NationStates Jolt Archive

I for one think it is stupid, it always ends in a bad way, and just doesnt work, all the countrys that have used it (except for Russia) have turned out as 2nd or third world countrys. I mean come on, Cuba, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Viet Nam. All of those countrys are pathetic. (Hong Kong kicks ass though!) And even with Russia, they arent communist anymore, and they started it, just goes to show how it does not work!

Proof positive that the so-called Left in the US has been moribund for decades. I cite the person who started this thread.

The "Left" in the US is also completely out of ideas.

There are still some people with a left-leaning brain in Europe, but not here in the US. This thread starter is the best that they can come up with.

You have your facts wrong. Those were not communistic states. Communism is equality for all, WITHOUT a dicatator! Those nations warped communism into a Dictatorial-Communist Nation. Yes, that is a form of government. The world is not yet ready for communism but it should be eventually, it has worked before (Nomadic tribes of yore and such). Just thought you should know the truth about those nations...

Communism is good on paper, but if you put people into the equation it falls flat. If people werent selfish bastards and had the mental facilities of, say, an ant, it would work fine.

Communism is good on paper, but if you put people into the equation it falls flat. If people werent selfish bastards and had the mental facilities of, say, an ant, it would work fine.


Yes, and as Flanvel said, the Government takes advantage of the state and becomes dictatorial. Communism, is great on paper, it is basically a utopian dream. If communism was to be less extreme, more democratic and more rules (ie. Democratic Socialism, ex. Denmark) it could work. That is unless a megalomanaic gets in the way.

Communism is a failure, and anarcho-communism is an even worse idea. Economically speaking, Fascism is the best.

Since when is ecnomomics the only thing that matters?

Communism is a failure, and anarcho-communism is an even worse idea. Economically speaking, Fascism is the best.

well said

Economically speaking, Fascism is the best.
Actually, economically, fascism and communism are similar. They are both economically authoritarian. Not to mention the fact that, strictly speaking, communism is purely an economic system, and not a system of government. "Economically speaking", communism may be compared to capitalism, but not fascism.

Communism, in theory, works. However, it only takes one person with a moderate amount of political power to take dictatoral control of the country. And given human nature, I don't think it's possible to have an entire country run on a communist system for any significant length of time.

the second and third worl countries, as no connection to life style, quality of state, and such. this is only definition:
2nd world counties was communist at the cold war, and 3rd world countries was neutral. as such, the communist states always be part of that groups.

and about the communism, I think he could work in better world (or at least with better leaders), but he failed in that world. in any case, I think the social democracies in the scandinavian states, are very close to the communism Ideal.

Stalinsim, Castroism etc. have all failed, as my predecessors have stated, because they were a dictatorship. Marxist Communism has never been tried. But lets take your points one by one:

1) Russia: Production increased 400% 1928-38
")Viet Nam: It wa spoor before Communism! And worse after the US burnt most of the population...
3)Cuba: You call that communism? Look it up...
4)Cambodia: See above.
5) North korea: A country that claims to be able to produce nuclear weapons is not a 3rd world country, just a naive one.
6) China: Now a capitalism with a great economy.

Marxism works, but cannot be put into affect. Why? Becasue anyone charasmatic enough to lead a revoloution instantly becomes revered enough to be a leader, and so it becomes a dictatorship. Sad, but true.

Communism implies complete economic control by the state, not a lack of political or personal freedoms. Hard-line USSR and modern-day Laos are both as close to communism as any world nation seems to have gotten, and they had very different political stances. Communism has furthermore always had to contest with the capitalist world, particularly the US in places like Lebanon and El Salvador. It certainly isn't a stupid idea. After all, most people on these boards who claim communists are stupid lack the mental capability to understand what communism really is.

Stalinsim, Castroism etc. have all failed, as my predecessors have stated, because they were a dictatorship. Marxist Communism has never been tried. But lets take your points one by one:

1) Russia: Production increased 400% 1928-38

All thanks to massive US aid and trade.

Half the morons on these servers don't even know what they're talking about - like the thread starter.

