NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello!

The questions are directed at communists and is not meant as any kind of challenge but rather enquiry.
I would like to know what would be the benefit of living in a Communist country compared to living in a capitalist one?
So far the Communist countrys have been USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, North Korea etc...
I would not class them as great societies. People were terribly oppressed especially in China in the cultural revolution.

Also how can you claim to be all for Democracy and the very nature of Communism doesnt allow for Democracy. Surely it is a right to own your own home and/or your own business. If a communist society does allow Democracy opposition partys would exist. Say an opposition party existed and they won the election and wanted to re-institute capitalism and private ownership of home' and businesses. Would you allow them to undue everything or stop them from taking their rightful power?

Do you not think Communism must be fatally flawed. I mean if it hasnt been able to get it right yet and most Communist say that there has never been a true Communist country then after 70+ years do you think it's possible?

Thank you

I think the domecracy would be people would vote for two candidates of the party like one person is a marxists ect...
But i like to think that not all communists were oppersers...
Ho chi mi(something like that) took the land frm the rich and gave it to the peasnats and even north veitnam was better than the facitis south which is why it wasn't popular.

i think the majority of communist parties in countries are flawed, but the comunist theory isn't.

The appeal comes from the idea that everyone can be considered an equal and all is done for the good of the whole.

This can easily be applied successfully to small communities, but is an impossiblity for large countries, as it will inevitablty create a ruling class.

I think the domecracy would be people would vote for two candidates of the party like one person is a marxists ect...
But i like to think that not all communists were oppersers...
Ho chi mi(something like that) took the land frm the rich and gave it to the peasnats and even north veitnam was better than the facitis south which is why it wasn't popular.

that's exactly what's most wrong with communism, imo:

stealing from some and giving it to others. If Ho stole land from the rich and redistributed it, in my mind it is a crime. The people who owned that land worked for it (or their ancestors did) and it was theirs. As in, they owned it.

Communism has little respect for personal propriety and hence I have little respect for Communism.

i think the majority of communist parties in countries are flawed, but the comunist theory isn't.

Then your communist theory only exists in your mind.

Hello!

The questions are directed at communists and is not meant as any kind of challenge but rather enquiry.
I would like to know what would be the benefit of living in a Communist country compared to living in a capitalist one?
So far the Communist countrys have been USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, North Korea etc...
I would not class them as great societies. People were terribly oppressed especially in China in the cultural revolution.

Also how can you claim to be all for Democracy and the very nature of Communism doesnt allow for Democracy. Surely it is a right to own your own home and/or your own business. If a communist society does allow Democracy opposition partys would exist. Say an opposition party existed and they won the election and wanted to re-institute capitalism and private ownership of home' and businesses. Would you allow them to undue everything or stop them from taking their rightful power?

Do you not think Communism must be fatally flawed. I mean if it hasnt been able to get it right yet and most Communist say that there has never been a true Communist country then after 70+ years do you think it's possible?

Thank you
i am not a communist, but imo whether communism is desireable or not depends on your personal perspective. if you think that the whole is more important thant the individual, then there you go - communism in a nutshell. if you believe the benefit of the individual - yourself - to be more important than that (aggregate) of all others (in crude terms) then capitalism will allow you to pursue your selfish goals, and is the system for you. if you share, or can understand or see the former perspective, i think the allure of communism is powerful. just for the record, personally, i'm something of a long-term communist - we can achieve a communist utopia in the next few hundred years - but in the now, i'm far less radical.

communism and democracy can work. just as it is unlikely (but possible) for an extremist/radical political party to win power and undo all that we hold dear today, in a democratic communist society this 'threat' would be equally as present, and just as - no more - probable.

i think communism is possible, but as i said, in the long term. i follow, in some way, the writings of one of the first socialists, Robert Owen, who argued - before Marx - that a socialist society would be possible to achieve over a long period of time, using education to change people's behaviour more towards the first type mentioned above. to 'have a national policy for the formation of character' (i think that one was Owen... :confused: ). i agree that human nature is maleable, and that this is possible in the very long term. in the short term, however, communism will always fall due to our current greedy, selfish and self-centred 'human nature' that corrupts the ideology.

The questions are directed at communists and is not meant as any kind of challenge but rather enquiry.
I would like to know what would be the benefit of living in a Communist country compared to living in a capitalist one?
So far the Communist countrys have been USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, North Korea etc...
I would not class them as great societies. People were terribly oppressed especially in China in the cultural revolution.


There is no obvious advantage for living in a communist society. People stay either because they're not allowed out, or because it's a long walk and their vehicle has been taken from them in the interest of social equality.

As for democracy/communism, you're right. Communism would never be repeatedly desired by a social majority, since the majority of people would be starving, oppressed and without possessions. Communism can support neither freedom or democracy, because its implementation must involve what is essentially theft by the state (be the state a dictator or a big soviet full of factory workers) and removal of political opposition.

Yes, communism has some huge gaping logical holes. More gaping holes than most other political philosophies.

Lets us not forget Lenin's words saying that democracy is a key element of a true communist society. Those aren't his exact words, but I didn't change them too much.

Anyway, the problem with most, if not all of the communist revolutions of the 20th century was that the revolutionary leader gained too much power and ended up establishing a dictatorship with the support of the people. An ideal situation would be for the leader to relenquish his power once the new government was established, but very few revolutionary leaders have had the conscience to do this.

It took centuries for women to successfully gain any serious freedom. It took centuries for democratic republics to be successfully implimented. Just because one form of socialism has a poor track record doesn't mean that communism is impossible.

As a communist, I'd be delighted to reply to your questions:

I would like to know what would be the benefit of living in a Communist country compared to living in a capitalist one?
That's simple: Communism abolishes the exploitation of man by man in general, and capitalist exploitation in particular.

So what is this exploitation I'm talking about? Allow me to explain:

In a capitalist business, every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or with the work he puts into it.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. You see, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and the amount of money they are willing to work for. Essentially, his wage depends almost entirely on what other people do.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. Profit comes from the difference between what the worker rightfully earns and the salary he gets. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

So far the Communist countrys have been USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, North Korea etc...
These countries never even claimed to be communist. They claimed to be on the way towards communism. They were called "communist countries" by the West, but they never called themselves that.

Of course, most people would say that those countries' governments were lying when they said they were trying to achieve communism, but that's another story.

And as a side note, North Korea has officially rejected all connections to communism (and removed all mentions of marxism from its constitution) during the 1970's.

Also how can you claim to be all for Democracy and the very nature of Communism doesnt allow for Democracy. Surely it is a right to own your own home and/or your own business.
150 years ago, many people would have argued that it is your right to own slaves.

But, by the way, what do you mean by "own"? In communism, the people own the means of production, so you DO, in fact, own a share of every business in the country (so to speak). As for your home, of course you have exclusive rights to use it.

If a communist society does allow Democracy opposition partys would exist.
Certainly, anti-communist parties would exist in a communist system just like anti-capitalist parties exist in a capitalist system. So?

Say an opposition party existed and they won the election and wanted to re-institute capitalism and private ownership of home' and businesses. Would you allow them to undue everything or stop them from taking their rightful power?
We would certainly allow them to take power. You see, we have full confidence in the superiority of communism over capitalism, so we are not worried by any anti-communist factions that might still exist in a communist system.

In theory, it would be possible in the present capitalist system for a feudalist party to win the elections and return us to a feudal system. But that's very, VERY unlikely. In the same way, it would be equally unlikely for a capitalist party to win the elections in a communist system.

Do you not think Communism must be fatally flawed. I mean if it hasnt been able to get it right yet and most Communist say that there has never been a true Communist country then after 70+ years do you think it's possible?
Oh, the Soviet model for reaching communism (i.e. the model based on the actions of Russian Bolsheviks immediately following the 1917 October revolution) obviously is flawed. The flaw lies in the fact that the Soviet model allows for the concentration of power in the hands of the Communist Party and may lead to dictatorship (which in turn leads to poor economic planning, since, without democratic elections, the planners don't have to worry about satisfying the needs of the people).

