NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not against communism, or anything, actually I'm for it, but there are problems with it.
:confused:

The Problems with Communism:
The limits on Freedom
making everybody equal can limit economical freedom, so people may not reac their full potential.
It can be very easy for somebody with power to take over and become a merciless dictator, as greed is part of human nature.
It has to be very carefully to make sure it does not turn into slave labour, particularly when it is a Communist dictatorship.

If you have any more Pros or Cons of Communism, please add them.

...I'm not sure, but I think this is more of a thing for the General Thread, in the Nuts & Bolts Section. Unless you're making your nation communist and want ideas for how the RPing should go, that is.

making everybody equal can limit economical freedom, so people may not reac their full potential.
On the contrary, equality is exactly what ensures that people can work and develop to their full potential. In a condition of inequality, those at the top (the rich) have no need to work, and those at the bottom (the poor) are too busy working to stay alive to be able to live happy, meaningful lives.

By the way, what is this "economic freedom" you are talking about and why do you think it's a good thing? (the freedom to own slaves could easily fall under the category of "economic freedom" too...)

It can be very easy for somebody with power to take over and become a merciless dictator, as greed is part of human nature.
Any proper communist system will have checks and balances to prevent that from happening. It is no easier for a dictator to take over in communism than it is for a dictator to take over in capitalism (if anything, communism makes it harder for a dictator to take over - because any would-be dictator has to find a way to get rid of the social equality in communism before he can hope to gain more power than other people).

It has to be very carefully to make sure it does not turn into slave labour, particularly when it is a Communist dictatorship.
A communist dictatorship is an oxymoron - communism must be democratic, or it isn't communism at all.

Regarding pros and cons, the first and biggest pro of communism is that it eliminates the exploitation of man by man (and capitalist exploitation in particular). What is capitalist exploitation, you ask? Well, allow me to explain:

First of all, the source of the problem is the fact that the means of production are private property. Capitalist society is divided in two social classes: the bourgeoisie (the owners/employers - those who own means of production) and the proletariat (the workers/employees - those who do not own means of production). The bourgeoisie (which is a tiny minority compared to the proletariat) is the ruling class, since it effectively owns and controls the entire economy. It has overwhelming wealth and power compared to the proletariat. But the bourgeois do not acquire their wealth through their own work. They acquire it by exploiting the work of others - by extracting a profit from their employees. Allow me to explain:

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 the amount of work that went into it. That product - the fruit of the employee's labour - becomes the property of the employer.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. In capitalism, 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 how much money they are willing to work for. So, as I mentioned above, the wage has nothing to do whatsoever with the value of the product he produces, or the amount of work he puts into it.

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. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

Capitalists might argue that you are free to quit your job and go work for another employer. But ALL employers must exploit their workers in order to make a profit, so your only "choice" is whether you will be exploited by one employer or by the other employer across the street (and the skilled middle-class employees in rich western nations might not feel exploited, but that doesn't change the fact that they are exploited as much as any other workers). Capitalists might also argue that employees are free to start their own business and become employers themselves. But this argument doesn't even stand up to common sense: How exactly can you have more employers than employees? How can you have more bosses than workers? The fact is that in any capitalist society, the employers (the bourgeoisie) will always be a minority and the employees (the proletariat) will always be the majority. Some proletarians might have the opportunity to move up into the bourgeoisie, but they are very few compared to the proletarians who don't have that opportunity. Success stories are the exceptions, not the rule.

On the contrary, equality is exactly what ensures that people can work and develop to their full potential. In a condition of inequality, those at the top (the rich) have no need to work, and those at the bottom (the poor) are too busy working to stay alive to be able to live happy, meaningful lives.

What I mean here is that some people may not work as hard since they will still get payed the same amount, whatever job, so they may not have much ambition.
By the way, what is this "economic freedom" you are talking about and why do you think it's a good thing? (the freedom to own slaves could easily fall under the category of "economic freedom" too...)

'Economic freedom' is being able to buy anything you want to. Because, in Communism, all the land etc. is collectiveley owned, so you cannot privateley buy, for example a business, or land. you can own it, but you cannot get all the profit.

Any proper communist system will have checks and balances to prevent that from happening. It is no easier for a dictator to take over in communism than it is for a dictator to take over in capitalism (if anything, communism makes it harder for a dictator to take over - because any would-be dictator has to find a way to get rid of the social equality in communism before he can hope to gain more power than other people).


I know this is an oxy-moron, but it's happened before, with Stalin, most famously. Also, a dictator does not have to disturb all the social equality, he way well get payed the same amount, and be removed by the lower government.

