings of the tribe are nescessary to the tribes survival, all possesions must owned by the tribe and distributed upon need.
Marx called this primitive communism and theorised that society would evolve into a higher, technological form of communism in the future.

This thread was originaly intended to be a place where I could attain interesting links from fellow Communists concerning our ideology. A discussion has emerged however, which, I suppose, I could have expected. Anyone who wishes to participate in an intelligent and constructive manner is welcome to do so, no matter what side they should take. I simply won't tolerate people spamming up my thread with idiotic hate posts, is all.

Got it. Is there an example, in the real world, where "true" communism has ever worked, except for small, isolated "tribes"? (Which always have over-compensated "elders or warriors".)

Getting rid of grammer schools is not about hating success. Its about the idea that if the rich and powerful can opt out then they have no interest in making sure that what the rest of us get is up to standard. If their kids went to the same schools as us how long do you think it would be before comprehensive education had enough money for the books and smaller classes that at the moment thy only provide for their own children?


This is my biggest 'beef' with socialist systems. I believe in personal freedom; I shouldn't be forced to send my kids to a particular institution. It is not my responsibility to get your kids up to standard. Selfish, yes, but I should be allowed to make that call.

Got it. Is there an example, in the real world, where "true" communism has ever worked, except for small, isolated "tribes"? (Which always have over-compensated "elders or warriors".)

No, I suppose not. But then again, is there an example in the real world of a "true" democracy working, or even existing?

Got it. Is there an example, in the real world, where "true" communism has ever worked, except for small, isolated "tribes"? (Which always have over-compensated "elders or warriors".)
"True" communism has never yet been created. The route taken so far has led to beauraucratic socialist states. Communism means a society where all property is shared, everyone gets everything they need in exchange for work and the state has "withered" away - possibly this means government is at a local level, there are various theories on this. Marx was a bit vague about what it would be like as it was his utopian vision of the future, not something he could actually analyse.

If their kids went to the same schools as us how long do you think it would be before comprehensive education had enough money for the books and smaller classes that at the moment thy only provide for their own children?

I suggest you look at your nations laws concerning private donations to public schools. In Canada it is illegal.

In the United States, where it is legal, millions are donated to public schools every year by wealthy individuals.

If I understand your point correctly, communist socialism is an inevitable societal advancement of human civilization.

I very much disagree, communist socialism is one of the oldest organizational forms of human society. This is apparent in the primative societies of north africa's Bushmen, or the western north american Aboriginals prior to european colonization. In a small group, a difficult enviroment, where all belongings of the tribe are nescessary to the tribes survival, all possesions must owned by the tribe and distributed upon need.

When humans began to form social groups numbering in the hundreds and thousands, where all members and their possesions were not vital to the groups survival, the system became nonessential and unweildy. The total of the hunters kill and the farmers crop were no longer vital to the survival of the larger group. Food, craft, and services could be traded between members of a group for the sole profit of those members, instead of being distributed or for the profit of the group.

And thus democracy was lost to the world. After doing much through other systems along the way, tribalism, feudalism, mechantilism, capitalism and party democracy as we now know it, somebody really has to start thinking about democracy once again. For me (as I say, being not strictly adherent to Marxism or such), communism is centrally about democracy, which we do not have today precisely because of the mass condition you describe. Communism for me would, probably (I have spoken of my irritation at individual theories subverting the whole unavoidable movement, and do not intend to make my own infant theories obscure for me the possibility of alternate correctness in communism) entail major devolution. Small communities, of course, would be better able to practice direct democracy, and at the same time greater community of goods. The nation and indeed world at large, having been opened-up by globalisation, should persist in its availability for trade and for large scale industry.

To me it looks as if the sort of criticism you use, one of the most common arguments that I encounter, actually underestimates the ambition in communism, getting tangled up in stumbling blocks apparent in the society they know. All that is solid melts into air.

I suggest you look at your nations laws concerning private donations to public schools. In Canada it is illegal.

In the United States, where it is legal, millions are donated to public schools every year by wealthy individuals.
It is a general point about political pressure on government to do something. The rich and powerful capitalist class exert more pressure than other classes.

Getting rid of grammer schools is not about hating success. Its about the idea that if the rich and powerful can opt out then they have no interest in making sure that what the rest of us get is up to standard. If their kids went to the same schools as us how long do you think it would be before comprehensive education had enough money for the books and smaller classes that at the moment thy only provide for their own children?
And I agree, socialism should absolutely be about bringing people up to a level.

I think you'll find it is. Your point about rich people opting out may once have been valid, but I'm not talking about private schools. I'm talking about state Grammars. Everybody should be able to go to a school that caters for their needs, whether that's because their academically intelligent, or gifted at craftwork or sports, or whatever. Teaching is more effective when the pupils learning together are at a similar standard, and that's why Grammar schools are so successful at getting the best out of their pupils.

There are a lot of things right about Comprehensive education, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to cater for academically bright students (and often they are very good at that). But if they're unsuccessful, and not catering to the pupils' needs, that's because they're doing something wrong, not because Grammar schools are doing something right. In an ideal world, it's best for everyone to mix together, but to achieve that you need to improve what's bad, not get rid of what's good.

Like I say, bringing everyone up to the same level, not the other way round.



EDIT: Sorry, forgot to tackle the "hating success" bit. It might not be with you, but many people do continue the class war on both sides, even though we live in a pretty classless society these days. Many Labour MPs admitted that they voted for the hunting ban simply as revenge for the mine closures in the 80s.

I think you'll find it is. Your point about rich people opting out may once have been valid, but I'm not talking about private schools. I'm talking about state Grammars. Everybody should be able to go to a school that caters for their needs, whether that's because their academically intelligent, or gifted at craftwork or sports, or whatever. Teaching is more effective when the pupils learning together are at a similar standard, and that's why Grammar schools are so successful at getting the best out of their pupils.

There are a lot of things right about Comprehensive education, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to cater for academically bright students (and often they are very good at that). But if they're unsuccessful, and not catering to the pupils' needs, that's because they're doing something wrong, not because Grammar schools are doing something right. In an ideal world, it's best for everyone to mix together, but to achieve that you need to improve what's bad, not get rid of what's good.

Like I say, bringing everyone up to the same level, not the other way round.
I think that the single thing that would change the comprehensive system for the better would be smaller class sizes. Private schools have less than 20 per teacher, comprehensives over 30. If the level of class sizes was brought down then the majority of problems in the school system would be cured. Its about how much money society spends and whether they want to invest in nuclear weapons, wars and tax cuts, or the health and welfare of the people.

EDIT Anyone who says the class system is gone or the class war is over has never been to a "sink" estate (which are effectively ghettos for the very poor), or if they did they weren't looking

I think that the single thing that would change the comprehensive system for the better would be smaller class sizes. Private schools have less than 20 per teacher, comprehensives over 30. If the level of class sizes was brought down then the majority of problems in the school system would be cured. Its about how much money society spends and whether they want to invest in nuclear weapons, wars and tax cuts, or the health and welfare of the people.