We have no intention of trying the same thing again. Clearly, we need a much more democratic model the second time around - one with proper checks and precautions to prevent any concentration of power.

They weren't Communist. They had a planned economic system, but they were oppressive dictatorships, not Communisms.

Any Communist who agrees with Democracy is a hypocrite. Communism can only fonction under anarchy, simply because any government will cause an oppressive dictatorship.

The countries were not sufficiently industrialised. Communism requires a high level of industrialisation. Communism can also be instated in one of two places, a globalised Communism or a small community Communism. This is because it is easy for a small community to be self-sufficient, it is easy for the world union to be self-sufficient. But it is nearly impossible for a single country to be self-sufficient. It simply lacks the variety of ressources, so it crumbles, and once it crumbles, it degrades into a dictatorship.

It is for this reason I am a believer in economic evolution. It began with a communism in a bunch of small communities. As they expanded, they turned to a traditional economy, because their range wasn't big enough yet and they weren't industrialised sufficiently to maintain Communism. Then it became a capitalism, leading to an explosion of economic and industrial growth. This explosion would set the framework for later. But also like an explosion, it rapidly loses its strength. People are oppressed etc. until the government steps in and institutes a socialism. Socialism allows for free business with certain government restrictions. This socialism will steadily become more and more government controlled, and the government will steadily yield to the public, in an attempt to prevent itself from being overthrown. Until finally, after we are industrialised, globalised and free enterprise and government become weakened to non-existant, we'll enter a Communism. Then it will repeat, minus the traditional economy stage.

Lets us not forget Lenin's words saying that democracy is a key element of a true communist society. Those aren't his exact words, but I didn't change them too much.


But when Lenin realized that the Bolsheviks were grossly outnumbered by the other components in post-revolutionary government, didn't he immediately run around saying that they could do away with "borgeious democracy"? Didn't he actually coin the term "dictatorship of the proletariat"?

stealing from some and giving it to others. If Ho stole land from the rich and redistributed it, in my mind it is a crime. The people who owned that land worked for it (or their ancestors did) and it was theirs. As in, they owned it.
Uh, just because you own something doesn't mean you acquired it through rightful means. You might have stolen it from someone else. Or (as is always the case with aristocrats), your ancestors stole it, and you inherited it from them.

In fact, ALL land on Earth was stolen at some point or another in its history.

But when Lenin realized that the Bolsheviks were grossly outnumbered by the other components in post-revolutionary government, didn't he immediately run around saying that they could do away with "borgeious democracy"? Didn't he actually coin the term "dictatorship of the proletariat"?
No. And it was never his intention to create a one-party state - the problem was that a civil war followed the revolution, and, in that civil war, the various different parties clashed violently with each other. In the end, the communists were the only ones left standing.

And by the way, it's true that the Bolsheviks were outnumbered in the post-revolutionary democratic government - but they were outnumbered by other socialists. (communists are one particular subset of socialists)

there is democracy in communism. if the workers control everything and they are the majority, isn't that majority rule, and the way democracy works? The theory is beautiful. everyones equal, everyone having there needs fulfilled, after that wat is left? no-one knows b/c we wake up everyday just to have our needs filled. maybe if we had everything handed to us, maybe we can get enlightenment like none before. The problem comes with shitty ass dictators, and people not willing be =. and everyone saids "ohhh no in a communist state u will never be free" the way i see it when u have anyone other then u making the rules, u will never be free.


On a lighter note, i got a job interview tommower! I can't wait, I can get up go to school, then to work, to pay bills, so i can go to college, to work, to pay more bills, so then i can start working to pay for more bills, so i can get married and pay for my kids stuff and work until i'm 50 to retire for a week until i relized there is no SS left and i have to go back to work, so one weekend i can rent a gun and buy a bullet and end all the pain!!!! WOOOOO I CAN'T WAIT!!!!! GOOD BLESS OUR MEANINGLESS LIFES!!!!!

But when Lenin realized that the Bolsheviks were grossly outnumbered by the other components in post-revolutionary government, didn't he immediately run around saying that they could do away with "borgeious democracy"? Didn't he actually coin the term "dictatorship of the proletariat"?

Actually, I'm told Marx coined it as a contrast to dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

There's the whole dialectic materialism thing which Russia didn't follow by trying to skip over capitalism.

As for democracy/communism, you're right. Communism would never be repeatedly desired by a social majority, since the majority of people would be starving, oppressed and without possessions.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a fancy way of saying "communism is bad because I say so".

Uh, just because you own something doesn't mean you acquired it through rightful means. You might have stolen it from someone else. Or (as is always the case with aristocrats), your ancestors stole it, and you inherited it from them.

In fact, ALL land on Earth was stolen at some point or another in its history.

A capitalist system generally outlaws theft and handling or selling stolen goods, just like most other civilized systems do. As for crimes that happens hundreds or even thousands of years ago, does it really matter? And if it does, well, if it can be proven that a piece of property rightly belongs to someone other than its current "owner", the law is obliged to obtain it and return it to that other person.

A capitalist system generally outlaws theft and handling or selling stolen goods, just like most other civilized systems do.
Of course. But capitalism itself was created through a redistribution of property - "theft" from the aristocracy, if you will (the aristocracy itself had acquired that property through brute force).

As for crimes that happens hundreds or even thousands of years ago, does it really matter? And if it does, well, if it can be proven that a piece of property rightly belongs to someone other than its current "owner", the law is obliged to obtain it and return it to that other person.
Yeah, right.

Much of the land in the United States was stolen from the indians, but how much are you willing to bet that they're not about to get it back?

By the way, here's my answer to the original questions (sorry to post it again, but you know how posts get overlooked in here).

I would like to know what would be the benefit of living in a Communist country compared to living in a capitalist one?
That's simple: Communism abolishes the exploitation of man by man in general, and capitalist exploitation in particular.

So what is this exploitation I'm talking about? Allow me to explain:

In a capitalist business, every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or with the work he puts into it.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. You see, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and the amount of money they are willing to work for. Essentially, his wage depends almost entirely on what other people do.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. Profit comes from the difference between what the worker rightfully earns and the salary he gets. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

So far the Communist countrys have been USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, North Korea etc...
These countries never even claimed to be communist. They claimed to be on the way towards communism. They were called "communist countries" by the West, but they never called themselves that.

Of course, most people would say that those countries' governments were lying when they said they were trying to achieve communism, but that's another story.

And as a side note, North Korea has officially rejected all connections to communism (and removed all mentions of marxism from its constitution) during the 1970's.

Also how can you claim to be all for Democracy and the very nature of Communism doesnt allow for Democracy. Surely it is a right to own your own home and/or your own business.
150 years ago, many people would have argued that it is your right to own slaves.

But, by the way, what do you mean by "own"? In communism, the people own the means of production, so you DO, in fact, own a share of every business in the country (so to speak). As for your home, of course you have exclusive rights to use it.

If a communist society does allow Democracy opposition partys would exist.
Certainly, anti-communist parties would exist in a communist system just like anti-capitalist parties exist in a capitalist system. So?

Say an opposition party existed and they won the election and wanted to re-institute capitalism and private ownership of home' and businesses. Would you allow them to undue everything or stop them from taking their rightful power?
We would certainly allow them to take power. You see, we have full confidence in the superiority of communism over capitalism, so we are not worried by any anti-communist factions that might still exist in a communist system.

In theory, it would be possible in the present capitalist system for a feudalist party to win the elections and return us to a feudal system. But that's very, VERY unlikely. In the same way, it would be equally unlikely for a capitalist party to win the elections in a communist system.