A communist dictatorship is an oxymoron - communism must be democratic, or it isn't communism at all.


that's my reply

It did not happen with Stalin, because the Soviet Union was never communist. They practiced socialism for a short peroid of time (Lenin) and then were forced into state capitalism (Stalin).

In truth, you are correct. Communism really cannot work in our society today. That does not mean that the modification of Socialism itself cannot also be changed.

To form a new country, and create complete equals would, for the most part, be beneficial. The able and willing will reach their potential, the lazy and inept will fall behind in the grand scheme of things. But, in our society now, it is too uneven a playing field for some to reach any of their potential, and rich fools that squander their fortune rule the economy.

When my beloved nation seperated from from Scythia, it was to leave the capitalist chains behind so all could begin anew. And so we have, and so we have prospered.

I was going to resopnd to what I thought was an oubvious arguement, but appartnely I'm wrong becasue it wasn't mentioned. Thus, this dialouge will suffice for both parts.

Capatalist says: "Ho, hum, I like to exploit people and allow for massive divides between rich an poor."

Communist says: "That's not right, we should change that."

Capatalist says: "You're right, but it's not possible. How can you cange the system?" (Obviously, capatalists are all cop-outs and loosers with no valad arguements.)

Communist says: "No, we can change it. Let's give everyone the same ammount of money. Then everyone is equal."

Capatalist says: "But everyone isn't equal."

Communist says: "Yet..."

Capatalist says: "Aha! I see a problem!"

Communist says: "What?"

Capatalist says: "My system is superior because if you give everyone the same ammount of money they have nothing to work towards, thus they never better society." (The only mildly valid point the capatalist can bring up.)

Communist says: "Why's that?"

Capatalist says: "Because it's human nature. We only do enough to get by."

Communist says: "Says who? Suppose you educate the masses..."

Capatalist interupts: "What?! Are you crazy? Educate the POOR? Why would I ever allow that."

Communist slaps the bourgeois prick and continues: "No, let me finish. If we educate people as to the benefits of working and teach them to help their fellow man people will still be motivated to improve things. Except for a few of those ungrateful bourgeois basts- er... I mean jerks..."

Capatalist is stunned and rambling: "But... But... But I don't want to help people and I'm educated."

Communist replies: "Have you ever helped a person in your life?"

Capatalist is still stammering: "N.. No."

Communist is triumphant: "Well there you go. How can you say you don't like to help people, you never have."

Capatalist, in desperation: "But I'll loose money! You're stealing from me. Frauds! All frauds! You're evil and anti-American. You're undemocratic!"

Communist, ending the debate: "You can't even make a valad point. Shut up..."

"what we always meant by socialism wasn't something you forced on people, it was people organizing themselves as they pleased into co-ops, collectives, communes, unions.... And if socialism really is better, more efficient than capitalism, then it can bloody well compete with capitalism. So we decided, forget all the statist shit and the violence: the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!"
~Ken MacLeod - The Star Fraction

Well gee, thanks for reminding me what it was like to grow up in the CCCP. That brightened my day. ;)

Probably the only problem I have with Communism is that it advocates a state to take control first and then move towards a stateless, classless society, gradually.

We need a revolution, after which there is a stateless society immediately, because once it's entrenched, the state will never give up power.

This is why communism has failed everywhere it's been tried.

*snip*

Which shows that a valid point does not necessarily need valid spelling.

---

Well, first of all, I see myself as kind of communist (-9.75 on the compass thingie), but I agree both sides have a valid point here.

Two main issues I have with two very common arguments:

1. MYTH: "There is no way a business can make a profit except by exploiting its workers." (Communist point)

Wrong. Business is not a zero sum game, where one of the parties loses out by the same amount that the other gains. If it were, we would never have had trade. The key here is Decreasing Marginal Cost (one of the few worthwhile things our economics teacher taught us): By specializing, one is more efficient than by dabbling. If you spend years hand-building a car, there is no way you can cover the production cost. If you have an assembly-line that churns out a dozen cars a day, you're making a profit - a profit that a single worker could not make. The sum, here, is more than the parts (incidentally also a part of the communist idea), and thus the factory owner can make a profit *and* return to each single worker the value of his work.

If making a profit here is equivalent to exploiting, then it is impossible to avoid: There is no way to run an efficient production without the workers gathering to work together and thus be exploited by a "greater whole" - whether state-run or private.

Note that, of course, this does not mean no company exploits its employees; in fact, most of them do (Wal-Mart). But contrary to this argument, exploitation is not unavoidable even in the capitalist system - just very widespread.

2. MYTH:
"In a communist system, there is no incentive to work." (Capitalist point)

Also wrong. Egoism (egotism?) is not the only force driving humans. If it were otherwise, where where would those flag-waving rednecks be? Do they get paid for their 'patriotism'?