EDIT Anyone who says the class system is gone or the class war is over has never been to a "sink" estate (which are effectively ghettos for the very poor), or if they did they weren't looking

Couldn't agree more. Spend the money where it's needed. And don't make out that academic success is the be-all and end-all. Strange how they encourage everyone to consider university education, but then don't encourage everyone to consider trades. Um, it's all equal, just different.

And yes, I found it difficult to express exactly what I meant about class war. The lines are becoming blurred, though, and I don't understand how people can hold grudges against people just because of where they come from (and I mean both "sides". It's petty, and helps no one.

Couldn't agree more. Spend the money where it's needed. And don't make out that academic success is the be-all and end-all. Strange how they encourage everyone to consider university education, but then don't encourage everyone to consider trades. Um, it's all equal, just different.

And yes, I found it difficult to express exactly what I meant about class war. The lines are becoming blurred, though, and I don't understand how people can hold grudges against people just because of where they come from (and I mean both "sides". It's petty, and helps no one.
I agree, there is more mobility between classes, this could be a sign of a fairer society or it could be a sign that the competition in capitalism is getting sharper. I am not sure which myself but I hope the former :)
Absolutely agree about university. I know many people who went because thats what you do and now have no skills and no worthwhile job. At the same time we have a terrible shortage of skilled labour. Letting the apprenticeship system die was a shortsighted money saving disaster. It is also about the fact that capitalist society overvalues "brain labour" and devalues manual labour. Before anyone thinks I am jealous, I am an over valued "brain labourer". :D

Some people think we (me and those who think like me) criticize Bill Gates because we are jealous of him and that everybody can be brought up to the level of Bill Gates, and at the same time they feel confortable criticizing the poors who benefit from the welfare system without working.
But in fact can't help the slave without expropriating his master and it is not possible to have only masters and nobody working.
And there is no mobility between the classes. There is only mobility for the ruling class.

Some people think we (me and those who think like me) criticize Bill Gates because we are jealous of him and that everybody can be brought up to the level of Bill Gates, and at the same time they feel confortable criticizing the poors who benefit from the welfare system without working.
But in fact can't help the slave without expropriating his master and it is not possible to have only masters and nobody working.
And there is no mobility between the classes. There is only mobility for the ruling class.
I would tend to agree :)

Tell that to the children of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, two Communists who were executed in 1953.
Quality, to list people's political alignment first, and then say they were executed. Propaganda tactic. They were executed for treason, because they sold military secrets to the USSR.

And there is no mobility between the classes. There is only mobility for the ruling class.
for people like Bill Clinton, mebbe? (greatest Prez of the 21st century, and he was only in office then for a month or so!)

I wish no one in the US listened to Joe McCarthy. :(

The man was a fucked-up "patriot," a fucking zero.

I agree.

for people like Bill Clinton, mebbe? (greatest Prez of the 21st century, and he was only in office then for a month or so!)I didn't get it. What are you talking about? I was talking about the class warfare.

Quality, to list people's political alignment first, and then say they were executed. Propaganda tactic. They were executed for treason, because they sold military secrets to the USSR.
Aaah, but all information is propaganda for something.

I didn't get it. What are you talking about? I was talking about the class warfare.
You said there was no class mobility, and I cited the most visible example of such a thing existing. There's other examples, but Bill is my favorite.

Aaah, but all information is propaganda for something.
I wouldn't say that. I'd say "All information can be twisted to be propaganda for something"

You said there was no class mobility, and I cited the most visible example of such a thing existing. There's other examples, but Bill is my favorite.
ok :-S

You said there was no class mobility, and I cited the most visible example of such a thing existing. There's other examples, but Bill is my favorite.
Bill as an example of class mobility? From middle class to capitalist. Happens but it is not a common thing compared to the number of people there are in the middle class. Hardly ever happens to the working class.

Bill as an example of class mobility? From middle class to capitalist. Happens but it is not a common thing compared to the number of people there are in the middle class. Hardly ever happens to the working class.
IMO the class warfare is now global.
The middle class is the second world.

I have all my life been on the far right of the political spectrum, most probably because it was hammered into me at a very early age that there is nothing worse than Communism. For the longest time, there was no doubt in mind that this was true, it had always felt quite natural that the Communist was my opposite, and for me the embodiment of all that is wrong with the world. Recently, however, things have very much changed. I won't go into details as to what brought on this change. Suffice it to say that after about two weeks of intensive self-reflection I have come to the conclusion that I am at heart a Communist. Not a Socialist, not a Liberal, but a Communist. I am, deep down, a damn red.

Two weeks of self reflection? Maybe you want to give it some time and read a little about what you are embracing. I too toyed with communist ideology when I was young. There is much about it, philosophically, that is very appealing.

However, Communism's track record concerning human rights cannot be ignored. In every communist nation labor camps, restrictions and outright elimination of civil liberties, secret police, stifling of dissent, and summary executions eventually become the norm. Consider this:

Of the top ten most brutal regimes of the 20th century (measured in terms of their own people murdered), half were communist.

Although Hitler is often looked upon as the greatest mass murderer of modern times that "honor" actual goes to Russia's Communist leader, Stalin, who was responsible for the deaths of over 42 million of his own people.

China's Communist leader, Mao, also beats out Hitler, responsible for the deaths of almost 38 million Chinese.

It is all well and good to toy with Communist ideology in the comfort of a society that guarantees and protects your civil liberties. But ask yourself, would you want to live in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, or Cambodia?

There are no classes. And there is mucho mobility.
Tell that to those who harvest cotton in Uzbekistan.

It is all well and good to toy with Communist ideology in the comfort of a society that guarantees and protects your civil liberties. But ask yourself, would you want to live in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, or Cambodia?
I take USSR over capitalist Uzbekistan anyday.

Stop citing examples of people who aren't or weren't communists as if they are ore were, it's a pointless diversion that doesn't even get anybody drunk.

The middle classes are the 2nd world? The middle classes are the Soviet bloc? Interesting.

IMO the class warfare is now global.
The middle class is the second world.
I don't really seem to notice this class warfare of which you speak...

There are no classes. And there is mucho mobility.

No offense, but if you really believe that there are no classes...then you are living in a dream world. The class distinction is huge, and maybe not so in some countries, but take the Us for instance, did you know that 80 million people in the US live below the poverty line? And the Us is supposedly the richest nation on earth.

But most of the class divide happens now between countries....even the poorest people here in Australia are richer than the majority of the world. You may not realise it from your posh comfy home but most of the world is poor and you and i and everyone else on this forum is very VERY rich compared to most of the world. And it's all out fault, too.

I don't really seem to notice this class warfare of which you speak...
Yes it is the main problem IMO. Those of the higher classes tend to be blind. They talk to rich people over the internet and conclude that life is good from their discussion. It matches with their experience. They think that you can go anywhere and find a job. They see that their life style is going up so they think their system is the best system possible. The dark sides of the system is always hidden to them.