Do you not think Communism must be fatally flawed. I mean if it hasnt been able to get it right yet and most Communist say that there has never been a true Communist country then after 70+ years do you think it's possible?
Oh, the Soviet model for reaching communism (i.e. the model based on the actions of Russian Bolsheviks immediately following the 1917 October revolution) obviously is flawed. The flaw lies in the fact that the Soviet model allows for the concentration of power in the hands of the Communist Party and may lead to dictatorship (which in turn leads to poor economic planning, since, without democratic elections, the planners don't have to worry about satisfying the needs of the people).

We have no intention of trying the same thing again. Clearly, we need a much more democratic model the second time around - one with proper checks and precautions to prevent any concentration of power.

As a final note before I leave, you can take a look over my nation's NSwiki page (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Constantinopolis) to see how a socialist country (that is, a country that actually IS on the way towards communism) would look like. Be sure to check out the sections on politics and economics. :)

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a fancy way of saying "communism is bad because I say so".

Very well. My intent was to avoid a lengthy description of why communism is bad but here it comes. I'm going to explain exactly why they would be starving, oppressed and without possessions.

Starving
Collectivisation in farming doesn't work. Hardly anybody wants to have their farm torn to pieces and then be shipped off to some communal farm where both the amount of work they do and the amount of compensation they recieve is regulated by someone else. I know I wouldn't want to. Private farmers and farming groups would be outraged at being told what to do with their food, and crops would probably be burned, horse hamstrung and so on.

Angry, striking farmers and scorched farms don't feed nations.

Oppressed
I am certain that the majority of people today do not want to live in a communist or other collectivist system. Otherwise, we would see communist states popping up all over the place as democratic nations voted communists into power. Now, if the majority of people oppose the system which is in power, they aren't going to happily dance off with hammers and sickles slung over their shoulders to farm and build their way to victory for the greater good. They're going to riot. The only real way to sustain such an unpopular system of government is through oppression, and a distinct lack of democracy if the voting majority would oppose it in an election or similar.

Without possessions
Abolition of private property and private means of production is a central tenet of communism. Possessions are private property. If you take away private property, you take away possessions.

That's where my claim that the populace would be starving, oppressed and without possessions comes from.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a fancy way of saying "communism is bad because of the reasons I have stated in detail above".

On a lighter note, i got a job interview tommower! I can't wait, I can get up go to school, then to work, to pay bills, so i can go to college, to work, to pay more bills, so then i can start working to pay for more bills, so i can get married and pay for my kids stuff and work until i'm 50 to retire for a week until i relized there is no SS left and i have to go back to work, so one weekend i can rent a gun and buy a bullet and end all the pain!!!! WOOOOO I CAN'T WAIT!!!!! GOOD BLESS OUR MEANINGLESS LIFES!!!!!
hey wow, i used to think like that, until quite recently too.
however, i realised that, rationally, there's nothing i can do to change this fact - instead of resenting the notion that there is no meaning to life, and that all life seems to be is live-work-die, i have come to accept it as the sad truth, and subsequently stopped caring. i feel much better about things now, too. i just try to get through the day and get what (absolutley) needs to be done, done. live your life day-by-day and just worry about whats coming up tomorrow - rather than what might happen, or not happen, in the rest of your life. concentrate on the now, and don't worry about the future.
if we're anything alike, that advice might be helpful in some way - it helped me anyway :)

Yeah, right.

Much of the land in the United States was stolen from the indians, but how much are you willing to bet that they're not about to get it back?

I think you're mixing up "stolen" with "exchanged for gold and whiskey". Sure, that was an immoral thing to do, but it wasn't theft. And I expect that yes, probably a bit of actual theft went on too. It happened hundreds of years ago though, and in a situation where no government existed with enough power to prevent such theft in many cases.

If someone came and stole land from someone else today, they would be able to appeal to the law and get their land back.

I disagree with the communists on this board who believe that it would be desirable to change human nature to be less individualistic. Because of his individual desires, a worker goes to his job and makes things that other people buy because these things help the people to survive and thrive. Thus, his individualism is good for society. Because of their individualism, people demand the best trades for the goods they want, seeking out the cheapest source of these goods. Thus, the individualism of buyers causes workers to produce goods more efficiently, using less of the society's resources.

Most social situations work like this. One person or group achieves good when other persons or groups try to achieve good for themselves. The government does not need to interfere in these situations because people will make the whole society better by acting naturally (in self-interest). However, a few situations, like the prisoners' dilemma, cause people to lose when they all act in their own self-interest. I believe that the government is responsible for directing people's behavior during these situations.

For an example, think about the classical prisoners' dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma). In this situation, both parties lose by each acting in his own self interest. If the criminals had had a system (a government) that could enforce a rule that kept them from doing this, they would both benefit. Therefore, they would both be willing to have this government. Also, in some situations, one party benefits at the others' expense so much so that society as a whole loses. For instance, if one person can gain $3 by making another person lose $3 or more. The government should also protect against these occurences. Furthermore, the government should protect against irrational behavior that hurts society, like serial murder. Other than this, the government needs not interfere with the actions of its citizens because these actions will benefit the whole. This includes most forms of trade.

Originally Posted by Constantinopolis
Wages are only influenced by the labour market. You see, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and the amount of money they are willing to work for. Essentially, his wage depends almost entirely on what other people do.


You state that wage depends on supply and demand. In other words, it depends on how many other people do what he does (the supply), and how much companies demand his work (the demand, which you forgot). Thus, he does have great control over his wage because he can choose what job he will take (to a certain extent), so that he can choose the job that companies demand the most, but in which there are not enough workers at the time.
Trade works two ways. Companies pay their employers a certain amount determined by how much the companies value the production of the employers in terms of money and how much the employers value the company's money in terms of work.

I've always viewed communism much like I've viewed anarcho-capitalism,...very idealistic, and in todays paradigm, very dangerous. As long as man doesn't think the same, we shouldn't expect him to be the same--especially when it comes down to the 'radical' sides.

Influencing a communist or fundie to abandon their beliefs is useless, I would much rather have them live it for themselves. But then agains, I'm not saying these two mentalities are any worse than the 'norm'.

Hello!

The questions are directed at communists and is not meant as any kind of challenge but rather enquiry.
I would like to know what would be the benefit of living in a Communist country compared to living in a capitalist one?
So far the Communist countrys have been USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, North Korea etc...
I would not class them as great societies. People were terribly oppressed especially in China in the cultural revolution.

Also how can you claim to be all for Democracy and the very nature of Communism doesnt allow for Democracy. Surely it is a right to own your own home and/or your own business. If a communist society does allow Democracy opposition partys would exist. Say an opposition party existed and they won the election and wanted to re-institute capitalism and private ownership of home' and businesses. Would you allow them to undue everything or stop them from taking their rightful power?

Do you not think Communism must be fatally flawed. I mean if it hasnt been able to get it right yet and most Communist say that there has never been a true Communist country then after 70+ years do you think it's possible?

Thank you

True, unless all the oposition parties were also communist. Kinda like all parties in America or Canada are (for the most part) capitalist.

Different types of Communism..Communism is sort of like a type of chinese whispers.........It starts of as something shining, new and inventive but as time goes on it is misread and sometimes leads to Juche/dictatorship style countries who appy rules that they perceive communist

We would certainly allow them to take power. You see, we have full confidence in the superiority of communism over capitalism, so we are not worried by any anti-communist factions that might still exist in a communist system.

In theory, it would be possible in the present capitalist system for a feudalist party to win the elections and return us to a feudal system. But that's very, VERY unlikely. In the same way, it would be equally unlikely for a capitalist party to win the elections in a communist system.

The capitalists in many countries TOLERATE communist parties so long as they aren't a threat to capitalist power, either because they're not strong enough or because their agenda is openly capitulationist and non-revolutionary (like the CPUSA or many of the electoral communist parties). The second we actually become a threat to the power of the capitalist system, they torture us, brutalize us and outright murder us. Even under circumstances ideal for the capitalist powers, we're arrested on bogus charges and sometimes murdered by police agents.

Why should the consideration we give to them be any different? Obviously we can't use the same methods of repression that the enemy uses to keep us down, but we have to recognize that the bastards ARE willing to shed buckets full of blood in order to stay where they are or topple what we have created.