Idealism is a powerful force as well, and humans can and will give their best without being given an individual incentive, if they believe in a greater good for their society.

It is true that this system is liable to corruption by those less idealistically disposed. But the corruption in a capitalist system is still stronger.

Ultimately, a communist system can not work unless it be in a totally free and egalitarian society. Participation in the system must be voluntary and the borders open: If the system works correctly, the incentive to move to a capitalist nation will outweigh the incentive to exploit the communist system for one's own benefit. It works both ways: Workers disillusioned with capitalism must be allowed to enter the communist system.
In a society where the people are the government, and all work for the benefit of society, there can be no wedge driven between the government and the people. As soon as the government grows unpopular with its people, the system collapses.

Oh, and of course it would help if there wasn't a big capitalist superpower trying its best to corrupt and destroy any nation that dares to call itself communist. >_<

Edit: A little clarification. The bold points are not a summary, they're the counterpoints I'm disproving. :headbang:

No nation has ever claimed to have achieved Communism, people seem to forget that.

No nation has ever claimed to have achieved Communism, people seem to forget that.
This will go on for pages with all the anti-commies completely ignoring that fact

1. "There is no way a business can make a profit except by exploiting its workers." (Communist point)

2. "In a communist system, there is no incentive to work." (Capitalist point)

Both of your points are completely true. If Humans were all about the individual we'd not have bothered to form into groups, make government, or form nations.

Both of your points are completely true. If Humans were all about the individual we'd not have bothered to form into groups, make government, or form nations.

Edit: Okay, forget this post. For a minute there I thought there had been a misunderstanding and you had quoted those two points believing I supported them. ;)

Capatalist says: "Ho, hum, I like to exploit people and allow for massive divides between rich an poor."
Why is it that I always hear about how capitalists deliberately want this to happen?

Capatalist says: "You're right, but it's not possible. How can you cange the system?" (Obviously, capatalists are all cop-outs and loosers with no valad arguements.)
Nice generalization - looks like you've alienated another potential convert to communism

Communist says: "No, we can change it. Let's give everyone the same ammount of money. Then everyone is equal."
Money doesn't exist in a communist society - there goes your argument there.

Communist says: "Says who? Suppose you educate the masses..."
Why is it that I always hear that education is the cure-all of scoeity? As much as I don't like to waste a perfectly good education, there's only so much you can learn in school; street smarts pose an advantage in some areas... plus, here in America the school system is pretty shitty

Capatalist interupts: "What?! Are you crazy? Educate the POOR? Why would I ever allow that."
Another generalization - you generalize that all capitalists are gonna hoard every little bit of $ they earn

Communist slaps the bourgeois prick and continues: "No, let me finish. If we educate people as to the benefits of working and teach them to help their fellow man people will still be motivated to improve things. Except for a few of those ungrateful bourgeois basts- er... I mean jerks...
WHAT IS IT WITH YOU REDS AND THE BOURGEOIS???

My education never taught me to help my fellow man - if anything, I learned that on my own - and the only way helping your fellow man is virtuous is if the volunteer is doing it of their own will, not because somebody told them too (which is why I hate application whores who volunteer only to make themselves look good)

Capatalist is stunned and rambling: "But... But... But I don't want to help people and I'm educated."
Communist replies: "Have you ever helped a person in your life?"
Take it from a capitalist - Last year in my Key Club I racked up 40 HOURS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE, JUST BECAUSE I WANTED TO.

Capatalist, in desperation: "But I'll loose money! You're stealing from me"
Not every capitalist is concerned about keeping everly last damn nickel and dime - and the only way it's stealing IMHO is if the government co-erces you into socialism or communism

And learn to spell 'capitalist'

The problem with Communism is two-fold;

First, the assumption that the workers of a capitalist system are both exploited and unhappy. This is rather flawed; as Auruillin showed, it's not a zero-sum game. It is perfectly reasonable in a capitalist society to expect all persons involved in a business venture to benefit from it, even if they have long hours. Admittedly, the system is not perfect, but I can assure you that I don't feel particularly exploited, and few of the people I know do either. Not as rich as they would like, but not exploited either. The primary feeling of those who DO feel oppressed is that the world owes them something - that they shouldn't have to do menial jobs because they are destined for greatness. Under a capitalist system (Unless there's social welfare of course.) a person can't get away with that. They have to earn their way to the top.