No offense, but if you really believe that there are no classes...then you are living in a dream world. The class distinction is huge, and maybe not so in some countries, but take the Us for instance, did you know that 80 million people in the US live below the poverty line? And the Us is supposedly the richest nation on earth.

But most of the class divide happens now between countries....even the poorest people here in Australia are richer than the majority of the world. You may not realise it from your posh comfy home but most of the world is poor and you and i and everyone else on this forum is very VERY rich compared to most of the world. And it's all out fault, too.
Excellent point. The US considerably out consumes any other region of comparable population, Europe is not that far behind. Most of it is used up on throwaway junk. As to the person above who suggested that the topic reader should read more before making his mind up, well that was exactly the point of this topic to begin with, he wanted names of books to read. Since then we have kinda carried on when others made anti comments.

I've had several problems with communism over the years, and typically my attempts to express them have come across poorly, chiefly because I typically attempt to do so at 3:00 in the morning.

Communism is far too simplistic. It states that economic issues are supreme, and that everything else is subsidiary, but I take issue with that. People take different issues to heart, and they allow emotions to rule often as well. There are desires outside of economic and tangible objects.

Communism is far too optimistic about human nature. Let's just say that this perfect world does come about. And cooks along happily for a little while. Then, out of the blue, comes a charismatic sociopath, promising one of the things that communism cannot offer, yet many people desire: Domination over your fellow man. He converts a town council (or whatever is setting policy) to his beliefs and sways the local bunch of folk. They take up impromptu weapons, pillage and conquer the neighboring town, conscript the men, and go after more. Thus leading to something we all fear.

People will naturally disagree. They will disagree about all sorts of things. Minor, major, whatever. Yet, a utopian system basically relies on universal agreement. Something people will not willingly do. People all would have to agree that economic issues are foremost, and all other issues don't really matter. Something, they'd be forced to do. I believe that a broad spectrum of opinions are a beautiful thing.

Nations that have professed communism are notorious for massive crimes against their people. As stated earlier, with Stalin's 42 million dead and Mao's 38 million. The Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe had to be held up by the Soviet Military and the population kept in by walls, barb wire and machine guns! Former eastern bloc nations had a FAR worse environmental record than the west. They have/had terrible working conditions as well. Look at the Chinese Mining Industry!

These are just a few things, but I have to go of to class now, so have fun.

Some people think we (me and those who think like me) criticize Bill Gates because we are jealous of him and that everybody can be brought up to the level of Bill Gates, and at the same time they feel confortable criticizing the poors who benefit from the welfare system without working.
But in fact can't help the slave without expropriating his master and it is not possible to have only masters and nobody working.
And there is no mobility between the classes. There is only mobility for the ruling class.
Interesting you cite the example of Bill Gates. The super-rich, like Bill Gates, are actually far less damaging to society than the very rich, simply because he can't possibly spend all the money he has, and ends up giving a massive proportion to charity.

I take USSR over capitalist Uzbekistan anyday.

I, myself, will not be limited to those two choices.

By the way. Presgreif, you might want to look at nologo.org. It's not actually related to communism (it's the anti-globalisation movement) but I find it fascinating.


You're right, that is a fascinating site. I found a couple of articles that are going to keep me and my not so political savy (but working on it) friends deep in conversation.

It was a great day for the world when communism fell in Soviet Russia. It will be an equally great day when capitalism joins it in the dust bin of history.

I agree. Soviet communism was not communism at all, and when capitalism collapses---- yeeha!

-I am a communist and a member of the Democratic Socialist Perspetive of the Socialist Alliance in Australia- our rogram answers many questions about communism. It's been published on the net- which is great- so check it out.

http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/program/dsp-prog.html

The last chapter, the socialist society, is worth checking out definately.

Cheers,
Christina J

I dunno what dream world communists live in, I seriously do not. These people think that people want to work for eachother? That people want to do hard work only to be equal when they can easily find the easiest thing in the world to do and half ass at it and still be equal?

Communists live in a fucking dream world, they serious do.

Absolutely! A doctor paid more than a dustbin collector? Even if they have similar hours? There is nothing to strive for in a communist society, just a will to obey the party in all things.......
:sniper:

Definately read "The Comunist Manifesto"...
They try and keep it out of the US education system because it really is a great idea, it just hasn't been executed properly. Don't just follow what you are told about communism, you must read the original document and deside for yourself!

In polls a majority of US citizens asked believed that "from each according to his ability, to each according to need his need" was a quote from the Declaration of Independance, so reasonable and fair does it sound.

I'm not entirely sure what the original author means when they say they are outright communist. To be honest I'm not entirely sure of the difference between communism and socialism. But communism/socialism is something that I have been thinking about a lot recently, or in fact, most of my life - I'd just like to share a few ideas on it, hopefully without ranting too much.
One of the most common coments people make about communism is that "it's a good idea, but it never works in practise". As many people have commented, this type of comment is usually unfair, because it is based on the horrific acts of Stalin, Mao and the like - these people were not, in fact, communists. The essence of communism is that the country is run for the people - that wealth is shared equally. In these regimes the countries were run for the sake of a wealthy few, those in power, in government. You may notice that this is no different to a capitalist system whereby the country is run for the benifit of a few extremely rich people. (Essentially most of the world is run for the benifit of multinational corperations which CANNOT act in any way other than for maximum profit - If a corperate exec. acts morally rather than to increase share value, the shareholders can sue..)
However, I think it is wrong of people to think of communist ideals as only being able to create some kind of fragile utopia which will immidiatly be crushed by a selfish uprising. Simple policies can be employed which make a country more socialist. The rich would be taxed far more -to the point where they can never build up such a huge amount of wealth that they are isolated from the rest of the people. This money would be funneled into public services - all essential services would be nationalised, - health, education, electricity, public transport, water etc - for reasons i can expand on if anyone would like me to.
Politicians would be eager to carry out these policies because they would be payed MUCH LESS. In the current system, politicians have no interest in taxing the wealthy. They are the wealthy. They have no interest in state owend school or hospitals - they don't use them. If politicians were payed, less, if in fact they were payed minimum wage (which would be hugely increased, obviously) they would be living the same life as the people of the country, and would do their very best to improve things, rather than to improve the bank balances of the wealthy, and trust in the 'trickle down' effect (which is of course, bollocks).
I'm actually far more left than this but it would be a good start...
The real question is, do you want to live in a world where everything is run for the sake of money, or where everything is run for the sake of the people. I know which makes more sense to me.
Also, I'd like to reccomend "imagine" by tommy sheridan - especially to you scots out there.

Also another point to make to the "but human nature is selfish" objectors is that as society changes so does education and the system of rewards. A capitalist society rewards selfish and greedy behaviour so people become selfish and greedy. Feudal societies did not and so suffered from different vices, servility and passivity were rewarded so the idea that some people are "naturally inferior" took root, much as the idea of "natural selfishness" has today. In a socialist society there would be different rewards and so different vices and "natural" behaviours.

