NationStates Jolt Archive

In most discussions I have with socialists/communists, my problem always seems to come when they try to say that the workers and the populous owns the methods of production and wealth collectively through the government. I just want to ask:

How can we maintain a government that is inseperable from the public? Governments have always been the most bureaucratic and hierarchical institutions in history, how does Communism counteract that and keep government from being a huge morass of corruption? I don't think I have to bring up the examples of where Communism quickly dissolved into an oppressive government.

Yeah, I have this problem with communism too

One word;

Thunderdome. :D

In most discussions I have with socialists/communists, my problem always seems to come when they try to say that the workers and the populous owns the methods of production and wealth collectively through the government. I just want to ask:

How can we maintain a government that is inseperable from the public? Governments have always been the most bureaucratic and hierarchical institutions in history, how does Communism counteract that and keep government from being a huge morass of corruption? I don't think I have to bring up the examples of where Communism quickly dissolved into an oppressive government.

The answer is, you can't. Communism's eventual goal is a naive fantasy which is unachievable in the real world.

That is why I support gradual change in repect to government. Except concerning the environment, but that is my one exception. If am neither a communist or a socialist, though I do think their ideals work well. I support larger government, though a omnipresent government certainly not. I think that the government must stay out of pretty much all social issues, excluding the environment. However, I am a strong supporter of things like social welfare and all that. The only answer to how to keep it from corruption as best as is possible is to ensure that democracy stays, that there is widespread thorough education, and gradual change.

Well, that's better thought out than my central problem, which is "Sounds nice, but then there would just be too many damn commies...."


:D

That is why I support gradual change in repect to government. Except concerning the environment, but that is my one exception. If am neither a communist or a socialist, though I do think their ideals work well. I support larger government, though a omnipresent government certainly not. I think that the government must stay out of pretty much all social issues, excluding the environment. However, I am a strong supporter of things like social welfare and all that. The only answer to how to keep it from corruption as best as is possible is to ensure that democracy stays, that there is widespread thorough education, and gradual change.

My thoughts exactly, good post.

Basically the only way it could work is with just about absolute democracy. Otherwise all you really have are factory owners with even more power. If Athens went communist, for example, it might have worked.

I agree that a market economy is necessary to retain personal freedoms as well. Can anyone name a democracy that did not have a market economy? Every socialist country where everything was owned by the government have become dictatorships.

Democracy is a pipe dream, much like communism. Unless you are a purebred Greek, or a robot, democracy cannot truly exist. Even the Greeks eventually went to shit, so to speak. No single person can say they are completely unbiased towards a decision. If a group of people from a foreign country kill your son/daughter, you will want those perpetrators killed too. Then you are acting on emotions. It's "An eye for an eye." An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind. Emotions cause problems. Also, there are too many different cultures and ways of life to make democracy work correctly. Such a conglomeration of people is impossible to have democracy. We don't even have a TRUE universal language in America. Large cities have advertisements and public announcements in multiple languages. Not every person is a born leader. People tend to form groups. Soon in a "democracy," factions are formed, as in the case of Republicans and Democrats. I don't think I need to elaborate as to what problems that caused. The United States is not truly a democracy either. That's why we have Congress and The House. If we had a completely democratic government, the people would have completely ravaged the Constitution. Laws would change constantly.

Basically the only way it could work is with just about absolute democracy. Otherwise all you really have are factory owners with even more power. If Athens went communist, for example, it might have worked.
First: There are severe limitations to this idea of absolute democracy. As the will of the majority is fairly often not the best option being one of these. We also must realize that in an absolute democracy, the majority has all the power, and minorities have zilch.

Second: Athens is really misrepresented. Because whilst Athens did have the common assemblies and the like, they also had an extremely powerful executive. We also must remember that Athens, whilst having loads of 'positive freedom' had very little restraints on protecting 'negative' freedom. Beyond that there was a common adherence to the belief that the law should be followed, no matter how unjust it is (i.e. no room for civil disobedience).

Nightmare visions of absolute mob rule.

But I usually hear the socialist/communist supporters advocating an enourmous initial social democracy that (somehow) will be successfully downgraded to a communist system with no form of centralized government.
:p

But I usually hear the socialist/communist supporters advocating an enourmous initial social democracy that (somehow) will be successfully downgraded to a communist system with no form of centralized government.

And I say to them: Like that will ever happen :rolleyes:

No group has ever willingly given up power.

And I say to them: Like that will ever happen :rolleyes:

No group has ever willingly given up power.
Karma: That's the same thing some people say when I tell them I'm a Libertarian! :mad:

Nightmare visions of absolute mob rule.

But I usually hear the socialist/communist supporters advocating an enourmous initial social democracy
Meaning only a bigger mob rule :p

Karma: That's the same thing some people say when I tell them I'm a Libertarian! :mad:
Ah, but the difference is that libertarianism operates under the same social framework as the current world.

Ah, but the difference is that libertarianism operates under the same social framework as the current world.
There's that, coupled with the fact that most Americans can agree on (at least) one thing: Government has gotten too big and costs too much money (at its current size).

In most discussions I have with socialists/communists, my problem always seems to come when they try to say that the workers and the populous owns the methods of production and wealth collectively through the government. I just want to ask:

How can we maintain a government that is inseperable from the public? Governments have always been the most bureaucratic and hierarchical institutions in history, how does Communism counteract that and keep government from being a huge morass of corruption? I don't think I have to bring up the examples of where Communism quickly dissolved into an oppressive government.


That's easy, by eliminating a ruling class. The one thing that has seperated the people of all countries from direct control of the government has been some form of ruling class. In a true communist country, the bourgeousie will have all been killed off or driven out, and any notion of their beliefs as well. I am good friends with a Serbian who spent most of his life in Yugoslavia, and the approach that the Communists take with education does away with the notion of success and independent work (which are what creates the Bourgeoise.) Education in the U.S. teaches that "the only way to succeed is to work as hard as possible" while education in Communist countries teaches "the only way to succeed is with your comrades". So Communist education plus the extermination of the Bourgeoise will result in a country where no central party exists, and government is tied directly to the people.

Make a bit more sense?

Ah, but the difference is that libertarianism operates under the same social framework as the current world.
Exactly - and all the liberals seem to view libertarianism as some sort of "revolutionary" principle . . . .

That's easy, by eliminating a ruling class. The one thing that has seperated the people of all countries from direct control of the government has been some form of ruling class.
You could have stopped right there.

The answer is, you can't. Communism's eventual goal is a naive fantasy which is unachievable in the real world.


So why have communist communities existed for thousands of years with no idealism to be spoken of (cough Ladakh cough)

You need to check out your history before making blanket statements. Communism works fine anywhere that a ruling class is missing. Leaders emerge in these societies (like the Ladakh, a huge people group in Kashmir) but the way the culture exists causes individual success to be shunned. Mediocrity? Certainly, but at least working together is so much more effective than working alone. It may screw the one oddball in your village who happens to be a genius, but are you necessarily that oddball? No? Didn't think so. Stop complaining if it would work for you. :headbang:

Exactly - and all the liberals seem to view libertarianism as some sort of "revolutionary" principle . . . .
Precisely, they fail to realize that libertarianism is an almagamation of the two existing belief-sets (conservative and liberal) with respect for all rights, instead of just some.

You could have stopped right there.


But I'm long-winded! I love to talk :D

the way the culture exists causes individual success to be shunned
I don't understand this logic. If all the individuals of the collective should have their success shunned, what gives the collective the right to bask in success?

Precisely, they fail to realize that libertarianism is an almagamation of the two existing belief-sets (conservative and liberal) with respect for all rights, instead of just some.
If I was more into ass-kissin', I'd include this one above in my sig.

[QUOTE=Andaluciae]First: There are severe limitations to this idea of absolute democracy. As the will of the majority is fairly often not the best option being one of these. We also must realize that in an absolute democracy, the majority has all the power, and minorities have zilch.