A communist state ( an oxymoron itself) hasn't even existed yet. So no one can even make a valid assessment.

If you want to talk about dictatorships which profess to follow a communistic ideology then go for it. There have been plenty of them. And indeed it can't be denied that Lenin and others elucidated the need for dictatorship before the building of a communist state.

And if you want to discuss communist theory, why not begin by deciding what exactly 'communism' is. It's worth remembering that Marx and Lenin don't have a monopoly definitions.

Communistic sentiments have been expressed since the Middle Ages. And for the first elucidation of possible systems you can go all the way back to Gerard Winstanley or Gracchus Babeuf.

So, please don't talk shit about Communism not working in Cuba or any where alse. It just makes you sound like a fool.

6) China: Now a capitalism with a great economy.
China is not capitalist yet. It is going in that direction, but certainly couldn't be called a capitalist state.

Marxism works, but cannot be put into affect.
Self-contradictory. If Marxism works, it could be put into effect.

Let's get some definitions down:

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all of the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and put them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you need.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk.

PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbours help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and shoots you.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbours decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbours pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

PURE ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbours try to take the cows and kill you.

LIBERTARIAN/ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

What, the Isolationist US, and the isolationist Russia trading? Like hell...

Russia built its economy on blood and toil, by brutal regime. The damns and industry were created as a result of the five year plans, and involved little outside involvement. It was a communistic system which did it, but it was a facistic political system. Facism and Communism are not opposites: Facism is opposite to anarchy, Communism to neo-liberalism.

A communist state ( an oxymoron itself)

I have to respectfully disagree with you there. I think communism can exist either with a strong central government or with a lack of government. I agree that there is no real universal definition that gets into such specifics. A strong, well-organized government seems necessary to manage a large population, in my opinion.

What, the Isolationist US, and the isolationist Russia trading? Like hell...

Russia built its economy on blood and toil, by brutal regime. The damns and industry were created as a result of the five year plans, and involved little outside involvement. It was a communistic system which did it, but it was a facistic political system. Facism and Communism are not opposites: Facism is opposite to anarchy, Communism to neo-liberalism.

Read Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, and The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, by Antony Sutton. Sutton spent years of research, consulting U.S. and Soviet government sources, business sources, etc.

Communism is a failure, and anarcho-communism is an even worse idea. Economically speaking, Fascism is the best.

fascism is an even more dismal failure than marxist-leninist-whateverism. especially in economics. it just didn't work, even in the short term.

and what about anarcho-communism makes it such a bad idea, other than our lack of allowing you to become a fascist dictator?

fascism is an even more dismal failure than marxist-leninist-whateverism. especially in economics. it just didn't work, even in the short term.

and what about anarcho-communism makes it such a bad idea, other than our lack of allowing you to become a fascist dictator?

I've wondered why people largely ignore the multinational corporations that exist now.

They wield much more power than most nations. Eh?

I have to respectfully disagree with you there. I think communism can exist either with a strong central government or with a lack of government. I agree that there is no real universal definition that gets into such specifics. A strong, well-organized government seems necessary to manage a large population, in my opinion.

communism is a classless and stateless society. that is just the definition of communism.

communism is a classless and stateless society. that is just the definition of communism.

Classless in all cases, but not necessarily stateless.

Classless in all cases, but not necessarily stateless.

if you have a state then you have a class system, as that means there is a ruling class and a ruled class.

communism is a classless and stateless society. that is just the definition of communism.

This is quite right according to Marxism-Leninism. Lenin makes it quite clear in State and Revolution that a communistic society will be preceded by the 'withering away of the state'.

I take your point though Avios and you have every right to expound your own view. After all, there never will be an agreed definition of Communism.

Unfortunately, it generally means that the philosphical sceptics are the only ones who are ever right!

if you have a state then you have a class system, as that means there is a ruling class and a ruled class.

If you have a state then of course you'd have some kind of rulers, but they don't have to be a class above everyone else. Imagine a society where the state owned everything, everyone was an employee of the state, and everyone was in control of the state. Either the state is everything or the state is nothing, depending how you look at it. Even if you decide the state is everything and not nothing, that still doesn't mean anyone is any richer and therefore of any higher class.