I fundamentally believe that the best system by which we can live is a system of limited government. Where the government protects the rights of all from active aggression. Where the government stops people and corporations from harming each other, but where a government let's us do what we want with our own individual lives. I believe that the best governmental systems in the world are those of the US/Western Europe/Japan/Australia. Though they disagree on policy, they are all very similar.

Interesting you cite the example of Bill Gates. The super-rich, like Bill Gates, are actually far less damaging to society than the very rich, simply because he can't possibly spend all the money he has, and ends up giving a massive proportion to charity.
I have to disagree. In my opinion, the rich are not damaging because they spend their money, but because they lock huge amount of resources which remain unused while providing their owners with more power.
For example, Bill Gates uses his ownership of Microsoft and indirectly of its software to discriminate against the poor. He grants access to information created by the workers in exchange for more property for him. They little money he gives to charity does not offset the value of the software he locks for himself.

I have to disagree. In my opinion, the rich are not damaging because they spend their money, but because they lock huge amount of resources which remain unused while providing their owners with more power.
For example, Bill Gates uses his ownership of Microsoft and indirectly of its software to discriminate against the poor. He grants access to information created by the workers in exchange for more property for him. They little money he gives to charity does not offset the value of the software he locks for himself.

I never said it was a good thing, just that, ironically, a handful of super-rich people do more for society than a lot of very rich people.

Also another point to make to the "but human nature is selfish" objectors is that as society changes so does education and the system of rewards. A capitalist society rewards selfish and greedy behaviour so people become selfish and greedy. Feudal societies did not and so suffered from different vices, servility and passivity were rewarded so the idea that some people are "naturally inferior" took root, much as the idea of "natural selfishness" has today. In a socialist society there would be different rewards and so different vices and "natural" behaviours.
Another thing I will add is that capitalism itself does not solve the greed problem either, but actually make it more damaging instead. Greed is a problem which should be moderated as much as possible instead of being idolated.

I have to disagree. In my opinion, the rich are not damaging because they spend their money, but because they lock huge amount of resources which remain unused while providing their owners with more power.
For example, Bill Gates uses his ownership of Microsoft and indirectly of its software to discriminate against the poor. He grants access to information created by the workers in exchange for more property for him. They little money he gives to charity does not offset the value of the software he locks for himself.
Little money to charity? Like the year he gave a full billion dollars to charity?

I never said it was a good thing, just that, ironically, a handful of super-rich people do more for society than a lot of very rich people.
Well I believe the handful of super-rich people do more harm than the lot of very rich people as well.

Little money to charity? Like the year he gave a full billion dollars to charity?Indeed, but you have to consider the value of Microsoft software, which is marketed for $28 billion / year.

Another thing I will add is that capitalism itself does not solve the greed problem either, but actually make it more damaging instead. Greed is a problem which should be moderated as much as possible instead of being idolated.
Precisely, change society and you change people, change people and society changes even further. Greed is not eternal and is not the natural state of humanity. Before we knew envy we had no greed.

Well I believe the handful of super-rich people do more harm than the lot of very rich people as well.

They have the potential to, yes. But they're much more likely to do good things. You can't go around assuming that people will do the wrong thing given the chance. Otherwise you end up with a Nanny State, and no one has the freedom to do anything.

Indeed, but you have to consider the value of Microsoft software, which is marketed for $28 billion / year.
If people are willing to buy it, I've got no problem with that.

Indeed, but you have to consider the value of Microsoft software, which is marketed for $28 billion / year.

He still gives a much higher proportion of his earnings than most people.

But is it really his earnings? Or is it the earning of the workers that he owns?

But is it really his earnings?

What? He earns a lot of money, he gives a significant proportion of it to charity. What are you trying to get at? Why must he be evil just because he is rich?

But is it really his earnings? Or is it the earning of the workers that he owns?

How could he possibly give his employees' wages to charity?

But is it really his earnings? Or is it the earning of the workers that he owns?
I'd disagree that he owns his workers. Those workers freely agreed to work for him, no one ever confronted them at gunpoint and said "you must work for Bill Gates." It's not like they're slaves, they can quit and do what they please with their lives.

And anyways, Bill Gates and the other founders of Microsoft compiled their expertise and ideas. The result was the software they originally put out. They were the one's who created the idea of the product after all.

Let me explain that : Bill Gates has a wage as CEO. This is the money he earns. On top of that, he is paid dividends for owning 7% of Microsoft. Those dividends come from the work of all of Microsoft's employees. It is not obvious with Bill Gates because he is both a worker and a owner. Consider those who have shares but who are not CEO. They don't work at all. They just tax the workers they own from inheritence.

Let me explain that : Bill Gates has a wage as CEO. This is the money he earns. On top of that, he is paid dividends for owning 7% of Microsoft. Those dividends come from the work of all of Microsoft's employees. It is not obvious with Bill Gates because he is both a worker and a owner. Consider those who have shares but who are not CEO. They don't work at all. They just tax the workers they own from inheritence.

He's paid dividends which he is entitled to as a shareholder. If Microsoft's employees own shares (and many of them will do) they are paid dividends too. The shareholders have invested the money in the company, and when it does well, they make a profit. Why would they invest otherwise? What would happen to the company without the shareholders?

You might not like the system, but Bill Gates gets what he is entitled to. It's as simple as that. It doesn't make him a bad person.

Let me explain that : Bill Gates has a wage as CEO. This is the money he earns. On top of that, he is paid dividends for owning 7% of Microsoft. Those dividends come from the work of all of Microsoft's employees. It is not obvious with Bill Gates because he is both a worker and a owner. Consider those who have shares but who are not CEO. They don't work at all. They just tax the workers they own from inheritence.
The reason they get dividends is because they paid money so as to fund the enterprise in the first point.

Let us give an example. I am a half month away from turning nineteen years of age. Upon turning 18 I confidentially contacted a stock broker and invested 200 measly dollars in a company, whose name shall not be announced. The company I invested in has an obligation to me because I gave them cash in the first place.

Is it not right that I receive compensation for basically giving the company my money?

He's paid dividends which he is entitled to as a shareholder. If Microsoft's employees own shares (and many of them will do) they are paid dividends too. The shareholders have invested the money in the company, and when it does well, they make a profit. Why would they invest otherwise? What would happen to the company without the shareholders?

You might not like the system, but Bill Gates gets what he is entitled to. It's as simple as that. It doesn't make him a bad person.
No it doesn't make Bill Gates a bad person. I have nothing against the man. I just think he should be expropriated by the state and that Microsoft should be public. This is not something bad. I think Bill Gates is the first victim of the system actually.

I fundamentally believe that the best system by which we can live is a system of limited government. Where the government protects the rights of all from active aggression. Where the government stops people and corporations from harming each other, but where a government let's us do what we want with our own individual lives. I believe that the best governmental systems in the world are those of the US/Western Europe/Japan/Australia. Though they disagree on policy, they are all very similar.