Secondly, and more importantly; Under a Communist system, things will degenerate into a state-run dictatorship. Now, I could point to China and Russia for examples, but I don't need to. A simple exercise of the brain shows what I'm saying. Let's take a few kinds of jobs. Farming, street cleaning, policing, sales services (Or communist equivalent.) authoring, an office job, and teaching. Each of these jobs has various things going for and against it, but it doesn't take a genius to realise that a teacher has a nicer, more rewarding time than a street cleaner. The problem is, you can't give people the choice of which job to do - everyone will choose what they desire, which means the creative people can take authoring, and business chaps go to the offices, a lot of people try teaching, and the other unskilled people head over to the sales/distribution program. Who is left to do the heavy manual labor of the farming, and the pariah work of cleaning? And under Communism, people will not be required to work to sustain themselves; ergo nobody will fill certain jobs, or very few people at the most. "Idealism is a powerful force as well, and humans can and will give their best without being given an individual incentive, if they believe in a greater good for their society."

The problem is, there is no way to enforce this. It is all well and good saying "Work for the greater good of society!" but as soon as people become disillusioned, they drop out. In capitalism, this harms nobody but themselves and their dependents. In communism, this harms society - and I assure you that without the incentive of working for personal gain, Communism will only happen in one way; Stalin's. Humans are greedy, and we are self-centered, and we care about ourselves and our close friends and families more than 'society' or strangers as a whole. This is the very best thing about capitalism, and the reason it produces so much affluence, whilst Communism crumbles.

Regarding pros and cons, the first and biggest pro of communism is that it eliminates the exploitation of man by man.




Id ask the people from North Korea, China and the USSR about that.

I was going to resopnd to what I thought was an oubvious arguement, but appartnely I'm wrong becasue it wasn't mentioned. Thus, this dialouge will suffice for both parts.

Capatalist says: "Ho, hum, I like to exploit people and allow for massive divides between rich an poor."

Communist says: "That's not right, we should change that."

Capatalist says: "You're right, but it's not possible. How can you cange the system?" (Obviously, capatalists are all cop-outs and loosers with no valad arguements.)

Communist says: "No, we can change it. Let's give everyone the same ammount of money. Then everyone is equal."

Capatalist says: "But everyone isn't equal."

Communist says: "Yet..."

Capatalist says: "Aha! I see a problem!"

Communist says: "What?"

Capatalist says: "My system is superior because if you give everyone the same ammount of money they have nothing to work towards, thus they never better society." (The only mildly valid point the capatalist can bring up.)

Communist says: "Why's that?"

Capatalist says: "Because it's human nature. We only do enough to get by."

Communist says: "Says who? Suppose you educate the masses..."

Capatalist interupts: "What?! Are you crazy? Educate the POOR? Why would I ever allow that."

Communist slaps the bourgeois prick and continues: "No, let me finish. If we educate people as to the benefits of working and teach them to help their fellow man people will still be motivated to improve things. Except for a few of those ungrateful bourgeois basts- er... I mean jerks..."

Capatalist is stunned and rambling: "But... But... But I don't want to help people and I'm educated."

Communist replies: "Have you ever helped a person in your life?"

Capatalist is still stammering: "N.. No."

Communist is triumphant: "Well there you go. How can you say you don't like to help people, you never have."

Capatalist, in desperation: "But I'll loose money! You're stealing from me. Frauds! All frauds! You're evil and anti-American. You're undemocratic!"

Communist, ending the debate: "You can't even make a valad point. Shut up..."

Is that supposed to be sarcasm? I need a clarification before I actually treat it seriously and respond to it...

Id ask the people from North Korea, China and the USSR about that.

No nation has ever claimed to have achieved Communism, people seem to forget that.

...

...

If the path that "leads" to communism dead-ends in a dictatorship. It is essentially the same thing as communism in the eyes of most people.

But I forget, proponents of communism live in a fantasy world where corruption will cease to exist and the people who acquire power will be easily removed...

The main problem with communism, in my eyes, is the fact that theres so much pressure against it. Russia was invaded in 1921, and in 1941, by people against it. Then america and russia faced off in the cold war, forcing russia to maintain a large military. Communist states have so much outer opposition that they have to fight or give in, both of which hurt them badly. In order to have a truly communist state, all nations must be communist; or there must only be one nation.

I've got a lot to say, but I've got a final tomorrow and I need to study, but here's one of my key points

One of the key assumptions that I see is this assumption that people are only divided by classes. Which is pretty obviously not true. People are divided by all sorts of things, they are divided by interests, they are divided by attitudes, they are divided by race, they are divided by region, they are divided by hundreds of things. Let's face it, mankind will never feel brotherly fraternity in anything but itsy-bitsy groups, and even then, they often only feel it in conditions of exterior threat.

In response to the, "No country has every really become communist" statement: Has it ever occured to you that if so many time communism has been attempted, and failed, that maybe there is a fundamental flaw in its ideology? If neither China, North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia, USSR, or Vietnam could successfully attain a true communist society, wouldn't it be safe to argue that it is impossible?