I hope you understand my somewhat cryptic meaning, comrade.

I take your point though Avios and you have every right to expound your own view. After all, there never will be an agreed definition of Communism.

I in no way wanted to imply that communist could not work without a state. I was more trying to underline how, as you said, there is no agreed upon definition of communism (and socialism, for that matter. Don't try and define it because I've heard them all and they don't line up.)

by the way, the communism tried in Israel, but not on the size of states. Israel had lot of "Kibbutzs" that was agrictural communists populations.
they made up modern agrictural system, share in all their closes and businesses, and ate together in big dininig room.
that system worked sucssesfully until the eighties, when the banks raise the interests by hundreds of percents, and bring in most of the business to over-draft.

now the kibbutzs change to more capitalists (like whole the countrey), and start things like private enterprise, and different salaries on different work. but still, communism worked fine, for mor than 70 years.

I for one think it is stupid, it always ends in a bad way, and just doesnt work, all the countrys that have used it (except for Russia) have turned out as 2nd or third world countrys. I mean come on, Cuba, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Viet Nam. All of those countrys are pathetic. (Hong Kong kicks ass though!) And even with Russia, they arent communist anymore, and they started it, just goes to show how it does not work!

I don't know why I bother when this sort of thread appears and re-appears irrespective of what anyone says or does ... (Hey! You rightwingers know about recycling! There is hope for the planet yet!)

First of all, the countries that you meantion were all economically backwards before the 'communists' took over. Russia was a sprawling, corrupt mess, so impoverished and primitive that when World War 1 started, only 1 in 3 of the soldiers in the army had a rifle. Cuba was ruled by a corrupt megalomaniac tinpot dictator. And so on, so forth. To say that communism caused the economic woes of these countries is like pointing to Afghanistan and saying "Look! Anarchy, poverty, a booming drugs trade and imminenet civil war! Capitalism doresn't work!"

As has been pointed out, fascism is basically a planned economy with racism added on. Hitler rebuilt Germany by using socialistic economic model - the 'Socialist' part of the NAZI acronym. Unfortunately, he also added on anti-semitism, general racism, the myth of Aryan superiority and a tendency to invade.

Rightwingers always bang on about how socialism or communism runs contrary to human nature, and that we are all greedy selfish little monsters who would selll our grandmothers for the right price. Perhaps this is so (though I would suggest it is a product of the environment we live in, and I am thinking about the western, consumerist environment when I say that) but we are also loyal and pragmatic. How does the idea of patriotism - usually lauded as a rightwing virute - fit in with the idea that we are selfish? People are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, doing what they are told is good for their country. Are you going to say they are selfish? I think the 'We are all selfish' argument is a tactic deployedf by people who are sitting at home, safe and comfortable, while other people are out there doing the hard, dangerous work. The stay-at-home justifies themselves by saying "I could go and help ... But to do that would be contrary to my human nature. I'll stay at home." An argument that deliberately overlooks the fact that there are other people out there, doing dangerous, unpleasant stuff. So the 'Lazy and selfish' argument an invalid generalisation - a salve to conscience. You could say it is the new opium of the people - people in this case meaning only a small but vocal clique who espouse the 'ideas' of Rand, Friedman, Hayek and the like.

As for the idea that socialistic states (as opposed to communistic or 'communistic' - yes, there is a difference between socialism and communism, inspite of what the far left and far right will tell you) will evolve into Stalinistic nightmare dystopias - this hasn't happened in Denmark, Sweden, Norway or other industrialised states. Remember that industrialisation was one f the pre-requisites Marx laid out for successful application of communism - and none of the states where 'communism' has been applied have been industrialised. Which brings us back to where we started. A full revolution (pun intentional).

Pure Marxism is bunk from the start. It is based on the assumtion that in a leaderless society, everyone will be happy to share, do good and be nice. This just doesn't happen. Thanks to basic human nature, society will almost instantaneously organize itself into oligarchy, with the most brutal guy with the biggest gun seizing power and essentially raping the populace.