Ok, but the problem here is the goverment doesn't protect people from corperations. It doesn't protect people from being exploited. It doesn't ensure that corperations provide safe working environments - people die all the time at work in stupid, preventable accidents. Any of these things would be 'bad for the economy'. And I'm talking about in the countries you quote... I mean lets look at the effect this system is having on the rest of the world. The countries you quote basically exploit the rest of the world. These people are not 'protected' by anyone from the corperations AT ALL - because any government in these countries which does try to stop people from being exploited is immidiatly braught down by the C.I.A and the like - look at chile, september 11th 1973, for example. The C.I.A put Pinochet to protect the free market economy that the western countries love so much.

The reason they get dividends is because they paid money so as to fund the enterprise in the first point.

Let us give an example. I am a half month away from turning nineteen years of age. Upon turning 18 I confidentially contacted a stock broker and invested 200 measly dollars in a company, whose name shall not be announced. The company I invested in has an obligation to me because I gave them cash in the first place.

Is it not right that I receive compensation for basically giving the company my money?
The problem I have with renting is that it makes people work for owners. Owners become richer and richer at the expense of workers. You can invest $200 and get dividends, but the one who is not lucky is not born with $200, so he has to work for you.

Ok, but the problem here is the goverment doesn't protect people from corperations. It doesn't protect people from being exploited. It doesn't ensure that corperations provide safe working environments - people die all the time at work in stupid, preventable accidents. Any of these things would be 'bad for the economy'. And I'm talking about in the countries you quote... I mean lets look at the effect this system is having on the rest of the world. The countries you quote basically exploit the rest of the world. These people are not 'protected' by anyone from the corperations AT ALL - because any government in these countries which does try to stop people from being exploited is immidiatly braught down by the C.I.A and the like - look at chile, september 11th 1973, for example. The C.I.A put Pinochet to protect the free market economy that the western countries love so much.

Well, then fix the system, don't destroy it. Listen, I've never said that everything that has been done by the "western system" is perfect. Our governments have made policy errors. But in the end, I believe it to be the fundamentally best system.

Ok, but the problem here is the goverment doesn't protect people from corperations. It doesn't protect people from being exploited. It doesn't ensure that corperations provide safe working environments - people die all the time at work in stupid, preventable accidents. Any of these things would be 'bad for the economy'. And I'm talking about in the countries you quote... I mean lets look at the effect this system is having on the rest of the world. The countries you quote basically exploit the rest of the world. These people are not 'protected' by anyone from the corperations AT ALL - because any government in these countries which does try to stop people from being exploited is immidiatly braught down by the C.I.A and the like - look at chile, september 11th 1973, for example. The C.I.A put Pinochet to protect the free market economy that the western countries love so much.
If I may, I will add that the government actually support and protect corporations and their power by protecting their property from the lower classes. Corporations should not be supported by the government, therefore private property should not be protected by it.

The problem I have with renting is that it makes people work for owners. Owners become richer and richer at the expense of owners. You can invest $200 and get dividends, but the one who is not lucky is not born with $200, so he has to work for you.
Ah, but I wasn't born with those $200. I earned the buggers. I worked a crappy job at "Discount Drug Mart" (you can tell a job is crappy when you drag a little kid out of a freezer he calls his "spaceship) to earn that cash. And I spent it as I saw fit, the essence of the free market.

If I may, I will add that the government actually support and protect corporations and their power by protecting their property from the lower classes. Corporations should not be supported by the government, therefore private property should not be protected by it.
I'd have to say that the job of the government as I see it is to protect our rights to "Life, Liberty and Property" from active aggression.

Ah, but I wasn't born with those $200. I earned the buggers. I worked a crappy job at "Discount Drug Mart" (you can tell a job is crappy when you drag a little kid out of a freezer he calls his "spaceship) to earn that cash. And I spent it as I saw fit, the essence of the free market.
I don't object to free market of goods and services, but I object to free market of capital. I have no problem with you spending the money you earned by hard work on anything to improve your life, but it becomes a problem when make money out of your money, because it means other people have to work for that money you make.

God, if there is one thing I can't stand it's Communism. This idea everyone is equal, while it may sound nice, isn't at all realistic. You reward the hardworking and the talented over the lazy. And as for everything being public, that is the stupidest idea I've ever heard. People should be allowed to own and run their own business and not have the damn government breathing down their back and have everything so bloody unionized that the unions win every time, even if they don't deserve to. Socialism is too far left for me but Communism takes the cake and then licks the plate. I may sound cold and heartless but I don't want a world were a cashier at 7-11 and a neurologist make the same amount, thats simply wrong.

I don't object to free market of goods and services, but I object to free market of capital. I have no problem with you spending the money you earned by hard work on anything to improve your life, but it becomes a problem when make money out of your money, because it means other people have to work for that money you make.
they don't have to work for that money, they can turn down a job in the form of quitting.

I may sound cold and heartless but I don't want a world were a cashier at 7-11 and a neurologist make the same amount, thats simply wrong.
I agree with you. The neurologist should be paid more. And I'm a communist.

Well, then fix the system, don't destroy it. Listen, I've never said that everything that has been done by the "western system" is perfect. Our governments have made policy errors. But in the end, I believe it to be the fundamentally best system.

Hmm, but thats the point. We're not talking about minor policy errors here. And 'fixing' the system is exactly what I proposed in an earlier post, if anyone read it...it was quite long. However the kind of fixes I proposed are those that would constitute a socialist government. Is that the same as destroying the system?

I fundamentally believe that the best system by which we can live is a system of limited government. Where the government protects the rights of all from active aggression. Where the government stops people and corporations from harming each other, but where a government let's us do what we want with our own individual lives. I believe that the best governmental systems in the world are those of the US/Western Europe/Japan/Australia. Though they disagree on policy, they are all very similar.
Actually I think you'll find that there are fundamental differences between the UK and the rest of Europe. The UK is fairly close to the US but differs in terms of social welfare and regulation, on that you are quite right. The rest of Europe is much further to the left in terms of dominate political elites however seeing business as only part of the economy and not neccessarily the best part either in some countries.

I agree with you. The neurologist should be paid more. And I'm a communist.



My friend used to be Communist and he said they should be payed the same, so I assume that was the universal communist view.

I don't object to free market of goods and services, but I object to free market of capital. I have no problem with you spending the money you earned by hard work on anything to improve your life, but it becomes a problem when make money out of your money, because it means other people have to work for that money you make.

They do actually work. I don't know what they add to society, but to make money out of money you do actually have to work for it - unless of course you're so rich that you can live of the interest alone.