I think you underestimate the difficulty of getting from here to there, from getting over the hump of moving forward from capitalism to socialism. The capitalists won't let us come to power voluntarily, not even if we win in elections, under ANY circumstances, a fact that history has made abundantly clear to us. One only need look at what happened to Allende, or in Moldova where the Communist Party heads the government but capitalism remains intact. Fact is, revolution is the only way for the proletariat to seize power in capitalist or oppressed, semi-colonial states, and that involves the use of force.

I see what you're saying in that, under socialism, Marxism should not be made into a state religion and dissent and debate should be encouraged. But that doesn't mean a socialist government should just 'let it happen' if capitalist forces try to achieve power again. There is a middle ground between just letting the bad guys win and shooting everybody who disagrees with you.

Kanendru, I disagree with your assessment of how capitalist nations treat ruling communist parties. Although those communists have political power, that power is limited by the nation's constitution. For instance, the American constitution guarentees that the US government will never deprive any citizen of property except with due process of law (Article XIV section 1). This guarentees that people will have the right to own property, including business capital, unless the government must cease it for the safety of other citizens; but this will only occur when a proper warrant has been issued.
Thus, even if the people elect a communist president and a majority communist congress, the United States would remain a capitalist nation, unless a further amendment to the constitution changed this.

Precisely. You hit the nail right on the head - a situation like that is precisely why a socialist country can't come to fruition with communist parties playing by capitalist rulebooks. Revolution, the total overthrow of the old capitalist state and its armed forces is an absolute necessity to bring about the kind of change we want to see.

As for how capitalists treat communist parties, you basically proved my point: that they engage in openly terroristic repression mostly in circumstances where we pose a REAL THREAT to their continued existance.

Precisely. You hit the nail right on the head - a situation like that is precisely why a socialist country can't come to fruition with communist parties playing by capitalist rulebooks. Revolution, the total overthrow of the old capitalist state and its armed forces is an absolute necessity to bring about the kind of change we want to see.

As for how capitalists treat communist parties, you basically proved my point: that they engage in openly terroristic repression mostly in circumstances where we pose a REAL THREAT to their continued existance.

By defending against military coup? You've just admitted that communists shouldn't intend to reach power through democratic election. To be honest, I think moderate, democratic governments are protecting the interests of their citizens if they prevent attempted coups which would take away the freedom of the populace.

Also how can you claim to be all for Democracy and the very nature of Communism doesnt allow for Democracy. Surely it is a right to own your own home and/or your own business. If a communist society does allow Democracy opposition partys would exist. Say an opposition party existed and they won the election and wanted to re-institute capitalism and private ownership of home' and businesses. Would you allow them to undue everything or stop them from taking their rightful power?


That's right, communism doesn't allow for democracy, because in an ideal communist society, democracy is of no use--everybody's the same, so there would not be any disputes that need to be solved by way of democracy.

By the way, I disagree with the notion that own properties is a natural right. When humans' ancestors first came to this world (by whatever means), they didn't immediately divide the surface of Earth up and start claiming properties. The owning of properties has stemmed from human greed. For me, it's rather that Nature owns us instead of us owning nature.


Do you not think Communism must be fatally flawed. I mean if it hasnt been able to get it right yet and most Communist say that there has never been a true Communist country then after 70+ years do you think it's possible?

The problem, I think, is that to achieve a true communist society, there must be no social classes, no political organizations, and such. Obviously, in the real world this is not going to happen, as everyone needs a propaganda machine (e.g. a political party) to actually do anything. Then comes the power struggles, the classical scheme of politics, and the ideal is forgotten.

Communism has pure principles which basically defend the rights of fellow human beings, and equality for all. A democratically elected communist government is not sustainable, because human beings are too easily corrupted. People would turn towards personal greed at the expense of others, and become drawn towards capitalism and other evil influences. The best possible communism is an authoritarian one.

First, a military coup or change in policy by an existing power would be necessary.

The next step would be to execute political opponents, and sieze all private property of any value

Next, all industries would be nationalised.

Any political opponents who have re-emerged by this time should be purged.

At this stage, the economy should have taken a kick up the backside, and the monies gained should be used to improve the quality of life for the population.

Any political opponents who have re-emerged must again be disposed of.

By repeating the last few steps, we should eventually reach an authoritarian communism with no opposition, in which the people recieve countless facilities from the frightening economy. The idea of democracy would be pointless, as everybody is happy.

I believe that there are many flaws within communist ideology. Communism is supposed to be total "equality", yet a ruling class is needed in order to direct a communist nation. In communism, everyone is supposed to work happily, with everyone recieving the same benefits. In reality though, if you take away a person's ability to personally advance themselves, what incentive is there to work? People who are proponents of communism are in denial of the fact that humans are selfish and greedy, and that is part of our nature.

That's right, communism doesn't allow for democracy, because in an ideal communist society, democracy is of no use--everybody's the same, so there would not be any disputes that need to be solved by way of democracy.

How can everybody possibly be the same? How can that possibly be a moral resolution to the problems of humanity?

By the way, I disagree with the notion that own properties is a natural right. When humans' ancestors first came to this world (by whatever means), they didn't immediately divide the surface of Earth up and start claiming properties. The owning of properties has stemmed from human greed. For me, it's rather that Nature owns us instead of us owning nature.

That last sentence doesn't make any sense, whatsoever.

But anyways, property rights has been a central aspect of society since the dawn of civilization. Sometimes land is included in that bundle of rights, sometimes not, but property always has.

The problem, I think, is that to achieve a true communist society, there must be no social classes, no political organizations, and such. Obviously, in the real world this is not going to happen, as everyone needs a propaganda machine (e.g. a political party) to actually do anything. Then comes the power struggles, the classical scheme of politics, and the ideal is forgotten.

Here we agree, a pure socialism or communism is impossible.

Communism has pure principles which basically defend the rights of fellow human beings, and equality for all. A democratically elected communist government is not sustainable, because human beings are too easily corrupted. People would turn towards personal greed at the expense of others, and become drawn towards capitalism and other evil influences. The best possible communism is an authoritarian one.

First, a military coup or change in policy by an existing power would be necessary.

The next step would be to execute political opponents, and sieze all private property of any value

Next, all industries would be nationalised.

Any political opponents who have re-emerged by this time should be purged.

At this stage, the economy should have taken a kick up the backside, and the monies gained should be used to improve the quality of life for the population.

Any political opponents who have re-emerged must again be disposed of.

By repeating the last few steps, we should eventually reach an authoritarian communism with no opposition, in which the people recieve countless facilities from the frightening economy. The idea of democracy would be pointless, as everybody is happy.

Everybody is happy? To sum up what you've just said:

First, we take control by killing the current, elected leadership.
Then we kill some people, and take everybody's things.
Then we outlaw all private industry.
Then we kill some more people.
Then we give out our stolen loot, and the economy has suffered incredible damage.
Then we kill some more people.
Repeat.
Then everybody is happy.

What kind of insane gaping gash in your logic leads you to believe that large amounts of killing and oppression will lead to everybody being happy? Your "road map to human happiness" is nothing short of absurd.

Communism has pure principles which basically defend the rights of fellow human beings, and equality for all. A democratically elected communist government is not sustainable, because human beings are too easily corrupted. People would turn towards personal greed at the expense of others, and become drawn towards capitalism and other evil influences. The best possible communism is an authoritarian one.

First, a military coup or change in policy by an existing power would be necessary.

The next step would be to execute political opponents, and sieze all private property of any value

Next, all industries would be nationalised.

Any political opponents who have re-emerged by this time should be purged.

At this stage, the economy should have taken a kick up the backside, and the monies gained should be used to improve the quality of life for the population.

Any political opponents who have re-emerged must again be disposed of.

By repeating the last few steps, we should eventually reach an authoritarian communism with no opposition, in which the people recieve countless facilities from the frightening economy. The idea of democracy would be pointless, as everybody is happy.