You have to remember Communism is based on socialism principles..

In the United States - Democracy is based on Capitalistic principles..

And I will say this about both..

Eventually over time - There will be little difference in how those two principles actually work.

The Socialism that was designed is totally different then communism of today..

The same eventually with democracy..

Capilistic Practices can become a very restrictive thing..

Here are some things you will notice that are the same..

Laws are only created - Not reduced..

If you look at the United States - You will see that more and more laws are created - Limiting people's freedom...

Power and control..

Only wealthy people run for President.. - Those people need the support of other wealthy people AKA Corporations...

Government gets bigger and bigger and becomes less efficent..

Eventually Government will become the majoirty of those employed within the United States..


Now you might ask - the United States so far isn't like Russia..

?

So far.. The United States is young, very young - and over time will be very similar in structure...

IF you think you can control your government.. Look at the facts..]

MAny intiaitves passed by people are overturned or just completely ignored by government?

and ask yourself this?

Why can't just anyone run and be able to have advertising or Debates?

Why to put an initiaive out on the ballot - Do you need 200,000 signitures - only to have the State throw it out?

And not all States allow the intiative process...

Troy*

I'd have to say a better system than communism is ethical capitalism, in which the Rawlsian difference principle is voluntarily followed.

Id ask the people from North Korea, China and the USSR about that.

Funny that those countries don't (or didn't) say they were Communist.

If the path that "leads" to communism dead-ends in a dictatorship. It is essentially the same thing as communism in the eyes of most people.

How does communism dead-end into a dictatorship? (I do actually agree that it does, but I would like to hear your view.)

In response to the, "No country has every really become communist" statement: Has it ever occured to you that if so many time communism has been attempted, and failed, that maybe there is a fundamental flaw in its ideology? If neither China, North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia, USSR, or Vietnam could successfully attain a true communist society, wouldn't it be safe to argue that it is impossible?

This does work on the presupposition that the leaders of the revolutions genuinly wanted there to be a Communism in the countries they created a revolution in rather then just using the promise of Communism to gain popular support.

It also works on the assumption that these failed revolutions are the only examples of communism ever being applied in a real world setting.

I've read most of the posts and noticed a common flaw in both. Communism, true communism cannot be "achieved"". The people bring it themselves and all uphold it. That is the way that Karl Marx wrote it, what you are refering to are modified versions of Marx's ideology, which have mostly failed. According to Marx, communism could be happening right now, and a people's rebellion could happen anytime, until humans become instinct, that is.

***EDIT: btw, that dialogue has to be one of the dumbest things I've seen in a while.***

The limits on Freedom
making everybody equal can limit economical freedom, so people may not reac their full potential.

Please, do you really think living in poverty doesn't prevent you from reaching your full potential? Economic freedom in capitalism is a joke. All it means is the ability for the rich to stay rich.

It can be very easy for somebody with power to take over and become a merciless dictator, as greed is part of human nature.

Don't invoke human nature. Only 50 years ago, it was believed that women and black people were inherently less intelligent. What we consider human nature can change surprisingly fast.

It has to be very carefully to make sure it does not turn into slave labour, particularly when it is a Communist dictatorship.

Actually a communist dictatorship is a contradiction in terms as communism has no government. A socialist dictatorship is possible, but it wouldn't be the same kind of socialism as a communist society.

In response to the, "No country has every really become communist" statement: Has it ever occured to you that if so many time communism has been attempted, and failed, that maybe there is a fundamental flaw in its ideology? If neither China, North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia, USSR, or Vietnam could successfully attain a true communist society, wouldn't it be safe to argue that it is impossible?

Hardly. All that really proves is that Marxism doesn't work. Marxism is one form of socialism among many and not the only proposed path to communism.

-snip the dialogue thing-
What?

If that's sarcastic, then there might be a point somewhere.

If that's serious, then it's utterly false and total propaganda.

Please, do you really think living in poverty doesn't prevent you from reaching your full potential? Economic freedom in capitalism is a joke. All it means is the ability for the rich to stay rich.

Sadly, yes, that's usually the case. Although, some of the poorest people in the world have become quite wealthy and successful through hard work.

Please, do you really think living in poverty doesn't prevent you from reaching your full potential? Economic freedom in capitalism is a joke. All it means is the ability for the rich to stay rich.

Read Marcuse?

Don't invoke human nature. Only 50 years ago, it was believed that women and black people were inherently less intelligent. What we consider human nature can change surprisingly fast.

Whilst I don't believe this set in stone "human nature is unchangable(/changes extraordinarily slowly)" bollocks. That point hardly addresses human nature. Though I am still waiting for a definition of what human nature is.