[QUOTE]

Yeah, the central idea of Communism is the elimination of every class except for the working class. There are no "minorities" in a Communist society, unless you count those of different races. But even they still reside in the same class that is making all of the decisions for itself. Democracy is essential for Communism, because there is no exploited minority! Joy! :D

So why have communist communities existed for thousands of years with no idealism to be spoken of (cough Ladakh cough)

You need to check out your history before making blanket statements. Communism works fine anywhere that a ruling class is missing. Leaders emerge in these societies (like the Ladakh, a huge people group in Kashmir) but the way the culture exists causes individual success to be shunned. Mediocrity? Certainly, but at least working together is so much more effective than working alone. It may screw the one oddball in your village who happens to be a genius, but are you necessarily that oddball? No? Didn't think so. Stop complaining if it would work for you. :headbang:
Ladakh is a region, not a group of people, and it has some extraordinary circumstances there as well.

For example: It is the least densely populated region of the world. Yep, two inhabitants per kilometer.

The region is mainly populated by nomads, and other primitives.

The region is ruled by a feudal, hierarchical system.

And beyond that, it really isn't communist. Tradition in the region has the eldest son inheriting the property of the father.

So, you are certainly oversimplifying about Ladakh.

Yeah, the central idea of Communism is the elimination of every class except for the working class. There are no "minorities" in a Communist society, unless you count those of different races. But even they still reside in the same class that is making all of the decisions for itself. Democracy is essential for Communism, because there is no exploited minority! Joy! :D
Minorities of opinion.

I don't understand this logic. If all the individuals of the collective should have their success shunned, what gives the collective the right to bask in success?


Because success is not pursued on an individual level (or at least the western notion of success). Success is more about what a group can accomplish, never about what the individual can.

If I was more into ass-kissin', I'd include this one above in my sig.
ahh, darn.

Yeah, the central idea of Communism is the elimination of every class except for the working class. There are no "minorities" in a Communist society, unless you count those of different races. But even they still reside in the same class that is making all of the decisions for itself. Democracy is essential for Communism, because there is no exploited minority! Joy! :D
There will always be minorities in any human society. To think otherwise is not only ideological, but downright neglectful and dangerous.
Think your own ideology through. Perhaps it asks a bit more of human beings than they're capable of on an enormous scale.

Minorities of opinion.


That requires a heterogeneous society, which Communism does not pretend to be. Different opinions stem out of what different people think is best for themselves. And I go back again to my allusion to the one oddball in the village. leave him to suffer so that everyone else doesn't have to. Leave him to dream of his own success (that naturally requires the success of the others to be thwarted)

the way the culture exists causes individual success to be shunned.
Speaking for the USofA here, I own a small cretive business. I think capitalism (duh) is actually an extreme form of individualism.

It rewards "rugged individualism", at that.

And I go back again to my allusion to the one oddball in the village. leave him to suffer so that everyone else doesn't have to.
I don't want to lose a debate for making a certain obvious comment, but can anyone think of anbody in history that sounds eerily familiar? :confused:

That requires a heterogeneous society, which Communism does not pretend to be. Different opinions stem out of what different people think is best for themselves. And I go back again to my allusion to the one oddball in the village. leave him to suffer so that everyone else doesn't have to. Leave him to dream of his own success (that naturally requires the success of the others to be thwarted)
Then why even have democracy?

Difference of opinion does not necessarily concern itself with just personal interest. It might be seen that a difference of opinion can exist over things of the collective importance as well, can it not?

See: Production decisions. I'm willing to bet that if asked, people in your society will disagree over the number of things that are needed by society. 30 people may believe that 40 of product A are needed, whilst 50 people believe that 20 of product A are needed, thus screwing over the opinion of the first group.

I don't want to lose a debate for making a certain obvious comment, but can anyone think of anbody in history that sounds eerily familiar? :confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

See: Production decisions. I'm willing to bet that if asked, people in your society will disagree over the number of things that are needed by society. 30 people may believe that 40 of product A are needed, whilst 50 people believe that 20 of product A are needed, thus screwing over the opinion of the first group.
And now we're finally getting to the biggest mistake Marx ever made:
Assuming too much about the market. Namely, that mass production would lead to severe surpluses in the market. He foresaw "coerced consumerism" and homogeneity.
The truth is that capitalist societies thrive on diversity, not homogenous force-feeding.
It sounded good at the time he wrote it. ;)

And now we're finally getting to the biggest mistake Marx ever made:
Assuming too much about the market. Namely, that mass production would lead to severe surpluses in the market. He foresaw "coerced consumerism" and homogeneity.
The truth is that capitalist societies thrive on diversity, not homogenous force-feeding.
It sounded good at the time he wrote it. ;)
:D

See: Production decisions. I'm willing to bet that if asked, people in your society will disagree over the number of things that are needed by society. 30 people may believe that 40 of product A are needed, whilst 50 people believe that 20 of product A are needed, thus screwing over the opinion of the first group.
And then we're back at the tyranny of the majority thing . . . this time, instead of race/religion, it's production

And then we're back at the tyranny of the majority thing . . . this time, instead of race/religion, it's production
Precisely. No matter what humanity does, short of killing everyone, there will ALWAYS be inequalities.

Agreed on the question of the ruling class ... it's only the class divisions in society that create the conditions whereby people ALLOW a state to rule over them.

The question is, what to do in the meantime, while the world still is class-divided. First it must be acknowledged that this state of affairs can and does give rise to bureaucratic dictatorships (Stalin in the USSR, Mao in China) in the workers' states, as it does in the capitalist countries (De Gaulle in France, Hussein in Iraq). However, it should be added that the goal of the communist movement is to abolish the state, whereas the capitalist class needs to maintain the state as the organ of its class rule. In other words, bureaucratic dictatorships in workers' states are properly seen as vestiges of capitalism, or symptoms of the unfinished business of the world revolution.

It must also be added that 3 workers' states in history managed to remain democratic in nature. By this I don't mean that they were pure democracies (i.e., entirely successful in identifying the state with the will of the people) nor that they were not felt as oppressive by some citizens; only that they were essentially organized on the principle of majority rule and with basic principles of democratic rights. (I.e., the same way we would call capitalist states such as the U.S. and Israel "democracies.") These were the Paris Commune from 1870-1871; Russia from 1917-1921; and Cuba from 1959 to the present.

Concrete means can be taken to protect democracies in countries like these. They include public election and recall of as many government officials as practically possible; arming the general populace; paying government officials union-scale wages; and most of all, world revolution. While there are no a priori limits on how long a workers' state can remain democratic in isolation--these depend on concrete events--a strategy of building socialism in a single country will inevitably lead to dictatorship. The fight to advance the revolution worldwide is, in content if not in form, a single fight--and various battles in this fight--such as the battle to extend democracy in a workers' state, and the battle to overthrow a capitalist state--go hand in hand.

And if "success" means achieving one's creative potential as an individual, the obstacles capitalism poses to success are among the most damning charges against it. Che Guevara's Socialism and Man in Cuba is a discussion of the concrete ways in which the Cuban revolution opened up greater opportunities for individuals to "succeed" in this way.

The aim of Communism is to create a democratic society free from the state and any form of government so this problem would be invalid if the true ideals of Communism were achieved. Marx believed that a short period of a dictatorship of the entire working class may be necessary until a classless society is achieved after which there will no longer be any need for a state.

"Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing." (VI Lenin)

"While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State." (VI Lenin)

In a true communist country, the bourgeousie will have all been killed off or driven out, and any notion of their beliefs as well

Communists do aim to eliminate the bourgeoisie as a class but this does not necesssarily mean killing all members of the bourgeoisie and Communists would always prefer a peaceful transition with as little violence as possible.

It must also be added that 3 workers' states in history managed to remain democratic in nature. By this I don't mean that they were pure democracies (i.e., entirely successful in identifying the state with the will of the people) nor that they were not felt as oppressive by some citizens; only that they were essentially organized on the principle of majority rule and with basic principles of democratic rights. (I.e., the same way we would call capitalist states such as the U.S. and Israel "democracies.") These were the Paris Commune from 1870-1871; Russia from 1917-1921; and Cuba from 1959 to the present.
I just choked on my water.

Agreed on the question of the ruling class ... it's only the class divisions in society that create the conditions whereby people ALLOW a state to rule over them.

The question is, what to do in the meantime, while the world still is class-divided. First it must be acknowledged that this state of affairs can and does give rise to bureaucratic dictatorships (Stalin in the USSR, Mao in China) in the workers' states, as it does in the capitalist countries (De Gaulle in France, Hussein in Iraq). However, it should be added that the goal of the communist movement is to abolish the state, whereas the capitalist class needs to maintain the state as the organ of its class rule. In other words, bureaucratic dictatorships in workers' states are properly seen as vestiges of capitalism, or symptoms of the unfinished business of the world revolution.