That is just a silly idea. The economy will not be frightening, and a small portion of the population will be happy.

All in all, authoritarian governments are never morally justifiable.

How can everybody possibly be the same? How can that possibly be a moral resolution to the problems of humanity?

If I didn't say it clear enough, let me explain. By "everybody's the same" I mean "everybody has the same social status, share the same utilities, etc". In an IDEAL communist society, since everybody basically share the same things, there should be no disputes, as no notion of properties exist. Also, IDEALLY, since everyone is supposed to be living collectively, the society is supposed to be based not on individuals, but regarded as a whole, a "swarm". If the society thinks and acts as one person, no democracy would be needed.


But anyways, property rights has been a central aspect of society since the dawn of civilization. Sometimes land is included in that bundle of rights, sometimes not, but property always has.

I agree with you, property rights has been a central aspect of human society, but that doesn't necessarily make it right.

Communism has pure principles which basically defend the rights of fellow human beings, and equality for all. A democratically elected communist government is not sustainable, because human beings are too easily corrupted. People would turn towards personal greed at the expense of others, and become drawn towards capitalism and other evil influences. The best possible communism is an authoritarian one.

First, a military coup or change in policy by an existing power would be necessary.

The next step would be to execute political opponents, and sieze all private property of any value

Next, all industries would be nationalised.

Any political opponents who have re-emerged by this time should be purged.

At this stage, the economy should have taken a kick up the backside, and the monies gained should be used to improve the quality of life for the population.

Any political opponents who have re-emerged must again be disposed of.

By repeating the last few steps, we should eventually reach an authoritarian communism with no opposition, in which the people recieve countless facilities from the frightening economy. The idea of democracy would be pointless, as everybody is happy.

Marx had never said that the best government, communism or otherwise, is an authoritarian one. The stronger the oppression, the stronger the opposition. Also, an authoritarian government would only make the dictator/top gov't officials happy, if the dictator/top gov't officials be any true humans.
And that comes back to the question of whether human nature is good or bad. If it's essentially good, then any kind of government would work. If it's bad, then no kind of government would work well, and a lot of political philosophers would spend the bulk of their time hypothesizing.

If I didn't say it clear enough, let me explain. By "everybody's the same" I mean "everybody has the same social status, share the same utilities, etc". In an IDEAL communist society, since everybody basically share the same things, there should be no disputes, as no notion of properties exist. Also, IDEALLY, since everyone is supposed to be living collectively, the society is supposed to be based not on individuals, but regarded as a whole, a "swarm". If the society thinks and acts as one person, no democracy would be needed.

To assume there would be no disputes is silly. Obviously people would have different preferences as to what money should be spent on. To me it sounds like a society of drones.

I agree with you, property rights has been a central aspect of human society, but that doesn't necessarily make it right.

It is true that tradition doesn't make something right. But I believe that it is a good tradition. Autonomy is the most valuable aspect of the human experience.

Unfortunately, I believe CC is taking what I said to the OPPOSITE extreme of Constantinopolis. The latter is, in my opinion, a little idealistic in his thinking (no offense); the former, on the other hand, seems to believe that people are not capable of running society themselves and that the masses cannot be relied upon for anything, and therefore communism MUST be a harsh and repressive dictatorship in order to work. I'll get into what exactly I think his errors are later, since I'm workin and don't have time to type much more than this.

Very well. My intent was to avoid a lengthy description of why communism is bad but here it comes. I'm going to explain exactly why they would be starving, oppressed and without possessions.

Starving
Collectivisation in farming doesn't work. Hardly anybody wants to have their farm torn to pieces and then be shipped off to some communal farm where both the amount of work they do and the amount of compensation they recieve is regulated by someone else. I know I wouldn't want to. Private farmers and farming groups would be outraged at being told what to do with their food, and crops would probably be burned, horse hamstrung and so on.

Angry, striking farmers and scorched farms don't feed nations.

Oppressed
I am certain that the majority of people today do not want to live in a communist or other collectivist system. Otherwise, we would see communist states popping up all over the place as democratic nations voted communists into power. Now, if the majority of people oppose the system which is in power, they aren't going to happily dance off with hammers and sickles slung over their shoulders to farm and build their way to victory for the greater good. They're going to riot. The only real way to sustain such an unpopular system of government is through oppression, and a distinct lack of democracy if the voting majority would oppose it in an election or similar.

Without possessions
Abolition of private property and private means of production is a central tenet of communism. Possessions are private property. If you take away private property, you take away possessions.

That's where my claim that the populace would be starving, oppressed and without possessions comes from.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a fancy way of saying "communism is bad because of the reasons I have stated in detail above".


Ill go through this point by point.

1. Right now in the U.S. the only thing preventing the "collectivisation" of farms by big buisness, i.e. corporate farming like is big in Iowa, are Federal subsidees to family farmers, and I'm pretty sure that Federal subsidees are more socialist policies than capitalist.
2. If you look the majority of the Free world IS becoming more socialistic in its polices, we in the US are one of the only major exceptions, but thats because we are crazzy far to the right wing compared to the rest of the free world.
3. No one supports that level of abolition of private property, that mainly refers to the abolition of privately owned buisnesses, and today some people have defined it more tightly as the abolition of corporations and big buisness.

Ill go through this point by point.

1. Right now in the U.S. the only thing preventing the "collectivisation" of farms by big buisness, i.e. corporate farming like is big in Iowa, are Federal subsidees to family farmers, and I'm pretty sure that Federal subsidees are more socialist policies than capitalist.

This is true, the farming industry is not very profitable unless done on a large scale. The government subsidizes farms when it would probably best if they were owned by the government.

2. If you look the majority of the Free world IS becoming more socialistic in its polices, we in the US are one of the only major exceptions, but thats because we are crazzy far to the right wing compared to the rest of the free world.

Not quite, the central tenet of socialism is private ownership of production resources. While a great deal of countries are enhancing their wealth redistribution policies, they are nowhere near socialist. The wealth redistribution in these countries are much more human rights policies than economic policies.

3. No one supports that level of abolition of private property, that mainly refers to the abolition of privately owned buisnesses, and today some people have defined it more tightly as the abolition of corporations and big buisness.

Agreed, Dogburg was a little obtuse in his discription of communism.

With that said, I don't think there should be any restriction of property rights, unless said property rights hinders a free market or a free society.

Ill go through this point by point.
No one supports that level of abolition of private property, that mainly refers to the abolition of privately owned buisnesses, and today some people have defined it more tightly as the abolition of corporations and big buisness.
So running a business is fine, as long as it doesnt become successful..... that makes sense...

So running a business is fine, as long as it doesnt become successful..... that makes sense...

That is a problem with communism that I would like to see rectified, maybe AnarchyeL will explain this.

Ill go through this point by point.

1. Right now in the U.S. the only thing preventing the "collectivisation" of farms by big buisness, i.e. corporate farming like is big in Iowa, are Federal subsidees to family farmers, and I'm pretty sure that Federal subsidees are more socialist policies than capitalist.
2. If you look the majority of the Free world IS becoming more socialistic in its polices, we in the US are one of the only major exceptions, but thats because we are crazzy far to the right wing compared to the rest of the free world.
3. No one supports that level of abolition of private property, that mainly refers to the abolition of privately owned buisnesses, and today some people have defined it more tightly as the abolition of corporations and big buisness.

The farming market being dominated by large businesses does not equate to collectivisation. Farmers in capitalist countries are not forced to go and work for large farming corporations, and those corporations don't determine that they aren't allowed to leave, or allowed to determine what they should own.

Actually, most of the western world is capitalist. Of course, in almost all nations, policy will be a blend of capitalist and socialist policies, but as for countries like the UK, France, Germany, Australia and the like, although our governments are sometimes more socialist than those of American government, our economies are still based on the tenets of capitalism - freedom to buy and sell essentially as one pleases.