Hmm, but thats the point. We're not talking about minor policy errors here. And 'fixing' the system is exactly what I proposed in an earlier post, if anyone read it...it was quite long. However the kind of fixes I proposed are those that would constitute a socialist government. Is that the same as destroying the system?
I'm with you, that the shift to a socialist government was meant to be an evolution of the capitalist system. No fixing or breaking. Change.

they don't have to work for that money, they can turn down a job in the form of quitting.
The problem is that they need the money you have.
If someone own the river, I can't drink and wash, so I have to work for him, so he let me drink on his property. But the river is not the product of his work, it is a natural thing and should not be monopolized.
On the other hand, there is no problem if he owns his pants, because I don't need them.
This is why private ownership of goods is ok, while private ownership of capital is not.

My friend used to be Communist and he said they should be payed the same, so I assume that was the universal communist view.
Nope, the key phrase is "from each according his to ability, to each according to his need". Nothing about everyone getting the same.

Hmm, but thats the point. We're not talking about minor policy errors here. And 'fixing' the system is exactly what I proposed in an earlier post, if anyone read it...it was quite long. However the kind of fixes I proposed are those that would constitute a socialist government. Is that the same as destroying the system?
You're definitely advocating scrapping a whole leg of the system, maybe not destroying the whole thing, but definitely destroying the whole thing.

I think that the problem with the system now is policy and execution errors, but these things will be corrected in time, it's an evolutionary sort of thing. But the system itself is fine, we just need to fix some dents in the hood, maybe get it a new catalytic converter, but it's fine.

You're definitely advocating scrapping a whole leg of the system, maybe not destroying the whole thing, but definitely destroying the whole thing.

I think that the problem with the system now is policy and execution errors, but these things will be corrected in time, it's an evolutionary sort of thing. But the system itself is fine, we just need to fix some dents in the hood, maybe get it a new catalytic converter, but it's fine.
If you agree that the exploitation of the majority in order to make the lives of a minority better is fair, then you are right.

This is why private ownership of goods is ok, while private ownership of capital is not.
Um, capital is anything worth money.

Um, capital is anything worth money.I will use another word then. Let's call it the means of production.

Um, capital is anything worth money.
In economics, possibly only left wing analysis but I think all, capital is not privately owned domestic possesions but goods, property or money reserves that can be used for the creation of more capital through investment or exploitation of that capital.

The problem is that they need the money you have.
If someone own the river, I can't drink and wash, so I have to work for him, so he let me drink on his property. But the river is not the product of his work, it is a natural thing and should not be monopolized.
On the other hand, there is no problem if he owns his pants, because I don't need them.
This is why private ownership of goods is ok, while private ownership of capital is not.
I see part of our disagreement involves our definition of capital. I view capital as something man-made. Something that was developed by people, for people.

The river is a natural resource, not capital, if I remember my econ course correctly.

And natural resources are the *initial* domain of the government. Now an individual (or predecessors thereof) who has worked hard to make some extra cash, can purchase a natural resource from the government so as have a way to improve his/her life. If that means getting someone to voluntarily work for you, then, it's acceptable.

And anyways, you can always go off and find a new river that no one owns.

God, if there is one thing I can't stand it's Communism. This idea everyone is equal, while it may sound nice, isn't at all realistic. You reward the hardworking and the talented over the lazy. And as for everything being public, that is the stupidest idea I've ever heard. People should be allowed to own and run their own business and not have the damn government breathing down their back and have everything so bloody unionized that the unions win every time, even if they don't deserve to. Socialism is too far left for me but Communism takes the cake and then licks the plate. I may sound cold and heartless but I don't want a world were a cashier at 7-11 and a neurologist make the same amount, thats simply wrong.

And if there's one thing I hate it's people talking about things they dont understand. A communist system doesn't inherantly reward the lazy..people get payed for working in the same way as any other system.
I'm not sure which country you live in but there's something you might not have noticed...unions rarely win anything, and anything they do win should have been given to them long ago.
"And as far as everything being public, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard"
Ok, so anyone seriously looking at communism has to admit that capitalism probably is the best system for any buisness where people have a CHOICE. thats the essance of capitalism. It's fine for shoe shops to be capitalists, but what SHOULD be public are essential industries . Healthcare, schools, water, electricity, public transport. Let me give you an example - the trains were privatised in england not too long ago. Now, say I work in the nearest city to my town, quite feasable, there is a train which runs there, and it is essentially the only way that I can get there on time for work- driving would take far, far longer. Now, I have no option but to take a certain brand of train, on the brand of rail line that runs between the two places. If the service is crap, I cant' go on another train. There isnt one. If they bump up the prices, if the train is late, i still dont have a choice. Without choice, there is no competition, and no reason for privately owned companies to actually give a damn about wether customers are happy. It's essentially the same system with all the other previously public services here in Britain. And your second point about neurologists and cashiers. At the end of the day, who do you think is more tired? who do you think is more stressed out? who do you think is happier? who has better job satisfaction? I would certainly prefere to be a neurologist than a cashier, so why should the pay be more? I'm not saying everyone should get what cashiers get, im saying that if wealth was more fairly distributed, everyone could get a pretty damn good wage, and probably only work 4 days a week.

In economics, possibly only left wing analysis but I think all, capital is not privately owned domestic possesions but goods, property or money reserves that can be used for the creation of more capital through investment or exploitation of that capital.

Okay, but that can include pretty much anything, can't it?

If you agree that the exploitation of the majority in order to make the lives of a minority better is fair, then you are right.
I'm not saying anyone is being exploited though. To steal a quote from Elanor Roosevelt and change it a bit "You can only be exploited if you let yourself be."

And that's why in a voluntary exchange situation, you can avoid exploitation.

And anyways, you can always go off and find a new river that no one owns.
Not really. I don't know of any, you?

I'm not saying anyone is being exploited though. To steal a quote from Elanor Roosevelt and change it a bit "You can only be exploited if you let yourself be."

And that's why in a voluntary exchange situation, you can avoid exploitation.
No because where is the choice? I have to go to work or I will have no home and no food. I have to allow myself to be exploited every work day or starve. Saying starving is a choice is not reasonable. I have no choice.

Not really. I don't know of any, you?
It's a metaphor for creating a unique idea.

No because where is the choice? I have to go to work or I will have no home and no food. I have to allow myself to be exploited every work day or starve. Saying starving is a choice is not reasonable. I have no choice.
You could possibly work for the government, that's what my intention is. In the space of the next few years foreign affairs agencies will be desperately needing new people, and I intend to go there. (CIA, here I come, I'm gonna reform you from the inside!)

And anyways, you can always go off and find a new river that no one owns.

Lol last time I checked there's a limited numer of rivers. You might want to check out what Coca Cola are doing to people in India. Basically, they build a factory up river of a town/village. This take all the water out of the river, and dumps toxic waste in its place. There people are now dying. But of course, they should just go find 'another river' stupid peasents...

Lol last time I checked there's a limited numer of rivers. You might want to check out what Coca Cola are doing to people in India. Basically, they build a factory up river of a town/village. This take all the water out of the river, and dumps toxic waste in its place. There people are now dying. But of course, they should just go find 'another river' stupid peasents...
It's a metaphor. Read above. There are an unlimited number of ideas, there will always be the "next big thing." Why don't you try to figure out what it'll be?