I am surprised no one has refuted the obvious myths that greed is human nature and that no communist system has ever existed.

What about the Navajo and Cherokee of the US? What about the Yanomamo of Brazil? What about the Eskimos of Alaska? The Tainos of the Caribbean? The Abenaki of Canada? The Zulu of Africa? What about the natives of Australia and Papua New Guinea?

There have been many cultures throughout history that did not believe in private ownership of property and were able to maintain equality. In fact, some still exist today (the Yanomamo in Brasil and several Australian, African, and New Guinean tribes). For many of them, the concept of greed is completely alien.

Hardly. All that really proves is that Marxism doesn't work. Marxism is one form of socialism among many and not the only proposed path to communism.

IIRC Marx was asked to write the Communist Manifesto by the Communist League. Said right at the beginning that it already exists "A spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of Communism...*" and said his form of Communism was "Scientific socialism" all because competing methods already existed.



*Though the first English version said "There is a frightful hobgoblin stalking about Europe." A version I wish they kept.

Sadly, yes, that's usually the case. Although, some of the poorest people in the world have become quite wealthy and successful through hard work.
Who's :p ;)

Though I wouldn't say 'some' I would say 'very few'

Sadly, yes, that's usually the case. Although, some of the poorest people in the world have become quite wealthy and successful through hard work.

Key word: some. Even in the USSR, it was possible to move up but that didn't make it any better.

Key word: some. Even in the USSR, it was possible to move up but that didn't make it any better.

Again, correct. :(

I am surprised no one has refuted the obvious myths that greed is human nature and that no communist system has ever existed.

What about the Navajo and Cherokee of the US? What about the Yanomamo of Brazil? What about the Eskimos of Alaska? The Tainos of the Caribbean? The Abenaki of Canada? The Zulu of Africa? What about the natives of Australia and Papua New Guinea?

There have been many cultures throughout history that did not believe in private ownership of property and were able to maintain equality. In fact, some still exist today (the Yanomamo in Brasil and several Australian, African, and New Guinean tribes). For many of them, the concept of greed is completely alien.

Works fine when you've got a close, tribal unit of just a few dozen, or a few hundred people, or when a larger group exists as a number of smaller units. Would be nigh-impossible to implement today because - guess what - the world has changed. We've got more to worry about than finding food and other things to aim for than breeding like rats.

Works fine when you've got a close, tribal unit of just a few dozen, or a few hundred people, or when a larger group exists as a number of smaller units. Would be nigh-impossible to implement today because - guess what - the world has changed. We've got more to worry about than finding food and other things to aim for than breeding like rats.

That isnt my point, my point is that the existence of these societies disproves the myth that greed is human nature. In fact, it points towards the possibility that greed comes from capitalism.

we are human humans live by a system of rules. Communism is that system that can perfect this turmoil of a world. The only problem is greed. We as humans cannot seem to be content with what we have thus it is human nature to want more. You always want another helping of food don'y you? Marks was anticipating the proletariats to embrace this system but it has been corrupted in so many forms take Stalin he changed Russia into a dictatorship beyong what Hitler had we as humans might one day just beable if the world is in severe need be able to cope with communism and accept its facts and demands this day may never come but i believe it shall and the whole world shall be perfect and we shall treat one another as we should have so many years ago. They called marx crazy he was not crazy it was just a complicated system of government such as communism would not take proper effect with capitalism at a full run ahead. COMMUNISM SHALL ONE DAY DOMINATE THE WORLD!!!!!! :D

The only problem is greed. We as humans cannot seem to be content with what we have thus it is human nature to want more. You always want another helping of food don'y you?

No, actually I dont. Why would I want more once Im full?

This will go on for pages with all the anti-commies completely ignoring that fact
I completely agree. If I were to argue against communism it would be the philosophy, because no truly communist nation has existed yet. You can argue against socialists countries because they have existed and still do, but to argye against communist countries is ignorance to history.
(Not all capitalists are assholes, well I am but thats not because of capitalism)
;)

That isnt my point, my point is that the existence of these societies disproves the myth that greed is human nature. In fact, it points towards the possibility that greed comes from capitalism.

Or the possibility that greed comes from settled agriculture. Or city dwelling. Or the rise of state societies. Increased population and density. Or bronze casting. Or... etc.

Moreover, none of your egalitarian societies existence refutes the 'myth' that greed is human nature. What about them exactly means that nary a single thought of self-centered gain has ever crossed their minds? Furthermore I'd say if there are greedy humans, greed is part of human nature because humans are part of humanity. You can't just isolate some traits you like and say those are natural, and then others and say those are - what, artificial? Manufactured by capitalism? Frankly, it's all natural, because humans are a part of nature. How's that for simplicity!