As for the "only abolishing big business", I'll just reinforce Pwnsylvakia's point. How does outlawing the top performers in any industry encourage growth and success? If the less successful companies get more rewards while the more successful are banned, what incentive is there to succeed?

I hate communists but I also hate capitalist. USSR was stalinist not communist, although similar

Capitalism oppresses people as seen by britain and create biaism making the rich get a slap on the wrist when the poor get the full extent of the ethical law. In a capitalist society it is hard to advanced ranks when you are born poor and the undeserving (The Hilton sisters or whoever they are on the simple life) could be richer then the honest working class man in their whole lives. Capitalism is the manifestation of evil as it brings in greed and is not what you know but who you know. The person who discovers the cure for HIV and AIDS (not proved to be linked) will still get less then a major league baseball player who does not work but entertains (damn capitalist).

Communism on the other hand is equal (in theory) and there for the oppression is equal. The wages are the same eliminating biaism and since there are no classes or class antagonism. The people do not get greedy since they are nothing but the nessicities. The government sometimes force jobs to the most able.

In my opinion communism is better but i hate it and capitalism.

You hatew both capitalism and communism?!! Geez, most people who like one or the other. I know that capitalism has its faults and that it creates extreme class divisions, but it also allows people the freedom to rise to their place in society.

If not capitalism or communism, then what ideology do you like? Fascism?

Communism on the other hand is equal (in theory) and there for the oppression is equal. The wages are the same eliminating biaism and since there are no classes or class antagonism. The people do not get greedy since they are nothing but the nessicities. The government sometimes force jobs to the most able.


Au contraire, I'd suggest that forcing everyone to have "nothing but the nessicities[sic]" causes people to be more greedy, since they'll start to wonder why they're only allowed to eat a slice of bread/bowl of rice/whatever per day. And when they find out, they'll want to be able to eat more.

You hatew both capitalism and communism?!! Geez, most people who like one or the other. I know that capitalism has its faults and that it creates extreme class divisions, but it also allows people the freedom to rise to their place in society.

If not capitalism or communism, then what ideology do you like? Fascism?

Nien. I made my own groups using some of the other philosophy called
Meikism:

Normal Citizens
Isolation
Mercantilistic (Better then capitalist)
Equal wages
Forced Jobs
Proganda
Subliminal Messaging
Compulsary Military Service
Iron Curtain (goes with Isolation)

Government/Miltary Commander
Fascistic Society

Religioius Leaders:
Judges
Theocracitic society on their lands (seperate from government)

Setup of the society:
Dictator/elected representitive
Religious Leaders
Everyone else

Slaves
From defeated countries
No wages (given)
Work in field best able
No going near weapons

The religious leaders are also judges no jurys
Any person plotting against the government is enslaved

Similar to a fascistic society for governmental workers, communistic for others but church where it is similar to a theocracy.

Au contraire, I'd suggest that forcing everyone to have "nothing but the nessicities[sic]" causes people to be more greedy, since they'll start to wonder why they're only allowed to eat a slice of bread/bowl of rice/whatever per day. And when they find out, they'll want to be able to eat more.

They wouldnt know about the non nessicities (forgot what it was called)

The farming market being dominated by large businesses does not equate to collectivisation. Farmers in capitalist countries are not forced to go and work for large farming corporations, and those corporations don't determine that they aren't allowed to leave, or allowed to determine what they should own.

Actually, most of the western world is capitalist. Of course, in almost all nations, policy will be a blend of capitalist and socialist policies, but as for countries like the UK, France, Germany, Australia and the like, although our governments are sometimes more socialist than those of American government, our economies are still based on the tenets of capitalism - freedom to buy and sell essentially as one pleases.

As for the "only abolishing big business", I'll just reinforce Pwnsylvakia's point. How does outlawing the top performers in any industry encourage growth and success? If the less successful companies get more rewards while the more successful are banned, what incentive is there to succeed?

For point one it is colectivisation through capitalist market forces, the family farmers can't compete so they go into debt and their farm is foreclosed, they lose their home and lively hood and it is gobbled up by a corrporate farming set up.
For point two there are a lot of countries that are putting many restrictions
on buisnesses reducing Lazee Faire(sp) capitalism, those human rights policies are actualy things that are pushed by socialism, Marx advocated child labor laws for example, and then private industries are being put onder govermental control in many places, public healthcare for example.
Big buisness in the way I was refering to that are the conglomerates we currently have that are cornering the market, therefore reducing the compition that capitalists seem to be so fond of. Its this last bit that is my main problem with lazze fair capitalism, because since it is dependant on competition those that suceed would be those best at competing. This will eventualy lead to the formation of monopilies with out goverment intervention, which is contrary to lazze faire capitalism. My other problem is that it isn't democratic enough for my taste, allowing to much power to be concentraed in the hand of those incharge of Big buisness.

Big buisness in the way I was refering to that are the conglomerates we currently have that are cornering the market, therefore reducing the compition that capitalists seem to be so fond of. Its this last bit that is my main problem with lazze fair capitalism, because since it is dependant on competition those that suceed would be those best at competing. This will eventualy lead to the formation of monopilies with out goverment intervention, which is contrary to lazze faire capitalism. My other problem is that it isn't democratic enough for my taste, allowing to much power to be concentraed in the hand of those incharge of Big buisness.

Capitalism today is about as democratic as you can go. If a social majority vote for Mcdonalds, Starbucks or whoever to be shut down then so be it. They don't. What you're suggesting is the enforcement of a minority stance on society.

As for competition and the reduction thereof, as market leader a company is obliged to provide high levels of service, otherwise, it will become lucrative for competition, however small, to provide better service at a better price and thus draw customers and seize the market. If McDonalds or Burger King start charging £100 for a burger, any fool can make a fortune by selling a burger at even £50, let alone £1 or whatever price is still profitable. If they start selling a product which people genuinely don't like, then someone else can make a profit selling something which people DO like.

Agreed, Dogburg was a little obtuse in his discription of communism.


My genuine apologies. I don't mean to misinform.

Capitalism today is about as democratic as you can go. If a social majority vote for Mcdonalds, Starbucks or whoever to be shut down then so be it. They don't. What you're suggesting is the enforcement of a minority stance on society.

As for competition and the reduction thereof, as market leader a company is obliged to provide high levels of service, otherwise, it will become lucrative for competition, however small, to provide better service at a better price and thus draw customers and seize the market. If McDonalds or Burger King start charging £100 for a burger, any fool can make a fortune by selling a burger at even £50, let alone £1 or whatever price is still profitable. If they start selling a product which people genuinely don't like, then someone else can make a profit selling something which people DO like.
I'm not trying to enforce anything I'm trying to get more people to agree with me so that my position will become the majority one.

As for the second part it assumes they start on an even foot, why do anything that might reduce profits, lowering prices for example, when you can buy that buisness out, i.e. establish a monopily. There is also the matter of corruption, we put our current political system in place because of the idea that people can't be trusted with power, so it needs to be placed in the hands of the people as a whole. Our current economic system assumes that just because someone makes it to the top they can be trusted with power, at least it doesn't assume that they are as untrust worthy as someone who gained political power the same way. This is a glaring inconsistancy, if we can trust people who gained power this way economicaly, why not politicaly/ Personaly I think a truly democratic econmic system would be one were companies and buisnesses were run in a way similer to a democraticly run country. Everyone that works for the company would be the equilivant of the citizens of a country, you could then divide them in to diferent departments and regions, that would be the equizalent of states in a country. These departments would then elect their managment in a tier system, each region elects a selection of managers that then in turn elect their managers and so on. This principle could also be used to elect the board and CEO.