It must also be added that 3 workers' states in history managed to remain democratic in nature. By this I don't mean that they were pure democracies (i.e., entirely successful in identifying the state with the will of the people) nor that they were not felt as oppressive by some citizens; only that they were essentially organized on the principle of majority rule and with basic principles of democratic rights. (I.e., the same way we would call capitalist states such as the U.S. and Israel "democracies.") These were the Paris Commune from 1870-1871; Russia from 1917-1921; and Cuba from 1959 to the present.

Concrete means can be taken to protect democracies in countries like these. They include public election and recall of as many government officials as practically possible; arming the general populace; paying government officials union-scale wages; and most of all, world revolution. While there are no a priori limits on how long a workers' state can remain democratic in isolation--these depend on concrete events--a strategy of building socialism in a single country will inevitably lead to dictatorship. The fight to advance the revolution worldwide is, in content if not in form, a single fight--and various battles in this fight--such as the battle to extend democracy in a workers' state, and the battle to overthrow a capitalist state--go hand in hand.

And if "success" means achieving one's creative potential as an individual, the obstacles capitalism poses to success are among the most damning charges against it. Che Guevara's Socialism and Man in Cuba is a discussion of the concrete ways in which the Cuban revolution opened up greater opportunities for individuals to "succeed" in this way.
I'm hearing it, but not seeing it. What makes America great is the absence of absolute class.
Unless you're in the top 3%, chances are you don't come from what they call in Europe "Family Money".
You're supposed to make it on your own, with varying degrees of limited assistance.

Sounds like the only realistic solution to solving the social class problem.

Cuba? Democratic? WTF? What kind of insane propaganda have you been listening to? Ever heard of a certain fellow named Castro?

Paris Commune: Ummm... It lasted from (at the long end) from March 18 -> May 28 1871. Two months doesn't count as enough time to see if something is working or not.

Russian revolution: If democracy means the dictates of Lenin, sure.

What makes America great is the absence of absolute class.
*chokes* :eek:

Marx believed that a short period of a dictatorship of the entire working class may be necessary until a classless society is achieved after which there will no longer be any need for a state.

Enough said. :p

oh your so right
I mean there wouldn't be much sense in comparing communism with capitalism cause we know who would score better
destroy em them dirty communists :sniper: :D

*chokes* :eek:
For the most part, the United States is class free. Social mobility is a very common thing. And that is the one sure way to do away with social classes. You see, it may be tough to change one's life, but it is very, very possible. Just takes dedication.

oh your so right
I mean there wouldn't be much sense in comparing communism with capitalism cause we know who would score better
destroy em them dirty communists :sniper: :D
:confused: What are you trying to say?

*chokes* :eek:
There is no real absolute class in America. Now there's class, definitely, but it's very small scale here compared to other countries.
You see, here in our capitalist society, the truly "rich" are more nouveax-riche, than absolute class rich.
Sure we have the Kennedy's and such, but most of our wealth only lasts a generation or two unless managed correctly.

There are no guarantees. Although all of the initial capital you have certainly helps.

The statistics for people who blow it are astronomical though.

If you've read Diary by Chuck Palahniuk, you'll know what I'm talking about.
American wealth doesn't last long without some "new blood".

EDIT (Karma): Some slip through the cracks though, like "stupid, spoiled slut" Paris Hilton. :p

hes right you know we should really consider it well im just sayin

hes right you know we should really consider it well im just sayin
It's been considered, and it's been thrown into the dust bin.

Communism is the only ideology which fights against all forms of exploitation and for the establishment of complete democracy while capitalism usually needs a high degree of repression in order to maintain the working class in their present conditions of exploitation and misery. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" which may follow a revolution is necessary in order destroy the oppressive rule of the capitalists and to restore democracy but only exists for a short period of time. The Stalinist dictatorships which were established in many countries had nothing to do with Communism and Marxism and they simply replaced the capitalist oppressors with a party elite and massive bureaucracy which continued the role of the capitalists in oppressing the working class.

Communism is the only ideology which fights against all forms of exploitation and for the establishment of complete democracy while capitalism usually needs a high degree of repression in order to maintain the working class in their present conditions of exploitation and misery. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" which may follow a revolution is necessary in order destroy the oppressive rule of the capitalists and to restore democracy but only exists for a short period of time. The Stalinist dictatorships which were established in many countries had nothing to do with Communism and Marxism and they simply replaced the capitalist oppressors with a party elite and massive bureaucracy which continued the role of the capitalists in oppressing the working class.
Destroying oppressive rule with...oppressive rule. How pleasant.

Sorry. Not buying it.

Destroying oppressive rule with...oppressive rule. How pleasant.

Sorry. Not buying it.
I agree with Andaluciae on pretty much all he has said so far. (not to bud in)

Destroying oppressive rule with...oppressive rule. How pleasant.

Sorry. Not buying it.
Everything I'm about says ditto.







Oxymorons blow goats.

The U.S.S.R. was not a communist state, like most thought, it was a dictatorship, (or totalitarianism.) no different from the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan or Saddam's Iraq.

It was a just a group controlled dictatorship. Communism, or Democratic Socialism looks upon the revolution of the working class to overthrow an oppresisve government and establish either a Direct Democratic Socialist State, or a Representative Democratic Socialism.

A Direct Democratic Socialist State focuses on having everyone who wishes to participate in the government do so, and eliminates domineering in class terms by providing a great equalizer of the vote. Every issue is put to public vote. This is similar to the ancient Greek approach to Democracy.

A Representative Democratic Socialism focuses on electing officials who are trusted to complete decisions to the socialist ideals. They mainly focus on equalizing the wealth, property, and class.

The transitive period between Anarchy and the Representative Democratic Socialism does involve a slight totalitarianism approach when forcing people to give up money or valuables for the "greater good."

The U.S.S.R. was not a communist state, like most thought, it was a dictatorship, (or totalitarianism.) no different from the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan or Saddam's Iraq.

It was a just a group controlled dictatorship. Communism, or Democratic Socialism looks upon the revolution of the working class to overthrow an oppresisve government and establish either a Direct Democratic Socialist State, or a Representative Democratic Socialism.

A Direct Democratic Socialist State focuses on having everyone who wishes to participate in the government do so, and eliminates domineering in class terms by providing a great equalizer of the vote. Every issue is put to public vote. This is similar to the ancient Greek approach to Democracy.

A Representative Democratic Socialism focuses on electing officials who are trusted to complete decisions to the socialist ideals. They mainly focus on equalizing the wealth, property, and class.

The transitive period between Anarchy and the Representative Democratic Socialism does involve a slight totalitarianism approach when forcing people to give up money or valuables for the "greater good."


see:


Destroying oppressive rule with...oppressive rule. How pleasant.

Sorry. Not buying it.

First, there is a hereditary capitalist class in the U.S. Among the richest 20 families are the DuPonts, Mellons, Rockefellers, and Hearsts, all with wealth going back more than 100 years; whereas very few of the families on the Forbes list are first-generation wealthy.

If two second-grade boys in the U.S. have the same grades, but the father of the first boy is a CEO, while the father of the second boy is a janitor, the first boy is 21 times as likely to have an income in the top 10% when he grows up. The second boy only has a 1 in 8 chance of an income in the top 50%.

That said, the U.S. does have a lot more class mobility than most other countries. It has a large middle class of people who have the opportunity to become rich. What makes this possible is the superprofits extracted through the U.S.'s domination of the Third World.

On a different subject, what evidence do you have that Castro is a dictator, or that Lenin was before Kronstadt? Or are you just repeating a claim?

My problem with communism is that it has many problems. I can not blame Marx for one, which was the Middle Class issue. He didn't live to see its rise. But even then, his theories have more holes than Swiss cheese.
For one, Karl Marx assumed that all history boiled down to economics. But that is easily disputable. History changed for reasons that had nothing to do with money. What was the rise of the world's major religions about? Ideas. How about the birth of the Roman Republic? Freedom.
Secondly, Marx assumes that in his dictatorship of the proletariat, everyone will work together and sing kumbaya. But that is not the case at all. Humans have ambition, and they naturally want things from other people. And the proletariat, at least in the Industrial Revolution, was 90% of the population. They'd never work together.
Finally, it stiffles innovation. In its final state, it allows no room for technological or ideaological progress. The dictatorship allows little, either. Thus, that is why Russia was the sole maker of vacuum tubes at the end of the Cold War.