If anything all you've got is an argument against material ownership... and that ain't capitalism. That's very much a part of any settled civilization pretty much by definition. And it won't be going away until, like the aborigines everyone take up a hunter gatherer, nomadic or seminomadic lifestyle. And assuming there suddenly is a lot fewer people too.

I am surprised no one has refuted the obvious myths that greed is human nature and that no communist system has ever existed.

What about the Navajo and Cherokee of the US? What about the Yanomamo of Brazil? What about the Eskimos of Alaska? The Tainos of the Caribbean? The Abenaki of Canada? The Zulu of Africa? What about the natives of Australia and Papua New Guinea?

There have been many cultures throughout history that did not believe in private ownership of property and were able to maintain equality. In fact, some still exist today (the Yanomamo in Brasil and several Australian, African, and New Guinean tribes). For many of them, the concept of greed is completely alien.
In most cases they were tribal societies, who had barely advanced beyond the stone age. Often times, they were incredibly hierarchical societies, often involved with warfare.

Communism can work in small groups because everyone knows everyone well, and each person's contribution is considered very important. When we move away from that, the society recieving the benifit of our work becomes more and more faceless, and our effort seems to disappear into the void. When there are three hundred people in your community, you know everyone, everyone knows you, and it is more akin to a family than a society.
Really, it's easier to have a sense of purpose in a small community because you are a large part of the community, rather than just another cog.

The problem is, there is no way to enforce this. It is all well and good saying "Work for the greater good of society!" but as soon as people become disillusioned, they drop out. In capitalism, this harms nobody but themselves and their dependents. In communism, this harms society - and I assure you that without the incentive of working for personal gain, Communism will only happen in one way; Stalin's. Humans are greedy, and we are self-centered, and we care about ourselves and our close friends and families more than 'society' or strangers as a whole. This is the very best thing about capitalism, and the reason it produces so much affluence, whilst Communism crumbles.

It cannot and should not be enforced: The system depends on people being free to enter or leave it at any time. If all humans were greedy, charity wouldn't exist (they don't all donate for tax reasons or public image).

If a communist system that opens its borders both ways runs out of people, it has failed in its purpose and clearly does not deserve to exist: After all, its purpose is to be a better society that people want to live in. In a way, it's a laissez-faire system too: Living there is through choice. If it has to build a wall to keep its own citizens penned in, it has already lost.

The main problem with communism is the generation issue.

Fine. You get one million people to form a communist nation.

What do you do when one of their offspring finds they lean more towards capitalism? What if other kids agree? What if they start grouping, in a non-violent way? What if they all pick up and move away? Or, on the other hand, what if the kids end up being lazy bastards who don't want to work?

Unless you plan on deporting them all, brainwashing them, or killing them...

You have to cross your fingers and hope nobody is born who gets their own ideas.

I suppose I must clarify several things.

A) Yes, I was being sarcastic. Yes there was (something of) a point, but I will get to that in a moment. If you didn't notice, the whole piece I wrote had about a dozen holes in it and was horribly misspelled. I take more pride in my work than that when I'm serious.

B) Money = Resources, it's just easier on my poor aching brain to write down money because I'm not a Communist and don't care for technicalities.

C) This is the point I was telling you about earlier. Excited? Too damn bad!

The idea goes that, because people grow up in a Capitalis nation, surrounded by Capitalist ideals (i.e. Nobody can help you but you, Only the strong survive, etc, etc...). This subtle propaganda ultimately presses the Capitalist mindset (in the case of this dialouge, only looking out for oneself) onto people to the point where that his how they will instinctively behave. Oh yes, there are good poeple, but I bet you learned that form someone else (parents perhaps? or was it religion?). The impression that society and its values make are felt very heavily as Sociocultural Variables which, according to Psychology, Fifth Edition, can drastically change a person's cognitive moral and reasoning development.

This mindset initially taught by society perpetuates the problem of motivation I brought up in the dialouge (I don't have to go over that again, do I?) and ultimately prevents progress from occuring, even after the initial shift to Communism has occured. The way to rectify this is through actively educating, in school and out (because remember, learning doesn't take place just in schools) of the benefits to helping one's neighbor, the goal of the said education, of course, being the creation of positive role models for later generations. Ultimately, Capitalist values diminish in society, which prevents the problem of values from ever occuring (on a regular basis) because people are no longer exposed to such a barrage of Capatalist, self-centered ideals as seen in modern western society.

There, that was my point, just not in a mildly humorous manner as before. Yes, I realize there is around 800 spelling errors and typos. Deal with it.

Fortunately we don't have to guess which way may be better, History is telling us every day which System works better for the whole of Society...