Those who claim that capitalism necessarily leads to business corruption have a narrow definition of the philosophy. Although laissez faire capitalism allows the rich to buy political power, protected capitalism completely socializes the government so that everyone has an equal chance for political power. Campaign donations are completely illegal, and the federal government pays for the campaign of anyone who can collect a certain amount of signatures supporting his or her candidacy. Also, the government would socialize the means of collecting support for a potential candidacy, so that the rich won't have an advantage of being able to spend money on campaigners to collect the signatures necessary to gain ballot access. Thus, no amount of wealth will allow someone to influence the political process, and the only way for the rich to gain more wealth is to continue to offer good products.
Although taxes as a whole will be lower, inheritance taxes would be much higher for the wealthy. That way, rich people who have children will best serve their own self-interest (their children's future) by spending their money to insure that their children can contribute to society to earn money for themselves.
Laws would require every company to offer full disclosure about the products they sell. That way, consumers will know everything the company knows about the products they are buying, and companies would not be able to cheat consumers by claiming that their product reduces wrinkles (for example) when no scientific study has proven this. Furthermore, company's accounting books will be open to the public, so that corprate scandals (like Enron) occur much less often.
Lastly, the government would enforce laws that apply to businesses just as strictly as it enforces other laws, and the punisment would be properly severe. These reforms would remove all the political power the rich have, without unnecessarily interfering in people's freedom to trade.

well those arnt really communist countries as marx defined them
Cuba is a good example

The argument i most often hear about the previous "communist" states not being "real" communists is that they never got past the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" phase, in Marx writings he argued that the people should revolt against society, step one: Revolution, then establish the dictatorship of the proletariat to set things up (government institutions, etc) so the final transition to true communism could happen. This was basically where the leader of the revolution would have absolute power and organize everything needed for communism to work, then give away his power to the people and live happily ever after in the communist utopia.

As we've seen in history, the communist leaders have been for example Lenin, Castro and Mao to name a few. They've all taken power from the previous government and retained it but then not been willing to give it up.

The problem i see with communism is the whole idea that it has to happen through revolution, because when you have a system that requires everyone to work and everyone to contribute to society, everyone has to be in on it. If a revolution happens and there are some people who don't want it, the revolutionaries have to either convince them, throw them out of the country or kill them. Through reformistic communism, i think it would be possible over several hundred years but through revolution i believe communism is impossible, because it will inevitably turn into an oppressive regime.

If communism is to be achieved democratically, every single person would have to vote for it, and every single person would have to want to make it work. The funny thing about that is, if every person voted for it and wanted to make it work, any ideology would work.

I don't know if this post made any sense or not, i'm sitting at home and ive been sick all day, so it feels sort of incoherent. Anyhow, i hope it makes some ounce of sense.

Communism would work if everyone agreed to it. However, it could also work from within a capitalist system. Just because a government doesn't redistribute wealth does not mean that the people can't do it themselves. By this I don't mean merely increasing charitable giving, but rather forming communes where everyone shares everything, or where the community owns the means of production (or whatever type of communism they prefer). They would enforce these rules by means of a contract that binds members to these precepts. A purely capitalist nation wouldn't illegalize this, and the government would enforce the contract through the court system. Therefore, if communism is better than capitalism most people would eventually move to these communes. Thus, communism would win from within a capitalist system.

However, government sponsered communism (I know it's an oxymoron) does not allow capitalist communes to form in which members don't have to redistribute wealth. Thus, even if capitalism is the better system, it cannot occur from within the communist system.

Because capitalism merely entails a lack of government action, I conclude that it must be better for government to be capitalist. If communism is better, it will occur within capitalism when people decide (without government interference) to form communist communities.

I hadn't thought of it that way. Good point.

The average workplace is totalitarian. If the government made you follow orders to the T all day, it would rightly be considered oppressive. Why does capitalism get a get-out-of-jail-free card?

The average workplace is totalitarian. If the government made you follow orders to the T all day, it would rightly be considered oppressive. Why does capitalism get a get-out-of-jail-free card?

Because you aren't oppressed 24/7, your employer can't execute you and you can quit if you want to.

Originally Posted by Letila
The average workplace is totalitarian. If the government made you follow orders to the T all day, it would rightly be considered oppressive. Why does capitalism get a get-out-of-jail-free card?

Capitalism is the better system because it allows individuals to decide what they want seperately from the will of others. Businesses (in a purely capitalist society) are not allowed the power to use physical force or threaten to incarcerate you for not working the way that they want. Government (by its nature) does have the power to force people to work.
Thus, even though businesses might be totalitarian, this is a situation to which the workers agree. If you believe that businesses treat workers unfairly, you can start your own business in a capitalist society. If you treat workers so much better than other businesses, then people will quite their current jobs and work at your business. If you want, you can even relinquish all power in the company to the workers. A capitalist government would allow you to do this.
However, in a communist country, the only way to offer workers a better deal than they currently have is to break the law by starting a business to compete with the government.

If i could only have put it so eloquently.

Thank you. :)

On the other hand, mine was shorter.

Yes, terseness is so valuable to good writing.

So...I'm waiting for Letila to offer a response. This is perhaps the best argument I have seen for capitalism.

Communism would work if everyone agreed to it. However, it could also work from within a capitalist system. Just because a government doesn't redistribute wealth does not mean that the people can't do it themselves. By this I don't mean merely increasing charitable giving, but rather forming communes where everyone shares everything, or where the community owns the means of production (or whatever type of communism they prefer). They would enforce these rules by means of a contract that binds members to these precepts. A purely capitalist nation wouldn't illegalize this, and the government would enforce the contract through the court system. Therefore, if communism is better than capitalism most people would eventually move to these communes. Thus, communism would win from within a capitalist system.

However, government sponsered communism (I know it's an oxymoron) does not allow capitalist communes to form in which members don't have to redistribute wealth. Thus, even if capitalism is the better system, it cannot occur from within the communist system.

Because capitalism merely entails a lack of government action, I conclude that it must be better for government to be capitalist. If communism is better, it will occur within capitalism when people decide (without government interference) to form communist communities.

I was struggling to make this point elsewhere, that when the social conditions are met that would make communism a viable economic system, any economic system would provide same benefits. That makes communism an obsolete theory.

You said it much clearer than I could.

The average workplace is totalitarian. If the government made you follow orders to the T all day, it would rightly be considered oppressive. Why does capitalism get a get-out-of-jail-free card?

I don't get this argument. Are you saying that capitalism is wrong because you are forced to take orders are work? I don't know what view you have of communism, but you will still be taking orders at work.

Capitalism is the better system because it allows individuals to decide what they want seperately from the will of others. Businesses (in a purely capitalist society) are not allowed the power to use physical force or threaten to incarcerate you for not working the way that they want. Government (by its nature) does have the power to force people to work.

But they can fire you and if you can't get another job, you risk starvation (this isn't the case so much in modern society, but that is more due to the efforts of workers than to any good in capitalism). Today, you still risk poverty and that is a form of force.

Thus, even though businesses might be totalitarian, this is a situation to which the workers agree. If you believe that businesses treat workers unfairly, you can start your own business in a capitalist society.

But that just passes on the hierarchy to other workers. Making yourself a boss doesn't get rid of capitalist hierarchy.

If you treat workers so much better than other businesses, then people will quite their current jobs and work at your business. If you want, you can even relinquish all power in the company to the workers. A capitalist government would allow you to do this.

But it doesn't happen because that would be bad for profit, which is what drives capitalism.

However, in a communist country, the only way to offer workers a better deal than they currently have is to break the law by starting a business to compete with the government.

You mean an authoritarian socialist country. Communism is something else altogether.

Letila, stop looking at everything in black and white. :rolleyes:

You mean an authoritarian socialist country. Communism is something else altogether.

Define a communist country and how they'd deal with someone who didn't agree with their system.

You mean an authoritarian socialist country. Communism is something else altogether.

When you argue with communists on here, they always end up comparing the bad capitalisms with the ideal communisms.

In the ideal capitalism, all of the aspects of communism would be obtained. You would, however, avoid the inefficiencies of big government.

While a communist-capitalist dichotomy may be a useful means to describe the world, strict adherence to this model limits our understanding.

This dichotomy focuses on ownership of property, dividing the world into those who advocate private ownership and those who advocate common ownership.