First, there is a hereditary capitalist class in the U.S. Among the richest 20 families are the DuPonts, Mellons, Rockefellers, and Hearsts, all with wealth going back more than 100 years; whereas very few of the families on the Forbes list are first-generation wealthy.
:p

I'll let the younger lions in the pride tear this to shreds.
Captain Obvious to the rescue?
On a different subject, what evidence do you have that Castro is a dictator, or that Lenin was before Kronstadt? Or are you just repeating a claim?
No.. comment... backs up slowly brandishing a printed copy of the Libertarian Manifesto (http://quantumflash.net/The.Libertarian.Manifesto.pdf).

EDIT: Damn, I've only included that link on my personal region's site!
Be nice, please.

Please don't click on it more than once, or unless you care to read about economics and liberty. I can't afford the bandwidth for NS point-of-purchasism. ;)

That’s a very clever question.

There are two methods that I think would work best when applied together. First of all dump centralised communism for liberal socialism, that’s what Marx advocated as necessary before communism could emerge because communism can only exist when the entire nature of society has shifted into the appropriate mindset. Some people advocate that human nature is impossible to change which is a pathetic argument because if that were true then psychology would a dead novelty and Totalitarianism could never have emerged. Neither could liberalism and if we were really stagnant then we would still be apes running about the savannah.

Liberal socialism means independent trade unions, upholding the rights of free press, assembly and speech etc. It also means democracy at all levels of government and one would presume within worker-owned businesses. It also means independent or ‘private’ worker-owned corporations, small business and companies etc. Under Liberal Socialism wage differentiation is allowed but no to the excessive degrees under capitalism and is used as a means to promote productivity and efficiency. This is essential to ensure that the economy remains dynamic and promotes creativity and innovation.

Under what I would consider a very liberal system I don’t see why a government could not outsource some aspects on its non-core functions to these ‘private’ socialism businesses which operate with a self-interest in increasing or maintaining a comfortable income. Therefore these businesses will have a natural interest in improving efficiency, reducing waste and maximising the work they can process. Like wise within the civil service wage and seniority dependent on merit and one would presume that the higher levels of management would be able to co-ordinate a efficient and dynamic department.

Unfortunately this is the same principle that is supposed to operate in modern bureaucracies however we shouldn’t be completely pessimistic as the levels of efficiency usually relate to the “grey-culture” and internal structure which can produce a big difference in outcomes between say the German bureaucracy and the Italian. Another strategy to adopt is to borrow from the grassroots movement (a theme prominent with Green political parties) and advocate that ‘decisions that can be made at the lower levels of government be made there’ which I think is an essentially liberal clause as well.

An unavoidable feature of liberal socialism is to include real and workable checks and balances within government and the structures of the state (judiciary, executive, legislature etc). A self-supporting system should be present that ensures totalitarianism or authoritarianism cannot ‘creep up’. There is nothing radical in Liberal Socialism because many of you would be living a state that could be considered more or less liberal. There are also different models of the democratic system that could be experimented with under liberal socialism such a consensus methods as well as electoral reforms such as preferential and proportional voting systems that are more democratic then the system used in Britain, the United States or Australia.

First, there is a hereditary capitalist class in the U.S. Among the richest 20 families are the DuPonts, Mellons, Rockefellers, and Hearsts, all with wealth going back more than 100 years; whereas very few of the families on the Forbes list are first-generation wealthy.
With the wealthiest being, of course, Mr. Gates, Mr. Buffet, Mr. Gardener, The Waltons, Mr. Dell, Mr. Ballmer, Mr. Ellison, Ms. Johnson, Ms. Anthony, Ms. Chambers, Mr. Kluge, Mr. Omidyar, The Mars' family, Mr. Redstone, Mr. Icahn, Mr. Knight, Mr. Ergen, Mr. Soros, Mr. Newhouse...I don't see any DuPonts, Rockefellers or Hearsts...and that's of the top 25.

Now, I'm not denying that there are SOME rich families in the US. But they are few and far between in comparison to the rest of the US society.

If two second-grade boys in the U.S. have the same grades, but the father of the first boy is a CEO, while the father of the second boy is a janitor, the first boy is 21 times as likely to have an income in the top 10% when he grows up. The second boy only has a 1 in 8 chance of an income in the top 50%.
I'd be greatly interested in finding out where that stat comes from. How the data was collected, and the like. 1/8? That's an awfully nice round number. What study gave this number anyways? Because it seems to be an awfully hard study to do. I mean, to find a CEO and Janitors son in the same class...and then keep it going for another 20, to possibly even fifty years.

Sorry, I doubt your statistic. Way too many problems for me to really believe it.

That said, the U.S. does have a lot more class mobility than most other countries. It has a large middle class of people who have the opportunity to become rich. What makes this possible is the superprofits extracted through the U.S.'s domination of the Third World.
I'll also contest this. You see, I'd say that the reason for the strong middle class in the US is not because of "exploiting the third world" but because of something else.

What is this something else, you ask? I can tell you. It's the fact that the US industrialized early. Just like Europe and Japan. The success stems from the long running industrial capacity of these nations. It feeds upon itself. The people eventually earn money, their standard of life rises, and they earn more money by forming unions, and it perpetuates itself. Come back in one-hundred years, and we'll see how the "third world countries" are doing. According to my model, they should be pretty well off.

Hell, this is already beginning to happen in some nations. The quality of life in Taiwan, the PRC, Singapore, Thailand and some others is rising, and in some places, rising rapidly.

On a different subject, what evidence do you have that Castro is a dictator, or that Lenin was before Kronstadt? Or are you just repeating a claim?
one moment on this, I don't want the forums to log me out before I finish, so I'll have it up in a moment.

Castro the Dictator/Tyrant:

From Internet Encyclopedias:
The Castro regime has frequently been accused of numerous human rights abuses, including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extra-judicial executions. Many argue that several thousand unjustified deaths have occurred under Castro's decades-long rule. Several Cubans have been labeled "counterrevolutionaries," "fascists," or "CIA operatives" and imprisoned in extremely poor conditions without trial; some have been summarily executed. The level of political control in Cuba has relaxed somewhat since the USSR's collapse, but some people still view Castro as presiding over a totalitarian state.

Groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch also criticize the censorship, the lack of press freedom in Cuba, the lack of civil rights, the outlawing of political opposition groups and unions, and the lack of free and democratic elections.

Lenin the Dictator/Tyrant:

From Internet Encyclopedia:
Lenin shut down the Russian Constituent Assembly. The Bolsheviks lost the vote there, with the Socialist Revolutionary Party in the majority. A group that was later involved with the White Russian Armies.

Further stuff from me:
Beyond that, Lenin issued edicts without challenge. And beyond that, we can see that he set the groundwork for Stalin. As there is very little info about Lenin's years, because they were dominated by the Russian Civil War, and the Bolshevik/Polish War, and as such, he was more concerned with those matters.

Further stuff from me:
Beyond that, Lenin issued edicts without challenge. And beyond that, we can see that he set the groundwork for Stalin. As there is very little info about Lenin's years, because they were dominated by the Russian Civil War, and the Bolshevik/Polish War, and as such, he was more concerned with those matters.
I do believe we could share a pitcher and enjoy it.

Congratulations to Andaluciae and Eichen for arguing so skillfully, I really needn't say anything, as you already have those dastardly commies on the run.

I do believe we could share a pitcher and enjoy it.
Yes, yes, most excellent arguing man.

Yes, yes, most excellent arguing man.
It's a plan then if you ever hit up Tampa.

And I prefer debating man.

It's a plan then if you ever hit up Tampa.

And I prefer debating man.
Yes, debating. There's an art to debating.

Well, that's better thought out than my central problem, which is "Sounds nice, but then there would just be too many damn commies...."


:D

You are too xenophobic also.

Fucking reds.

With the wealthiest being, of course, Mr. Gates, Mr. Buffet, Mr. Gardener, The Waltons, Mr. Dell, Mr. Ballmer, Mr. Ellison, Ms. Johnson, Ms. Anthony, Ms. Chambers, Mr. Kluge, Mr. Omidyar, The Mars' family, Mr. Redstone, Mr. Icahn, Mr. Knight, Mr. Ergen, Mr. Soros, Mr. Newhouse...I don't see any DuPonts, Rockefellers or Hearsts...and that's of the top 25.