Lol last time I checked there's a limited numer of rivers. You might want to check out what Coca Cola are doing to people in India. Basically, they build a factory up river of a town/village. This take all the water out of the river, and dumps toxic waste in its place. There people are now dying. But of course, they should just go find 'another river' stupid peasents...
If you didn't read my post with the odd car references, you might want to. The "catalytic converter" is a reference to pollution.

Just so you realize, I really dig metaphors.

It's a metaphor. Read above. There are an unlimited number of ideas, there will always be the "next big thing." Why don't you try to figure out what it'll be?
But the next big thing will not make me drink.

once again I'm off, I have big important places to go (class strikes again). have fun folks.

It's a metaphor for creating a unique idea.
But you still need capital to invest in the idea in order to get anywhere.


Oh, you've gone...

The problem is that they need the money you have.
If someone own the river, I can't drink and wash, so I have to work for him, so he let me drink on his property. But the river is not the product of his work, it is a natural thing and should not be monopolized.


There are plenty of other sources of water (rain, groundwater, other rivers). I am not forced to purchase from this one individual. In addition, my friends and I can get together and purchase part of the land.

Of course, what if the upstream owners divert the flow? This is similar to a problem happening in the SW US, where one state is using up all of a river's water.

perhaps Grammar Schools are successful because they're good? Perhaps energies should be focussed on improving Comprehensive Education.


Grammar sachools are "good" [debatable in itself] because they only recruit selectively i.e. people who will do well get let in and lo and be hold they do well, just as they probably would have in state education. That was off topic but still...

try www.union-communiste.org
for communist forums.

Ok, but the problem here is the goverment doesn't protect people from corperations. It doesn't protect people from being exploited. It doesn't ensure that corperations provide safe working environments - people die all the time at work in stupid, preventable accidents.

You might want to ask the corporations, or their "exploited" workers about that one. Maybe you could tip off a trial lawyer who could put them out of business. After all, they do it do doctors all the time, and everybody loves a good class action suit against greedy corporations. But I guess that's buying into the capitalist oppressive system.

Although I am probably bougioeus, not to mention hopelessly indoctrinated by the capitalist system, I thought you might think of listening to me.

Well to be more accurate to this guy, Marvin Olasky who writes about his conversion to and then from marxism. The exploitation is what annoys him the most: http://www.boundless.org/1999/features/a0000097.html

If I might add in some of the most daunting evidences of explotation I can think of:

how about the fact that, of the 20% of people currently making up the lowest income americans, over half will be amoung the top 20% at some point in their life.

My favorite is Oseola McCarty, a black woman who worked as a washer woman in Mississippi, the poorest, most racist state in america, and gave 150,000 dollars to an education fund when she retired. It wasn't fair that she grew up in those circumstances, leaving school at grade six to support her family. And yet the capitalist system was so exploitative that she became a hero who went to the white house and started a several hundred thousand dollar charity. Now our system has become so explotative that another black woman who grew up in the segregated south has the top cabinet post in america.

Any of these things would be 'bad for the economy'. And I'm talking about in the countries you quote... I mean lets look at the effect this system is having on the rest of the world. The countries you quote basically exploit the rest of the world. These people are not 'protected' by anyone from the corperations AT ALL - because any government in these countries which does try to stop people from being exploited is immidiatly braught down by the C.I.A and the like - look at chile, september 11th 1973, for example. The C.I.A put Pinochet to protect the free market economy that the western countries love so much.

Lets talk about Pinochet - who never murdered half as many people as Pol Pot, Mao, and nothing close to what happened behind the iron curtain. Let's talk about Pinochet, who held elections 15 years after he took control and lost. Ever heard of a marxist dictator who lost an election? His crimes were atrocious, but they pale compared to what communism has done. Of course the left is ever more upset about Pinochet's thousands that marx's tens of millions. But of course what we need to understand is that the communists meant well, while any conservative that advocates a free system of exchange where some people sometimes make money is clearly evil. Especially despite the fact that workers in America own cars while only the "more equal" bosses owned cars in Russia. Those evil capitalists have created new medicines and vaccines and given aid to poor countries, and done all sorts of evil things. Although I'm not sure how they can be evil if we are nothing but complex chemicals... but why let logical questions bother us?

The funny thing about 3rd world sweatshops is that they pay twice as much as other jobs there. The problem with some pro-marxists is that they don't understand economics. Wealth can be created. That means that the wealth of the U.S. doesn't take away from other nations: it gives to them. If I become a successful buisness man I am not stealing other peoples money. The wealth I help to create is creating wealth for them.

Of course we mustn't forget that I'm an indocrinated capitalist, the kind the marxists realize they'll have to murder If I don't accept their beleifs wholeheartedly. But that's ok, because there is no God, therefore individuals don't matter. Murder is moral if it advances the marxist cause, which is the only moral thing. Thats why pol pot murdered people with soft hands and glasses. They were obvioulsy capitalists and therefore it was moral, moral to murder them. That's why it was perfectly moral to murder perhaps a hundred million people in the last century to advance communism. Of course the deaths caused by communist wars don't even need to be defended. The revolution will inevitably happen.... but that doens't mean you shouldn't do anything. There's nothing that can stop it.... we must do everying we can to help it!! Of course we must socialise the means of production. Of couse that could mean that everyone owns them, the government owns them as it ushers in the time when all inequality is ended, or some other meaning of social. Too bad Marx never told us which one he meant at what time.

Of course Marx and Engels were not proletariats themselves, but we won't let that get in the way of the vision.

Nor should all those Christians who insist on giving to charity in the explotative systems. Because religion is just another method of exploitation. All that giving to the poor and stuff. They probably should be murdered too...

But can it exist without it?
It cannot exist with it.

I have all my life been on the far right of the political spectrum, most probably because it was hammered into me at a very early age that there is nothing worse than Communism. For the longest time, there was no doubt in mind that this was true, it had always felt quite natural that the Communist was my opposite, and for me the embodiment of all that is wrong with the world. Recently, however, things have very much changed. I won't go into details as to what brought on this change. Suffice it to say that after about two weeks of intensive self-reflection I have come to the conclusion that I am at heart a Communist. Not a Socialist, not a Liberal, but a Communist. I am, deep down, a damn red. My politics thus far have been based more on "clanish" loyalties than on my own concrete observations, but I can no longer fight for the wrong side of the political struggle. I can no longer lie to myself.

So, I'm reaching out to my fellow Communists, if you are out there, and I'm asking you to help me find that great pool of Communists which must gather somewhere on the internet. Please friends, post your comments, the advice you may have, and any links you may want to share to important websites and forums. So ya, I hope there's someone out there who can help. ;)
There's only one thing wrong with Marxism ... it doesn't work in practice. Sorry.