The world as we encounter it is neither capitalist nor communist, but, from place to place and from time to time displays elements of both views of property. No person can claim exclusive adherence, in practice, to either view, whatever his advocacy. The same is true of nations.

Property ownership is only one aspect from which we may approach an understanding of the world. A person or a nation may possess communist or capitalist attributes (or both). Our understanding is incomplete without a consideration of the issue of property ownership. However, our understanding is as incomplete if we insist that there are only two views on this issue, or that this issue divides the world into two mutually exclusive categories.

"Communist" and "capitalist," then, are descriptive terms, whose definitions vary from person to person, time to time, and place to place, but are broadly understood to encompass the view of property ownership. Descriptive terms ought not be elevated into all-encompassing ideologies.

I still want to know how an ideal communist country would deal with a dissident. I mean, wouldn't it inevitably turn in to some 1984 scenario?

Also, i think government-enforced communism is impossible as long as there's an international market economy. If government-enforced communism is to work it has to be all-pervasive, otherwise the people who don't agree with the system move to another country and the communists get a labour shortage. Or it turnes into authoritarianism by putting them in forced labour. Either way, not good.

Did i mention i like John Locke a lot?

Define a communist country and how they'd deal with someone who didn't agree with their system.

Strictly speaking, a communist nation wouldn't exist as most socialists tend strongly to favor international coöperation and criticize nationalism. Basically, though, it would be characterized by society owning and managing the means of production and distribution being based according to need. Genuine communism is basically a form of anarchism with a specific economic model, actually.

People who don't agree just won't participate. There really isn't a line where the nation begins and ends. If you support it, you join the organization and if you don't support it, you just don't participate in it. It's sort of like a club that spans over an area. If you are in the area but don't want to be in the club, you just aren't involved in it.

*snip*

You are correct, there isn't a single country that has complete private ownership of industry or complete public ownership of industry. Those two scenarios are ludicrous.

It's sort of like a club that spans over an area. If you are in the area but don't want to be in the club, you just aren't involved in it.

But if the club controls all the areas resources, you're forced to either join the club or move to another area. How would the communists distinguish between common ownership and the private ownership of those who refuse to participate if both are in equal proportion? Would they distinguish at all?

I agree with JungleFowl. Sweden is a good example of a country leaning more towards the collectively owned model, though we do not have a planned economy we have a huge public sector and ofcourse, very high taxes.

People who don't agree just won't participate. There really isn't a line where the nation begins and ends. If you support it, you join the organization and if you don't support it, you just don't participate in it. It's sort of like a club that spans over an area. If you are in the area but don't want to be in the club, you just aren't involved in it.

What Jokath said.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. What does this mean. How can you "just not participate?"

That's basically what i asked, too.

Fascism is always better than Communism. And Socialism is about the same as Fascism. Communism is probably the worst government type, simply because it's based upon the goodness of mankind, which is to say, a horrible thing to base it upon.

Well, i can't say i think any of them are good but atleast Fascism is honest about being inherently oppressive.

EDIT: inherently oppressive in practice

Fascism is always better than Communism. And Socialism is about the same as Fascism. Communism is probably the worst government type, simply because it's based upon the goodness of mankind, which is to say, a horrible thing to base it upon.

Fascism is the worst. It is the only government which revolves around limiting the rights of the people. At least Communism leaves some.

Fascism is always better than Communism. And Socialism is about the same as Fascism. Communism is probably the worst government type, simply because it's based upon the goodness of mankind, which is to say, a horrible thing to base it upon.

Because we are inherently bad, I know. Of course, government officials are immune to the flaws of being human and can be trusted to rule over millions without abusing their power....

But if the club controls all the areas resources, you're forced to either join the club or move to another area. How would the communists distinguish between common ownership and the private ownership of those who refuse to participate if both are in equal proportion? Would they distinguish at all?

The communist society only controls the resources it uses. If the communists in the area don't need all the land, they won't claim it. The things used by the communist society would be commonly owned and the things they don't use would be free for anyone not a part of the society to use.

You need to think outside of the conventional notion of property. Socialism is based on use rights rather than property rights. You have the right to use something that you need to use to survive (a house, food, etc.). You don't have the right to tell people what they can do with something you don't use at all.

The communist society only controls the resources it uses. If the communists in the area don't need all the land, they won't claim it. The things used by the communist society would be commonly owned and the things they don't use would be free for anyone not a part of the society to use.

You need to think outside of the conventional notion of property. Socialism is based on use rights rather than property rights. You have the right to use something that you need to use to survive (a house, food, etc.). You don't have the right to tell people what they can do with something you don't use at all.

The trouble is, when the government controls the distribution of all of these resources, those wishing to not be communist society would still have to go through the government.

Also, what happens when someone outside of the communist society begins using the extra resources for their own private industry and can offer a better product than the government.

How are services handled? That is as big a part of a modern economy as industry.

The trouble is, when the government controls the distribution of all of these resources, those wishing to not be communist society would still have to go through the government.

You need to remember that government doesn't really exist. True communism is a form of anarchism.

Also, what happens when someone outside of the communist society begins using the extra resources for their own private industry and can offer a better product than the government.

Once again, there is no government, but in this case, price. People in the communist economy get everything they need as long as they pull their weight. Money isn't used and they wouldn't buy things.

How are services handled? That is as big a part of a modern economy as industry.

They are also based on ahierarchial methods.

You need to remember that government doesn't really exist. True communism is a form of anarchism.

Oh, thats right, we're discussing fantasies.

Once again, there is no government, but in this case, price. People in the communist economy get everything they need as long as they pull their weight. Money isn't used and

Oh, so your vision of a communism is more like pure capitalism.

They are also based on ahierarchial methods.

:confused:

Oh, so your vision of a communism is more like pure capitalism.

Hardly. Capitalism uses money and has hierarchy. I suggest you read a little bit on anarcho-communism. That will answer a lot of questions.

Hardly. Capitalism uses money and has hierarchy. I suggest you read a little bit on anarcho-communism. That will answer a lot of questions.

I have had many discussions on this topic, and have a good grasp on anarcho-communism.

Are you saying that there will be no bosses in your form of communism? That the industrial sector will have no authority?

I have had many discussions on this topic, and have a good grasp on anarcho-communism.

Are you saying that there will be no bosses in your form of communism? That the industrial sector will have no authority?

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's the essense of communism.

well those arnt really communist countries as marx defined them
Cuba is a good example

Cuba is a good example of Marxism?

Do you know what great fun people have in Cuba when they speak out against cuddly old uncle Castro? They get jailed and/or shot.

Plus, since the collapse of the USSR, Castro's had to resort to NEP-style policies about small business, letting small-scale capitalists do business again (it was the only way to prevent total collapse). Talk about Marxism at it's purest. Not.

Originally Posted by Letila
But it doesn't happen because that would be bad for profit, which is what drives capitalism.
I didn't mean that you would do this as a means of profit, but as a means of starting a communist revolution. Think about it. What's stopping you from saving up your money (along with some other communists) and buying a few acres out in Nevada, where you can begin a commune and never have to worry about government interference (because capitalist governments don't do this). It's not against the law, and if community ownership is so much better, all the oppressed workers would join you (or other projects like yours) and capitalism would fall.

Originally Posted by Letila
You don't have the right to tell people what they can do with something you don't use at all.

In your form of communism do people have the right to make free agreements in which one person agrees to follow the instructions of another person in exchange for some kind of payment, which the later person makes through his or her work?
If not, what power will prevent them from making this agreement, since communism is anarchical. If no authority (social, government or otherwise) may prevent people from making agreements like this, then your have a free trade economy, which is capitalist. You merely assume that in a free trade economy no one would want to make agreements common in capitalism, thus a common social ownership would control the means production. This assumption is okay, if you can support it. However, the society you describe is still a free trade economy, albeit one in which the most common trade involves the exchange of personal labor for necessities owned by the entire society.