Now, I'm not denying that there are SOME rich families in the US. But they are few and far between in comparison to the rest of the US society.


I'd be greatly interested in finding out where that stat comes from. How the data was collected, and the like. 1/8? That's an awfully nice round number. What study gave this number anyways? Because it seems to be an awfully hard study to do. I mean, to find a CEO and Janitors son in the same class...and then keep it going for another 20, to possibly even fifty years.

Sorry, I doubt your statistic. Way too many problems for me to really believe it.


I'll also contest this. You see, I'd say that the reason for the strong middle class in the US is not because of "exploiting the third world" but because of something else.

What is this something else, you ask? I can tell you. It's the fact that the US industrialized early. Just like Europe and Japan. The success stems from the long running industrial capacity of these nations. It feeds upon itself. The people eventually earn money, their standard of life rises, and they earn more money by forming unions, and it perpetuates itself. Come back in one-hundred years, and we'll see how the "third world countries" are doing. According to my model, they should be pretty well off.

Hell, this is already beginning to happen in some nations. The quality of life in Taiwan, the PRC, Singapore, Thailand and some others is rising, and in some places, rising rapidly.


one moment on this, I don't want the forums to log me out before I finish, so I'll have it up in a moment.

Walton family--3rd-generation millionaires--are the wealthiest. Many of the others you named--Gates, Mars, etc.--were born multi-millionaires or billionaires. DuPonts--whose family fortune goes back more than 200 years--are 5th on the Forbes list of richest families, with only 4 individual fortunes estimated to be larger.

I haven't been able to find the source of the statistics on income stratification, which I cited from memory ... I can vouch that it was from a peer-reviewed academic journal, and it was based on a random sample survey of the population with questions asking about income, grades, etc., with a high statistical degree of confidence. The 1/8 is obviously not terribly precise, and the result of rounding. I'm sorry I couldn't find the link, though, and I understand if you all want to disregard this point.

And the U.S.'s economic strength comes because it industrialized early, yes, and because it (with other imperialist countries) has systematically prevented other countries from becoming industrialized by saddling them with crushing and insuperable debt burdens. 100 years ago, it was possible for "developing countries" to become "developed countries" through normal capitalist development. World War I signified that this was no longer the case (otherwise, rival capitalists would've competed to industrialize these countries, rather than competing to destroy vast stocks of wealth).

And in fact, with the exception of the PRC and Yugoslavia--that is, of two workers' states--no nation has achieved industrialization since WWI. Occupied Taiwan, Singapore, and Thailand (?!) may be your success stories today (note that the economies of the first two depend heavily on serving as a platform for American/Japanese/Australian militarism). 10 years ago, the success stories were Mexico and the Republic of Korea--until the factories were dismantled and sold for parts in order to pay off the creditors. 20 years ago, it was the "Argentine miracle"--until the same happened. 30 years ago, it was Iran--until the country's infrastructure was obliterated by the Iraqi invasion.

All of this is very interesting. Really. Though I do admit to being rather surprised that no one has yet isloated the real problem with Communism. There have been a lot of posts that give evidence and show why it is true but no-one has yet actually come out and said it.

The problem with Communism is the fact that it is all or nothing. If it doesn't work perfectly, it doesn't work at all. Now, if it were to work perfectly then it would be pretty good, I guess. But it can't work perfectly, not on any sort of large scale.

That's the central problem with Communism. And anarchy, and any number of other radical political systems that promise the sun, moon and stars.

Castro the Dictator/Tyrant:

From Internet Encyclopedias:
The Castro regime has frequently been accused of numerous human rights abuses, including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extra-judicial executions. Many argue that several thousand unjustified deaths have occurred under Castro's decades-long rule. Several Cubans have been labeled "counterrevolutionaries," "fascists," or "CIA operatives" and imprisoned in extremely poor conditions without trial; some have been summarily executed. The level of political control in Cuba has relaxed somewhat since the USSR's collapse, but some people still view Castro as presiding over a totalitarian state.

Groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch also criticize the censorship, the lack of press freedom in Cuba, the lack of civil rights, the outlawing of political opposition groups and unions, and the lack of free and democratic elections.

Lenin the Dictator/Tyrant:

From Internet Encyclopedia:
Lenin shut down the Russian Constituent Assembly. The Bolsheviks lost the vote there, with the Socialist Revolutionary Party in the majority. A group that was later involved with the White Russian Armies.

Further stuff from me:
Beyond that, Lenin issued edicts without challenge. And beyond that, we can see that he set the groundwork for Stalin. As there is very little info about Lenin's years, because they were dominated by the Russian Civil War, and the Bolshevik/Polish War, and as such, he was more concerned with those matters.

The Castro regime has frequently been accused of many things. The "big lie" technique, which has supplemented political pressure in producing desired statements from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, is an important part of American anti-Cuban propaganda. Several Cubans ARE fascists, counterrevolutionaries, and CIA operatives, and Cuba has a right to defend itself against them. Yet it does so through the rule of law--no one has ever presented evidence (as opposed to perjured testimony) of imprisonment or execution without trial in Cuba (except, of course, the hundreds of people imprisoned without trial in Guantanamo Bay). Cuba has free and democratic elections (read Arnold August, Democracy in Cuba, for a detailed account of the 1997 elections) and has the strongest unions in the world--the results speak for themselves. So does the extent of free speech in Cuba.

The only threat to freedom of the press in Cuba comes from the U.S. blockade, which requires resources such as paper to be strictly rationed ... efforts are made to do this in the most impartial matter possible by allocating media to mass organizations based on their membership.

As for "lack of civil rights," this is vague. As I don't know which civil rights specifically we should be concerned about, I can't respond to this charge except by enumerating some of the civil rights Cubans do have, including rights that are unique to Cuba. These include the right to a home, the right of farmers not to be evicted from their land, the right to join or organize any organizations except "opposition groups" (i.e., those dedicated to the violent overthrow of the government), the right to sufficient food to eat, the right to free health care (including abortion on demand), the right to free education, the rights mentioned above (to vote and run for office, to due process, to free speech, etc.), and the right to bear arms as part of the people's militias.

That said, Cuba does have abysmal prison conditions, it does outlaw membership in fascist organizations, terrorist organizations, and groups known to be fronts for foreign governments, it does have sedition laws, and it does outlaw political parties other than the Communist Party (although elections are non-partisan and open to anyone, party members or not). As I explicitly said, I wasn't claiming that Cuba was a pure democracy. Like all states, it is inherently repressive. However, I think Maurice Bishop said it best when the U.S. criticized some of the undemocratic aspects of Grenada under his leadership: "I have two words for you: Salvador Allende." (Allende was a Chilean leftist leader who strictly upheld the highest standards of bourgeois democracy. The bourgeoisie--which had no similar compunctions--used the political space this opened up for them to organize a fascist counterrevolution.)

At any rate, the U.S. itself has sedition laws, detentions without trial under "material witness" or "enemy combatant" designations, a ban on Communist Party membership, severe restrictions on union membership, torture (from Abner Louima to Abu Ghraib), unfair trials (Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal), and extrajudicial executions (hundreds of police murders every year, Waco, etc.). Yet this doesn't mean that the U.S. is not a democracy. "Democracy" is a relative term, and we use it generally to designate a country where the populace has a significant ability to impact government policies. It is a judgment call whether this is true of any particular country, but in my opinion Cuba clearly fits the bill (as does the U.S.)

Lenin and the Bolsheviks shut down the Constituent Assembly with public support, because it was unrepresentative and undemocratic. This was in keeping with their public revolutionary campaign of "all power to the soviets." Lenin (again, before a qualitative change in the balance of power around 1921) issued edicts in his capacity as the elected premier with powers delegated to him by the Supreme Council of Soviets. Read Lenin's Final Fight, published by Pathfinder Press, for a detailed documentary account of Lenin's struggle during the last 2 years of his life to resist the bureaucratic tendencies that paved the way for Stalin's counterrevolution ... with more justice we might say that the "Whites," the Japanese-led invasion, and Mussolini paved the way for Stalin.

All of this is very interesting. Really. Though I do admit to being rather surprised that no one has yet isloated the real problem with Communism. There have been a lot of posts that give evidence and show why it is true but no-one has yet actually come out and said it.