I blame the failure of communism on poor implimentation. The two largest communist states, China and the USSR both lacked a plan to transform capitolism to communism, which is the most important part of the process. In both instances the countries were split against and for the revolutionary leader and the removal of property was forced onto all. Thus causing political unrest, uprisings, and civil war. Communism should utilize democracy.

I believe Communism can exist with proper planning and leadership.

Furthermore, those people who inherently believe communism is evil are uneducated. Communism is not terrorism or espionnage, it is merely an economic system implemented by governments. Research, learn, then speak. Check your facts.

Go Reds!

Let's not hear of this "The Soviet Union wasn't really socialist/communist" such. I'd have to say that it's annoying. It's like if a conservative were to say "Pinochet wasn't really a conservative." Everyone's side has a dark underbelly.

Let's not hear of this "The Soviet Union wasn't really socialist/communist" such. I'd have to say that it's annoying. It's like if a conservative were to say "Pinochet wasn't really a conservative." Everyone's side has a dark underbelly.
A very valid point. They were certainly versions of it and the problem with disowning them is that it makes all too easy to fail to learn the lessons they bring. I think that what is happening with this is that communists and marxists tend to find themselves always on the receiving end of a lot of vitriol and statements such as "and Stalin killed millions so it must be bad!". Of course they could always throw back Hitler as a weapon against the right but all we would achieve is a mudslinging match. Communists find the accusation as annoying as you find the answer as both have been repeated so often that they have become a meaningless formula that gets in the way of real understanding, debate and analysis.

Let's not hear of this "The Soviet Union wasn't really socialist/communist" such. I'd have to say that it's annoying. It's like if a conservative were to say "Pinochet wasn't really a conservative." Everyone's side has a dark underbelly.

except that some branches of the socialist movement denounced most marxists as wanting to bring about a totalitarian nightmare totally at odds with the ideals of the movement decades before the ussr ever existed. it seems to me that members of those branches still have the right to deny that the ussr and its spin-offs aren't socialism worthy of the name. and bragging rights for understanding the nature of the beast better than anyone else long before anyone else (in fact, i would argue that a number of anarchists from well over a century ago still have a better understanding of what went wrong with the ussr than most modern day 'anti-communists' do).

(in fact, i would argue that a number of anarchists from well over a century ago still have a better understanding of what went wrong with the ussr than most modern day 'anti-communists' do).
That would be true, as they shared the same class based analysis of society.

Closed pending moderator review...

Imperial Puerto Rico, you are being warned for flaming in this thread. The constant use of profanity and the tenor of your remarks, as opposed to their content, are inappropriate. You may disagree and back up your arguments, but you may not disrupt threads and abuse other posters.

God, if there is one thing I can't stand it's Communism. This idea everyone is equal, while it may sound nice, isn't at all realistic. You reward the hardworking and the talented over the lazy. And as for everything being public, that is the stupidest idea I've ever heard. People should be allowed to own and run their own business and not have the damn government breathing down their back and have everything so bloody unionized that the unions win every time, even if they don't deserve to. Socialism is too far left for me but Communism takes the cake and then licks the plate. I may sound cold and heartless but I don't want a world were a cashier at 7-11 and a neurologist make the same amount, thats simply wrong.

Allow me to make three points here - and i am prepared for any responses you may have;

1
First - in a Real Communist society - the 7-11 and the hospital you are talking about in this case
would be under the control of anti-authoritarian worker's collectives - who produce, provide, aid,
and/or service things on the basis of use and need - because they want to produce, provide, aid
and/or service things out of their own choice and free will. No one would be paid because currency
would not exist - since money would not exist for exchange - then - what need would there be
to pay anyone? from this example - the workers of the worker's collective that runs the 7-11
would run the 7-11 in a anti-authoritarian setting that benifits everyone who operates the place
because they would be doing it to provide the regulars of that 7-11 the things they usually come
for - out of their own free will and their willingness to provide the commune (anti-authoritarian
communist community in a Real Communist society) with their sevices. The same would go
for the neurologists, doctors, nurses and people of the worker's collective that runs the hospital
in the commune. Also in Real Communism - even if you don't want to do work at a local worker's
collective - you ARE NOT going to deprived of the things you need and want - as everything in
a Real Communist society would be FREELY accessable.



2
You say that Socialism is too far left for you - yet the words in which you are discribing YOUR
DEFINITION of Communism - shows me - that you are discribing State "Socialism" ("Marxist"-
Leninism or State Beauracratic Capitalism) in which wage-slavery is maintained, in which every
important part of life is under the control of the state, in which classes still exist (the upper class
being the "Communist" Party) although internationally the state claims that they have no classes
and which everyone is paid equally, etc. The Fact is - "Marxist"-Leninism is a cousin - although
a distant cousin - of Capitalism itself; the only difference is that the state controls everything that
is important.


3
As for the starter of this thread - here are some good sites;

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/
This is the message board of Che-Lives - although they have a lot of Leninists - they also have a
lot of real Communists and Anarchists. I'm known there as Communist FireFox. I'm a Real Communist.
:smile:

http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net
Great site for Real Communist theory....

2
You say that Socialism is too far left for you - yet the words in which you are discribing YOUR
DEFINITION of Communism - shows me - that you are discribing State "Socialism" ("Marxist"-
Leninism or State Beauracratic Capitalism) in which wage-slavery is maintained, in which every
important part of life is under the control of the state, in which classes still exist (the upper class
being the "Communist" Party) although internationally the state claims that they have no classes
and which everyone is paid equally, etc. The Fact is - "Marxist"-Leninism is a cousin - although
a distant cousin - of Capitalism itself; the only difference is that the state controls everything that
is important.

That is a matter of debate. State Beauracratic Capitalism is an analysis that originated in Trotskyist thinking (I am making no argument either way here as to my opinion, just pointing out the origin). It is not shared by communists or socialists. Communism is specifically the ideology developed by Lenin from Marx. There are then many interpretations on top of this by many people, including Trotsky, Stalin, Mao and Fidel Castro to name the more famous streams. All claim (including "original" Marxism-Leninsim) to be the one true version and all differ in important ways as to the vaidity of the others and
this is most obvious in their differing theories of how to achieve the transition from capitalist to socialist to communist. It is always worthwhile and interesting to read the documents of each type but to be aware that all of them are anti each other. It is one of the abiding tradegies and ironies of left wing political movements that they are at once so organised and at the same time so factional.

be aware that all of them are anti each other. It is one of the abiding tradegies and ironies of left wing political movements that they are at once so organised and at the same time so factional.

that's because i am the vanguard of the masses, and the rest of you need to get in line. you're all a bunch of boot licking petite bourgeois pig-fuckers. not to mention a treasonous pack of sectarian splitters.

that's because i am the vanguard of the masses, and the rest of you need to get in line. you're all a bunch of boot licking petite bourgeois pig-fuckers. not to mention a treasonous pack of sectarian splitters.
Would that be the Peoples Revolutionary Party of Judea or the Revolutionary Peoples Party of Judea :)