How can communists stop this from happening? Well, they can't all vote for a leader who they think is sensible, that would be democracy. The only way to stop a brutal dictator from seizing power is to install another brutal dictator, who will... oh wait.

And that's how Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Mao, and all their buddies throughout history have seized power. Because the only way to make people give up their hard earned living and be nice is to scare the hell out of them and kill the ones who want to be free to run their own lives.

Communism in theory is the most naive of political philosophies imaginable.
Communism in practice is the most brutal, unfair and backward of all political philosophies imaginable.

Read Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, and The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, by Antony Sutton. Sutton spent years of research, consulting U.S. and Soviet government sources, business sources, etc.

I know it is 'bad argument' but the mention Sutton compells me to link the following:

http://www.trineday.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=SFNT&Store_Code=CS&Affiliate=ctrl

Just cracks me up.

Of course, it doesn't prove anything - good books are often read by lunatics. But the sight of all these 'Whoo-whoo' books together makes me titter. Surprised there isn't something by Grahame Hancock there as well.

Are you kidding me? Of course fascism worked. Lenin was a ruddy genius. I am not arguing morals; that is out of the picture for the moment. He built the most effective way of gaining power in the modern world. He used it; Mussolini used it; Hitler used it... countless others used it. Then, fascism came along and grasped onto the most effective method of gaining support: nationalism. Nothing works better than the argument of "We are oh so cool and everybody else drools." Fascism was a plan to get power. It worked and it is still working (politicians still use it, just not in quite as obvious a way as Hitler and Mussolini did)... don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise.

Speaking morally, I disagree with fascism on many levels and I won't get into that. I'm just saying that it worked.

As far as marxism goes, the idea is beautiful; equality sounds good. However, ignoring the practical application of marxism, I disagree even with the theory in my beliefs. I'm not talking about the getting rid of religion and marriage; I'm talking about individuality. Our experiences make us who we are... economics are an integral part of our experiences and I'd worry about making that the same for everyone. Eventually it gets down to the whole nature versus nurture argument; I'll always be mostly for nurture. And even arguing for nature, as Freud pointed out, who's to say that our species being is good? That's an awful big risk to take. Because if it's not, well, there'd be alot of problems once the higher state of communism was reached.

I guess my innate problem with communism as a whole is that I love conflict. I love dissonances. I think that even complete bastards are beautiful in their own way. I love compromise. I'll never be an idealist.

And frankly, the only remote possibility (and I used that loosely) of communism as an idea is in marxism (and, for the modern age, leninism), simply because it is an ideology. An ideology does not allow for compromise. Communism compromised is socialism. A democracy means compromise. The only way to accomplish an ideal is through one person rule and the only way to get that in the modern world is through a leninist type of revolution.

Communism as an ideal has not yet worked; that is not to say that it won't. Fascism, on the other hand, is far from an ideal, and it has more than worked, both politically and economically.

I guess my innate problem with communism as a whole is that I love conflict. I love dissonances. I think that even complete bastards are beautiful in their own way. I love compromise. I'll never be an idealist.


Any form of socialism involves massive compromises, so you should be happy ... We agree not to drive too fast on our roads, for example (compromise) and most of us stick to this rule most of the time ... That is all it takes for the system to work - most of the people acting pragmatically most of the time. No big ideological constructs, veneration of Herr Marx or whoever. Just pragmatism. it is a sorely under-rated virtue.