The problem with Communism is the fact that it is all or nothing. If it doesn't work perfectly, it doesn't work at all. Now, if it were to work perfectly then it would be pretty good, I guess. But it can't work perfectly, not on any sort of large scale.

That's the central problem with Communism. And anarchy, and any number of other radical political systems that promise the sun, moon and stars.

Communist theory and practice are subject to revision, not set in stone. Ideally, communists do not advocate or do anything unless the best empirical data indicate that this is the best option based on the actual interests of the working class. In practice, of course, communists are human beings who make mistakes ... yet the history of communism is a history of experimentation, of friendly disagreements among comrades, of self-criticism and self-correction, and of learning from historical mistakes.

Communism is basically a form of anarchism. There is no real government in it. It is based on some form of direct democracy.

Walton family--3rd-generation millionaires--are the wealthiest. Many of the others you named--Gates, Mars, etc.--were born multi-millionaires or billionaires. DuPonts--whose family fortune goes back more than 200 years--are 5th on the Forbes list of richest families, with only 4 individual fortunes estimated to be larger.
The Gates family wasn't multi-millionaires. They were certainly well off, but they were not of the super-rich.
Same goes for Mars, they were well off, but not multi-millionaires.

In fact, heres the Forbes website. I see no DuPonts.
http://www.forbes.com/400richest/ click on the link that says "rank"



I haven't been able to find the source of the statistics on income stratification, which I cited from memory ... I can vouch that it was from a peer-reviewed academic journal, and it was based on a random sample survey of the population with questions asking about income, grades, etc., with a high statistical degree of confidence. The 1/8 is obviously not terribly precise, and the result of rounding. I'm sorry I couldn't find the link, though, and I understand if you all want to disregard this point.
Then the number is unacceptable in any sort of academic environment above middle school.

And the U.S.'s economic strength comes because it industrialized early, yes, and because it (with other imperialist countries) has systematically prevented other countries from becoming industrialized by saddling them with crushing and insuperable debt burdens. 100 years ago, it was possible for "developing countries" to become "developed countries" through normal capitalist development. World War I signified that this was no longer the case (otherwise, rival capitalists would've competed to industrialize these countries, rather than competing to destroy vast stocks of wealth).
Reeaally.

And in fact, with the exception of the PRC and Yugoslavia--that is, of two workers' states--no nation has achieved industrialization since WWI. Occupied Taiwan, Singapore, and Thailand (?!) may be your success stories today (note that the economies of the first two depend heavily on serving as a platform for American/Japanese/Australian militarism). 10 years ago, the success stories were Mexico and the Republic of Korea--until the factories were dismantled and sold for parts in order to pay off the creditors. 20 years ago, it was the "Argentine miracle"--until the same happened. 30 years ago, it was Iran--until the country's infrastructure was obliterated by the Iraqi invasion.
Starting off...I thought the PRC wasn't a workers state, but no matter. The PRC was industrialized not by the government, or the people, but by western industry. Prior to the western industrialization, there were very few of what we'd regard as industries, but, the western nations saw potential in China and invested. It is not the result of communism, but of western capitalism that industrialized China. Beyond that, China accounts for over 1/6 of the worlds population, so I'd say that's a major accomplishment. Yugoslavia sucks. Their products are shit. Sure, they're industrialized, but their economy was hampered and crippled by the "workers state." Ever heard of the car known as the "Yugo?"

Beyond that...

Taiwan and Singapore are far more capable than just supporting the US military. They have economies that are capable of turning out goods for the civilian market. And the American military protects Taiwan from PRC aggression, at Taiwanese requests, not American demands.

Thailand is feeling a rise in properity, and this is the result of American business, while it isn't as good as it could be, it's improving.

In Mexico, the industrialization is continuing, and we Americans so often hear of the terrors of NAFTA, with the Mexicans taking our jobs. Mexicos economy is growing.

As is the economy of the ROK, espescially when compared with their northern neighbors. Yep, we Americans buy cars, electronics and all sorts of stuff all the time. The economic situation there is also improving.

The Castro regime has frequently been accused of many things. The "big lie" technique, which has supplemented political pressure in producing desired statements from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, is an important part of American anti-Cuban propaganda. Several Cubans ARE fascists, counterrevolutionaries, and CIA operatives, and Cuba has a right to defend itself against them. Yet it does so through the rule of law--no one has ever presented evidence (as opposed to perjured testimony) of imprisonment or execution without trial in Cuba (except, of course, the hundreds of people imprisoned without trial in Guantanamo Bay). Cuba has free and democratic elections (read Arnold August, Democracy in Cuba, for a detailed account of the 1997 elections) and has the strongest unions in the world--the results speak for themselves. So does the extent of free speech in Cuba.

The only threat to freedom of the press in Cuba comes from the U.S. blockade, which requires resources such as paper to be strictly rationed ... efforts are made to do this in the most impartial matter possible by allocating media to mass organizations based on their membership. This flies so incredibly in the face of the facts that I'm not even going to respond. In fact, look below.

First off, Cuba most definitely has the resources to make paper. Cuba has plenty of trees, it has the grinding equipment that is used to make cigars, it has mesh nets. That's what you need to make paper.

Beyond that, the embargo on Cuba is for reasons far more than just "CASTRO IS A COMMUNIST! OMGWTF!!!111!!11!!!" The embargo is maintained in response to Cuba's horrible human rights record, it's cooperation with the Soviets in placing offensive nuclear weapons on the island, it's downing of a civilian American Aircraft in the nineties...hell the list goes on and on.

As for "lack of civil rights," this is vague. As I don't know which civil rights specifically we should be concerned about, I can't respond to this charge except by enumerating some of the civil rights Cubans do have, including rights that are unique to Cuba. These include the right to a home, the right of farmers not to be evicted from their land
These aren't freedoms. These are gimmes. There's a difference.

the right to join or organize any organizations except "opposition groups" (i.e., those dedicated to the violent overthrow of the government), the right to sufficient food to eat, the right to free health care (including abortion on demand), the right to free education, the rights mentioned above (to vote and run for office, to due process, to free speech, etc.), and the right to bear arms as part of the people's militias.
I can think of plenty of other nations with these rights. And, plenty of nations with greater amounts of rights on each specific charge.

And, for example, I will bring up the Cuban definition of opposition groups. If the US used the same definition, you'd be hollering like a banshee.


That said, Cuba does have abysmal prison conditions, it does outlaw membership in fascist organizations, terrorist organizations, and groups known to be fronts for foreign governments, it does have sedition laws, and it does outlaw political parties other than the Communist Party (although elections are non-partisan and open to anyone, party members or not). As I explicitly said, I wasn't claiming that Cuba was a pure democracy. Like all states, it is inherently repressive. However, I think Maurice Bishop said it best when the U.S. criticized some of the undemocratic aspects of Grenada under his leadership: "I have two words for you: Salvador Allende." (Allende was a Chilean leftist leader who strictly upheld the highest standards of bourgeois democracy. The bourgeoisie--which had no similar compunctions--used the political space this opened up for them to organize a fascist counterrevolution.) That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me...And while I'm not not condemning the previous dictator of Cuba, Castro is far worse. Cuba is notorious for having very loose defininitions for these "fascist" groups, including defining people against Castro in any form, people who believe something other than the party line, and various other things.
On the charge of Allende, the behavior of some was very poor, but that's a risk that is taken in a free nation.
At any rate, the U.S. itself has sedition laws, detentions without trial under "material witness" or "enemy combatant" designations, a ban on Communist Party membership, severe restrictions on union membership, torture (from Abner Louima to Abu Ghraib), unfair trials (Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal), and extrajudicial executions (hundreds of police murders every year, Waco, etc.). Yet this doesn't mean that the U.S. is not a democracy. "Democracy" is a relative term, and we use it generally to designate a country where the populace has a significant ability to impact government policies. It is a judgment call whether this is true of any particular country, but in my opinion Cuba clearly fits the bill (as does the U.S.)
I love the propaganda here there's so damn much I could fill a page full of refutations, but, well, here goes
-Sedition laws: I don't know what you're talking about. You are allowed to say whatever you want in the US. I can cite several examples from around campus. But I don't feel like it.
-Material witness is a tool in crimefighting. Sometimes a person who saw a crime might attempt to flee, but his testimony is needed, and the only way to keep him/her around is through unfortuneate measures. And if you'll kindly notice recent US judicial rulings against the "enemy combatant" thing.
-Ban on communist party membership-don't know where you got that from, as I know several members of the communist party in the US. This is a commonly spread propagandistic lie.
-Torture: While unfortuneate, the torture at Abu Ghraib wasn't government policy, it may have occured from a misguided, and retracted memo, but it was individuals caught up in the moment, breaking the law.
-I laugh at the example of Mumia, as there is sufficient evidence to show that the trial wasn't biased, and that he was in fact guilty of killing the cop. Never heard of the other case though, I'll investigate further.
-Police murders? Hello! Have you ever heard of law enforcement. Sometimes it tragically does come down the deaths of a few, but only in situations where the officer's lives are believed to be in danger. The Waco incident was a failure of organization more than anything, and people were punished for that.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks shut down the Constituent Assembly with public support, because it was unrepresentative and undemocratic. This was in keeping with their public revolutionary campaign of "all power to the soviets." Lenin (again, before a qualitative change in the balance of power around 1921) issued edicts in his capacity as the elected premier with powers delegated to him by the Supreme Council of Soviets. Read Lenin's Final Fight, published by Pathfinder Press, for a detailed documentary account of Lenin's struggle during the last 2 years of his life to resist the bureaucratic tendencies that paved the way for Stalin's counterrevolution ... with more justice we might say that the "Whites," the Japanese-led invasion, and Mussolini paved the way for Stalin.How was the Constituent Assembly urepresentative and undemocratic? I'll tell you how, Lenin's party lost, and he was sore, but he still had the support of the Soviets, so he gave his "good ol' boys" power. And we might realize that Lenin was far from democratic, as is commonly documented in history. Espescially in a certain history class I took last quarter, where the prof was a marxist...