Are you kidding me? Of course fascism worked. Lenin was a ruddy genius. I am not arguing morals; that is out of the picture for the moment. He built the most effective way of gaining power in the modern world. He used it; Mussolini used it; Hitler used it... countless others used it. Then, fascism came along and grasped onto the most effective method of gaining support: nationalism. Nothing works better than the argument of "We are oh so cool and everybody else drools." Fascism was a plan to get power. It worked and it is still working (politicians still use it, just not in quite as obvious a way as Hitler and Mussolini did)... don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise.

fascism worked only in the limited sense of being a useful mishmash of beliefs that allowed groups of people to come to power in several countries. but once they did their countries were in a constant state of collapse, economically and socially. that's part of why fascism uses scape-goats and foreign wars as a way of distracting people and shifting blame away from themselves - fascists are inept at running things. mussolini did not in fact make the trains run on time; and so he blamed the damn commies and trade unions for it. and when he ran out of commies and unions and the trains still didn't run on time, he just told everybody that they did in fact run on time. and then he invaded a few places and got people to rally around the flag and such. but that can only keep people's attention for a short time, and is never totally effective.

Ulterior Nastiness- I have little quarrel with socialism, in particular democratic socialism. I am a huge fan of Bertrand Russell.

Free Soviets- Agreed. You'll get no quarrel from me on that point. I'm just saying that by the fascists' own definition, it was extremely effective- just not lasting, as you point out.

Oh, and to make sure you understand my definitions, this is what I'm saying:

marxism (or marxist scientific determinism)- what marx said- private property, religion, family, revolution, and whatnot
leninism- marx+lenin
communism- destruction of private property worldwide ( I know this is debated, but this is what I'm referring to when I say communism and occasionally I say communism when I mean marxism- feel free to yell at me for that- it's a bad habit)
socialism- destruction of private property on a case by case basis- we'll do this in our country, but we won't expect it to happen in yours as well- I'm most commonly referring to democratic socialists under this term, but I recognize that the terms are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think any of this is bad, per se. I like and agree with alot of it. I especially like the economic reforms that socialism has brought... I don't think pure capitalism is a good idea either. I'm trying to explain myself and probably am failing. Please correct me when you see faults, because than I can try and fix them.

I for one think it is stupid, it always ends in a bad way, and just doesnt work, all the countrys that have used it (except for Russia) have turned out as 2nd or third world countrys. I mean come on, Cuba, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Viet Nam. All of those countrys are pathetic. (Hong Kong kicks ass though!) And even with Russia, they arent communist anymore, and they started it, just goes to show how it does not work!

None of those countries have ever been communist in the true sense of the word. Not that i defende Communist ideas; they're preposterous. Seriously though, people need to stop calling these states commmunist.

Communism can work, but it hasn't been given a fair chance. For one thing, most of the world is controlled or heavily influenced by capitalist nations and even China isn't nearly as socialist as it's made out to be. There really isn't anywhere a would-be communist nation can exist at without having to deal with capitalist neighbors.

In addition, communism has a very bad reputation due to the abuses and often outright blunders made by some supposed adherents. Marxism is good in theory, but it is a very poor way to bring about communism. The problem is that all pathways to communism are now smeared with the claim of being authoritarian.

None of those countries have ever been communist in the true sense of the word. Not that i defende Communist ideas; they're preposterous. Seriously though, people need to stop calling these states commmunist.

Wow, I thought I'd never see the day. Ithankyou.

None of those countries have ever been communist in the true sense of the word. Not that i defende Communist ideas; they're preposterous. Seriously though, people need to stop calling these states commmunist.

especially since none of them call themselves communist. for example, it was the union of soviet socialist republics, not the union of soviet communist republics. china is running a "socialist market economy with chinese characteristics". north korea doesn't even call it socialism anymore and haven't for decades, they've got juche (self-reliance). and vietnam is attempting to join the wto.

especially since none of them call themselves communist. for example, it was the union of soviet socialist republics, not the union of soviet communist republics. china is running a "socialist market economy with chinese characteristics". north korea doesn't even call it socialism anymore and haven't for decades, they've got juche (self-reliance). and vietnam is attempting to join the wto.

Exactly. Though to be fair, under Lenin's original ideal, no single nation could be communist... hence the term socialist. Furthermore, you guys are right... none of those nations are communist in the strict sense of the word. No nation in existence is communist in the strict sense of the word.

You have your facts wrong. Those were not communistic states. Communism is equality for all, WITHOUT a dicatator! Those nations warped communism into a Dictatorial-Communist Nation. Yes, that is a form of government. The world is not yet ready for communism but it should be eventually, it has worked before (Nomadic tribes of yore and such). Just thought you should know the truth about those nations...

Wrong. Communism is economics. You can separate economics from government. How does the group decide who should get what in a large society without government?

Marxism works, but cannot be put into affect. Why? Becasue anyone charasmatic enough to lead a revoloution instantly becomes revered enough to be a leader, and so it becomes a dictatorship. Sad, but true.

Does anyone else see the fallacy of that statement. 'It works but we can't do it'. Same argument could be made for cold fusion. It either works or it doesn't. If it does, you can measure how well. If it doesn't, the it has failed.

I've wondered why people largely ignore the multinational corporations that exist now.

They wield much more power than most nations. Eh?

The corporations own most of the cows. Most individuals spend their lives caring for the corporations cows and then paying the corporations for the milk they produce. Just enough money is floating about in the countries with the biggest armies so that individuals are able to dream that they might just possibly one day own a cow farm. They use this dream to justify the letting the corporatins not pay enough for the workers to buy any milk in the countries with the small armies. However, the reality is to get a cow one must pay the corporation and to get cow feed one must pay a susidiary of the corporation even more. So in essence, the corporation controls how many cows an individual can keep. If the unthinkable happens and too many or too large non-corporation controlled cow farms spring up, the corporation threatens the government, saying that it will move all its cows to another country. So, the government passes laws that make it more difficult for individuals to keep cows and easier for the corporations to keep cows and tells the citizens that they should be grateful that someone owns the cows and will let them pay for the milk that they work so hard to get the cows to produce.

I dunno. Maybe if the corporations picked an ethnic minority and started shipping them off to death camps more people would get their heads out of their asses and realize the what they call capitalism is much closer to fascism.

Or maybe people should look at the number of prisoners we have who spend more time interred for non-violent crimes (while being forced to do 'prison contract labor' for the corporations who own the prisons and pressure the government concerning laws in the first place) while the violent prisoners are given shorter and shorter sentences (wouldn't want them hurting the corporations cows now would we) they might see we have internment camps (if not death camps) already in place.

Let's get some definitions down:


This quote is too good to ignore. Probably belongs in the ubiquitous gun control threads, but I like it.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.*
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
-- Benjamin Franklin

How does the group decide who should get what in a large society without government?

any of several ways. how about need-based distribution of resources that there are legitimate shortages of and free distribution of other things?

any of several ways. how about need-based distribution of resources that there are legitimate shortages of and free distribution of other things?

Okay, who decides who needs what without goverment. You're talking about criteria, not methodology.

Okay, who decides who needs what without goverment. You're talking about criteria, not methodology.

the people who would be getting these things and the people producing them.

and now to head this argument off at the pass. if you claim that the existence of group decisions means there is a government, i will a) dispute your definition of 'government' and b) say that it really doesn't matter as your definition of 'government' is completely compatible with a stateless and classless society.

the people who would be getting these things and the people producing them.

and now to head this argument off at the pass. if you claim that the existence of group decisions means there is a government, i will a) dispute your definition of 'government' and b) say that it really doesn't matter as your definition of 'government' is completely compatible with a stateless and classless society.

I'm really trying to understand this. I'm going to produce pork because I like pigs. Someone else is going to make fenceposts for whatever reason. So when he needs meat, he comes and takes some. I like stone walls for my pig styes, so I never trade or barter for fenceposts. I need a watering trough, though, so I go to the metalsmith and take what I need.

Is this what you are telling me?

Communism doesn't work, yet. Communism isn't a revolution, it is evolution. This is why all the other countries failed. Economic developement works like this:

Domestic prooduction goes to Capitalism because it is more effective. Capitalism creates an economic explosion. This is like all explosions fast, furious and rapidly loses it's luster afterwards. Thus is created Socialism, which balances the two. As corporations opress and alienate, the Socialist government compensates by taking over more services and more means of production. Eventually Socialism becomes Communism. No revolutions, no massive political reform, it is a steady process, one we are already heading down.