In fact, throughout this entire thread I have seen nothing from the economic authoritarians that isn't propaganda, half truths, or right out lies. I'm clearly not debating as eloquently as I was before, but I hope my points will still come across as clear.

Freedom is freedom. Freedom is not equality. Freedom is not food. Do not confuse freedom with these things.

Freedom is freedom. Freedom is not equality. Freedom is not food. Do not confuse freedom with these things.
True. But sometimes restrictions of some freedoms can lead to a different type of freedom overall, indirectly.

It is not uncommon for proponents of command economies to tout the US as a prime example of how a land of opportunity can go wrong. Trouble is, they don't realize that it's equal opportunity, not equality. Some folks are going to get screwed over, because the needs of the people of society naturally result in inequality, as some are luckier/more skilled/more intelligent, etc. than others. Trying to form an equal society where everyone gets the same amount of money isn't really feasable, (for that is what the classic utopian socialists and marxists wanted to achieve.) because human beings are not the same. Some people want more than others. Some people want as much as others, but have neither the skill nor intelligence to take what they feel they deserve. And some people are "cheated," so to speak, out of getting what they want by others, who want more or just as much, but are luckier. That's life. More importantly, a harmony of the working class cannot be achieved because the working classes of many countries are often comprised of disparate, ethnic or cultural groups that hate eachother, accusing the next immagrant of stealing their job. The entire concept of socialism and communism came out of the poor working conditions of the industrial revolution. Marx's pessimistic view point that the objectives of the business owner and the middle class are naturally opposed to the goals of the working classes was based upon his observations of the businessmen of that day. Having come from a family that owned a sizable company, I can safely say that if he believed that the workers alone were the sole source of profit in a business, he basically didn't know what he was talking about, or he did, and his ideas no longer hold any weight today. The owner of a business is the one who has the most invested in that business's success. He is the one who gets screwed over when the business is killed by a series of punitive union strikes, demanding for higher wages he can't provide, and health care that is too expensive for everyone. He is the one who has nothing else, while the workers can at least try to find a new job. He is responsible for managing basically everything in the business, while the workers are responsible only to one or two specific tasks that usually are personal, and don't require a massive amount of interaction and managing others, except in the case of supervisors. And anyone who runs a mid-sized business knows that for a truely accomplished boss, overtime isn't an option: It is a necessity. It is the owner of a business who has all the risk: while the worker only has a job to loose, the boss looses his dream of self-sufficiency and all he has invested in his enterprise. Marx clearly did not think about this when he believed that the boss was just a leach who drained the wages of the factory worker. But as a middle class man who relied on Engels for the larger part of his money, he can't be faulted for not understanding something he likely had no experience in.
But this is as far as I can really go in the discussion about communism, for I have a borderline personal vendetta against it and everything similar to it. It is the very antithesis of many of my personal values.

One more thing. Being half chinese and knowing at least a little about chinese, I can say that China is becoming more capitalist, because the younger generations of chinese rarely believe in communism anymore. Also, certain chinese cultural values are in opposition to Communism, which is degenerative to the economic well-being of families and of businesses, both which are very important to at least my chinese family, if not many others.

Communism is basically a form of anarchism. There is no real government in it. It is based on some form of direct democracy.
I guess you could call it that, but I've tended to think of it as, in the same concept of as democracy, a purposefully inefficient government designed to be "at war with itself" instead of at war with the people, who are supposed to rule. The government is so horribly ineffective that the people have control. Technically, fascism is ideally the best form of government, since one person can make choices quickly for the entire nation with no red tape. But power corrupts, and so almost all fascist states in the past, perhaps all with the exception of Cincinnatus in Rome, (who was a benevolent dictator who immediately went back to farming after winning a war for Rome) have been opressive.

[QUOTE]Beyond that, the embargo on Cuba is for reasons far more than just "CASTRO IS A COMMUNIST! OMGWTF!!!111!!11!!!" The embargo is maintained in response to Cuba's horrible human rights record, it's cooperation with the Soviets in placing offensive nuclear weapons on the island, it's downing of a civilian American Aircraft in the nineties...hell the list goes on and on.

The main reason for the blockade is because of the example Cuba sets. Human rights is obviously an excuse given Cuba's record as compared to, say, Saudi Arabia's.

Is the "civilian American aircraft" in question the plane belonging to the terrorist group Hermanos al Rescato (Brothers to the Rescue) that was shot down in 1996? If so, this just shows the double standards applied to Cuba. If a plane from a foreign country, with a long record of funding anti-U.S. terrorism, that had recently used biological weapons against the U.S., flew over the U.S.'s capital city, and the plane was NOT shot down, there'd be riots in the streets. Yet this plane, under analogous circumstances, was allowed to fly over Havana twice. Both times it was warned that if it violated Cuban airspace again it would be shot down ... after the third deliberate violation of Cuban airspace in two weeks, it was shot down ... I'd say that shows a great deal of (unjustifiable) restraint on Cuba's part.

On the charge of Allende, the behavior of some was very poor, but that's a risk that is taken in a free nation.
Not if that nation wants to remain a free nation. "Should we have ever gained our Revolution if we had bound our hands by manacles of the law, not only in the beginning, but in any part of the revolutionary conflict? There are extreme cases where the laws become inadequate even to their own preservation, and where the universal resource is a dictator or martial law." --Thomas Jefferson to James Brown, 1808

-Sedition laws: I don't know what you're talking about. You are allowed to say whatever you want in the US. I can cite several examples from around campus. But I don't feel like it.
The sedition law of 1917 is on the books. If it is not enforced, that is because of groups like the Political Rights Defense Fund.

-Material witness is a tool in crimefighting. Sometimes a person who saw a crime might attempt to flee, but his testimony is needed, and the only way to keep him/her around is through unfortuneate measures. And if you'll kindly notice recent US judicial rulings against the "enemy combatant" thing.
The material witness statute is widely abused. And if you'll kindly notice, the judicial rulings said that those designated as "enemy combatants" were entitled to speedy trials in civilian courts--instead a handful of them have been tried by military tribunals.

-Ban on communist party membership-don't know where you got that from, as I know several members of the communist party in the US. This is a commonly spread propagandistic lie.
The Communist Control Act (1954) bans Communist Party membership--again, popular opposition has prevented its enforcement.