This is why all those countries failed, Communism is not a revolution, it is evolution.

I'm going to produce pork because I like pigs.
You like the politicians in Congress? You support porkbarreling? ;)

I'd be careful about predicting the future... whether you call it determining evolution or following the dialectic. Do what you can do to better things in the present... that tends to be much more productive. Harking to a better future or past tends to end up badly or not work at all. Have optimism, yes. Optimism makes the world go round. But be careful what you say about the future, as it bites you in the ass later, as Marx exemplifies so well.

I think that George Orwell was much more accurate than Marx.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face forever.

You like the politicians in Congress? You support porkbarreling? ;)

I was just thinking about that. I seem to use pigs as examples in a lot of posts about economic subjects. It must be the country living. We all live in log cabins and keep animals down here. And we stay ever vigilant against the revenooers that want our stills, too.

And I guess I really support more beer-barreling than pork-barreling. I support re-barreling if the thing is shot out.

I'm really trying to understand this. I'm going to produce pork because I like pigs. Someone else is going to make fenceposts for whatever reason. So when he needs meat, he comes and takes some. I like stone walls for my pig styes, so I never trade or barter for fenceposts. I need a watering trough, though, so I go to the metalsmith and take what I need.

Is this what you are telling me?

not really. it depends on how the particular commune or whatever is set up, but one fairly typical idea is that 1) the means of production would be socially owned in some sense and 2) you and all the members of your particular commune agree to freely share some percentage of what you produce with each other in exchange for recieving whatever you need (and whatever you want, to the extent that it is possible). and since having each commune be self-sufficient would be rather inefficient, the communes would probably have similar arrangements with other communes - allowing them to develop specializations of varying sorts.

to use your pig farm example, you and some other people would be running a pig farm that would be socially owned (or maybe just collectively owned by all who work there; again, it depends on the particular way people decide to do things) but man cannot live on bacon alone. so at least some of the bacon you guys produce goes to the commune distribution center (a thing pretty much equivalent to a store today), as does all the other stuff produced in the commune. at the same time, you get access to any of the other goods and services available. the distribution centers keep track of the rate at which stuff is used and use that data to inform the various producing collectives of how much demand there is for their product and whether to make more or less of it, etc.

essentially, you have free access to the goods and services available just for being a member of the commune or federation of communes. it's a sort of generalized reciprocity; you give because you know you will get back. maybe not from the same person and maybe not right away, but collectively it all more or less balances out - and everyone is individually better off than they would be otherwise.

And I guess I really support more beer-barreling than pork-barreling.

now there's a good idea. let's get the politicians so drunk that they are physically unable to screw things up more.

Let's get some definitions down:

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all of the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and put them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you need.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk.

PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbours help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and shoots you.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbours decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbours pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

PURE ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbours try to take the cows and kill you.

LIBERTARIAN/ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

Great examples for those who don't understand what these terms really mean.
Now, which one really sounds the best???

now there's a good idea. let's get the politicians so drunk that they are physically unable to screw things up more.
No, they'll just be worse. Though C-SPAN might be more entertaining.

Now, which one really sounds the best???
Need you ask?!? Surrealism is my utopia!

now there's a good idea. let's get the politicians so drunk that they are physically unable to screw things up more.
That didn't work in Russia...

No, they'll just be worse. Though C-SPAN might be more entertaining.


Need you ask?!? Surrealism is my utopia!
That already exists here down south, ever here of Daliland?
Oh wait...

That didn't work in Russia...

they just weren't drunk enough. i'm talking total physical incapacitation here. like "holding on to the floor to make sure you don't fall down" drunk.

they just weren't drunk enough. i'm talking total physical incapacitation here. like "holding on to the floor to make sure you don't fall down" drunk.
You think that'd stop them? Though I hold on to my conviction that a session of Congress would be so much more entertaining if a few of them got drunk. I'd pay to see that...

why everybody ignore me?
I already tell you that true communism worked perfect in Israel. maybe that can't count on states system, but that prove he could work, in some conditions.