-Torture: While unfortuneate, the torture at Abu Ghraib wasn't government policy, it may have occured from a misguided, and retracted memo, but it was individuals caught up in the moment, breaking the law.
-Police murders? Hello! Have you ever heard of law enforcement. Sometimes it tragically does come down the deaths of a few, but only in situations where the officer's lives are believed to be in danger. The Waco incident was a failure of organization more than anything, and people were punished for that.
How many "bad apples" does it take before it becomes a pattern? In cases of official abuse of power in Cuba, punishment is swift and certain (cf. the execution of 4 generals for selling drugs, for extortion, and for unauthorized attacks against the U.S., in 1993). In similar cases in the U.S., if there is sufficient international outcry over the course of months, the authorities will grudgingly give the abusers who got caught a slap on the wrist.

How was the Constituent Assembly urepresentative and undemocratic? I'll tell you how, Lenin's party lost, and he was sore, but he still had the support of the Soviets, so he gave his "good ol' boys" power.
Again, the Bolsheviks who led the October revolution made no secret of their slogan, "All power to the soviets!" around which they rallied popular support. At the time of the elections to the Constituent Assembly--which the government publicly said it was organizing in order to expose the idea of a Constituent Assembly as a "petty bourgeois illusion"--the government, based on the soviets, was a coalition of the Bolsheviks and the Left Social Revolutionaries (SRs). The members of the soviets were known personally by the people who elected them, who were generally familiar with their political programs, and many were Left SRs--that is, SRs from that section of the party that supported the revolution. In the elections to the Constituent Assembly, when voters voted for candidates along regional lines, and thus generally for candidates who were unknown to them, they voted based on party designations, and the SRs achieved a large majority in the Constituent Assembly. However, although soviet elections country-wide had shown strong support for the Left SRs, and almost NO support for the Right SRs (anti-revolution SRs), the people found that they had been swindled and that it was the Right SRs who controlled the Constituent Assembly, which went on to debate such unpopular measures as resuming the war and reversing housing reforms before being broken up.

Trying to form an equal society where everyone gets the same amount of money isn't really feasable, (for that is what the classic utopian socialists and marxists wanted to achieve.)

Actually Marxists were quite clear that their goal in distribution was "to each according to his/her needs" (although this principle first came from that utopian socialist Jesus). I.e., it is a principle that explicitly recognizes that human beings are not the same.

More importantly, a harmony of the working class cannot be achieved because the working classes of many countries are often comprised of disparate, ethnic or cultural groups that hate eachother, accusing the next immagrant of stealing their job.
Racism can be overcome, and as you point out, the working class has a vested interest in overcoming it.

He is responsible for managing basically everything in the business, while the workers are responsible only to one or two specific tasks that usually are personal, and don't require a massive amount of interaction and managing others, except in the case of supervisors.
This is largely true of the small businesses that capitalism itself is wiping out--not at all true of the large businesses where the owner doesn't work at all. At any rate, if the owner does work then part of his profit is really wages that he is paid for his own labor--which supply and demand, and the nature of competition, would require are no more than is paid his highest-paid employees. Anything beyond this is profit in the strict sense--i.e., surplus value.

He is the one who has nothing else, while the workers can at least try to find a new job.
He could always try his own hand at wage slavery.

the worker only has a job to loose, the boss looses his dream of self-sufficiency and all he has invested in his enterprise. Marx clearly did not think about this when he believed that the boss was just a leach who drained the wages of the factory worker.
Only a job to lose=only food on the table to lose, only a home to lose, only education for one's children to lose. Not to mention all the workers who lose their limbs in the meatpacking industry or their lives in coal mines. As for the dream, it is the boss's relative privilege, his wealth, that allows him to dream this dream in the first place.

China is becoming more capitalist
China's counterrevolutionary government has been pushing to reimpose capitalism for more than 50 years. China remains a workers' state--a nation characterized by a planned economy, a state monopoly on foreign trade, and state ownership of basic industry--only because of popular resistance to the government, such as the Tiananmen Square uprising, or the armed battles against police waged by miners resisting privatization.

I guess you could call it that, but I've tended to think of it as, in the same concept of as democracy, a purposefully inefficient government designed to be "at war with itself" instead of at war with the people, who are supposed to rule. The government is so horribly ineffective that the people have control. Technically, fascism is ideally the best form of government, since one person can make choices quickly for the entire nation with no red tape. But power corrupts, and so almost all fascist states in the past, perhaps all with the exception of Cincinnatus in Rome, (who was a benevolent dictator who immediately went back to farming after winning a war for Rome) have been opressive.

The truth in this is that the state is inherently dictatorial insofar as the essence of government is (class) repression. However, "fascism" is not synonymous with "dictatorship." Fascism is a modern phenomenon characterized by broad popular support for counterrevolutionary activity.

In most discussions I have with socialists/communists, my problem always seems to come when they try to say that the workers and the populous owns the methods of production and wealth collectively through the government. I just want to ask:

How can we maintain a government that is inseperable from the public? Governments have always been the most bureaucratic and hierarchical institutions in history, how does Communism counteract that and keep government from being a huge morass of corruption? I don't think I have to bring up the examples of where Communism quickly dissolved into an oppressive government.


Easy.

In communism you don't have governments or states. No need for that. People can take care of themselves.

What those guys were talking about was socialism, where the states owns everything, including the knowledge, what's right for you. But that's not different from the Church 500 years ago. And we know that doesn't work. No matter how you call it.

In most discussions I have with socialists/communists, my problem always seems to come when they try to say that the workers and the populous owns the methods of production and wealth collectively through the government. I just want to ask:

How can we maintain a government that is inseperable from the public? Governments have always been the most bureaucratic and hierarchical institutions in history, how does Communism counteract that and keep government from being a huge morass of corruption? I don't think I have to bring up the examples of where Communism quickly dissolved into an oppressive government.


The main conditions required to combat corruption are transparency and popular power.

Why transparency?
If you cant get away with it you are less likely to try.

Why popular power?
Even though you have transparency and you know corruption exists, without the power to intervene you cannot stop it.

Popular power is only possible in a democracy. But I believe communism is a kind of democracy, as is capitalism. They just have different economic philosophies.

Communism is not inherently more transparent than any other system so why expect it to be any less corrupt?

I don't have a problem with communism. I just have a problem with people who want to introduce communism. It's like giving a kid a driving license with a fake birth date and say: Now you have grown up.


If the time is right, the political system will change or be changed to match the economic system. Capitalism wasn't created in 1648. Capitalist production and institutions (like the stock exchange) existed long before that.

No matter. We now rest assured in the knowledge of the failure of planned economies. The failure of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the liberalization of China, the mass exodus from nations like Cuba, stand as evidence of this inability of planned economies. The communist ideal now lies in upon its deathbed. The liberal western democracies stand triumphantly over the ailing body of communism and planned economies, with liberty on their side. All the while, the west is attempting to bring the same freedom and prosperity they have to the defeated nations, just as it has always been.

No matter. We now rest assured in the knowledge of the failure of planned economies. The failure of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the liberalization of China, the mass exodus from nations like Cuba, stand as evidence of this inability of planned economies. The communist ideal now lies in upon its deathbed. The liberal western democracies stand triumphantly over the ailing body of communism and planned economies, with liberty on their side. All the while, the west is attempting to bring the same freedom and prosperity they have to the defeated nations, just as it has always been.
Yes, even the freakin' ghost of communism has given up on monaing and rattling it's chains.

The new ideal is "Social Democracy", which is the kinder, gentler version of old-school Socialism. Pinko-lite, if you will.

The elephant in Sweden's room is that this form of government isn't doing nearly as well as some NS'ers would have you believe.
The Swedosh economy is no longer creating jobs-- private sector employment has been shrinking for decades, and the public sector can no longer absorb more workers. The country is (strangely) taking on some bizarrely conservative notions. A backlash is developing against refugees and immigrants (who once represented Sweden's committments to human rights) who are increasingly seen as "outsiders" consuming a fixed welfare pie.
Even this form of socialism-lite is difficult to maintain because it runs head on into the political pressures facing any form of democracy-- which replaces abstract issues of "fairness" with interest-group politics and the economic pressures of open markets.

When will they give up the ghost altogether???

Easy.

In communism you don't have governments or states. No need for that. People can take care of themselves.

What those guys were talking about was socialism, where the states owns everything, including the knowledge, what's right for you. But that's not different from the Church 500 years ago. And we know that doesn't work. No matter how you call it.

We are nowhere near that situation being feasible.

It also sounds like you are talking about anarchy, which is completely infeasible.