Shall we look at the FACTS?

Communism and Capitalism/Democracy (Since Communism is actually a mixture of both Political and Economic Systems I combine it's "antithesis" to do the same) have both been tried in various forms around the Globe over almost the last century, side-by-side as it were.

We have seen that, while Communism has actually FAILED in several of the Countries it was attempted in, in favor of its opposition as well as current Communistic Countries are beginning to adopt certain "Capitalistic" Ideals, also points to some very strong evidence that one is Superior to the other.

But we actually have additional evidence to more fully support the Superiority of Capitalism/Democracy...

The U.S. is one of if not the oldest continuing Democracy on the face of the Earth. And just what has the Nation of the U.S. been able to accomplish in it's very short History?

It has become not only the Greatest Military might the World has ever seen, but it has generated more WEALTH in its History to make the People of the U.S. the most giving Nation the World has ever seen, BAR NONE!

So, we are able to look at the "results" from each of the "Theories" being argued here and actually "See" for ourselves the results of each...

I say the results are fairly obvious as to which is better.

Regards,
Gaar

Communism and Capitalism/Democracy (Since Communism is actually a mixture of both Political and Economic Systems I combine it's "antithesis" to do the same) have both been tried in various forms around the Globe over almost the last century, side-by-side as it were.


*whispers*

Many Communists are democratic. Democracy is not the antithesis of Communism in any way shape or form.

*whispers*

Many Communists are democratic. Democracy is not the antithesis of Communism in any way shape or form.

I didn't say they weren't...

I said the Antithesis is the combination of Democracy and Capitalism, mainly because Democracy doesn't work well without Capitalism, and each are descriptions for a different thing, while Communism is a definition for both.

Regards,
Gaar

I didn't say they weren't...

I said the Antithesis is the combination of Democracy and Capitalism, mainly because Democracy doesn't work well without Capitalism, and each are descriptions for a different thing, while Communism is a definition for both.

Regards,
Gaar

By saying that Capitalism/Democracy is the antithesis of Communism (since you believe that Communism is a political and economic sytem), you imply that capitalism is the the antithesis of the economic side of communism and democracy the antithesis for the political side.

Democracy is still not the antithesis of (the political side of) communism. There is nothing about communism that is inconsistant with democracy.

Do you have proof that democracy doesn't work well without capitalism. Because there is plenty of proof to the contrary, such as communistic communes that really on democracy to run the commune.

By saying that Capitalism/Democracy is the antithesis of Communism (since you believe that Communism is a political and economic sytem), you imply that capitalism is the the antithesis of the economic side of communism and democracy the antithesis for the political side.

Democracy is still not the antithesis of (the political side of) communism. There is nothing about communism that is inconsistant with democracy.

Do you have proof that democracy doesn't work well without capitalism. Because there is plenty of proof to the contrary, such as communistic communes that really on democracy to run the commune.

I believe you may misunderstand how "Thesis and Anti-Thesis" are derived...

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bb970219.htm

Look down the page for the...
Here are some illustrations of the Hegelian Dialectic process

That was MY way of saying Thesis versus Antithesis.

Please let me know if there is something you don't understand.

Regards,
Gaar

I believe you may misunderstand how "Thesis and Anti-Thesis" are derived...

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bb970219.htm

Look down the page for the...
Here are some illustrations of the Hegelian Dialectic process

That was MY way of saying Thesis versus Antithesis.

Please let me know if there is something you don't understand.

Regards,
Gaar

Sorry, you right. I got my terms wrong. :)

Sorry, you right. I got my terms wrong. :)

No apology necessary, although it is appreciated... :D

I only wish for understanding.

Regards,
Gaar

While I'm quite the capitalist (I likes my money dammit), I have to say.. your description works for things like Rome and Greece and so forth...

Capitalists have always accused communists of being utopians.
However, over the last 200 years the ideas of Marx has sparked modern socialism and all industrialized country have achieved over half of the communist manifesto recommended measured that are :
The ban on child labor.
The mandatory social education for all.
The monopolization of the financial power in the hands of the state (a central bank)...
In addition to that there has been several socialist measures like the working hours cap, the minimum wages...
150 years ago, many people said banning child labor was utopian. They said all economy would stop if we got rid of child labor. They've been proved wrong. They've been proved that social education raises the productivity level of society. They've been proved that organisation can improve our way of life.
Nowadays, some people think we are at the end of history and that nothing can improve. They actually don't want anything to improve because they have a short sighted mind and they think their own little selfish interest lies in keeping people down so they can stay at the stop. But this is not a zero-sum game. By improving the conditions of the lower class you improve the conditions for all.

Well, there is always the fact that a communist government as exist today is self contradictory. Everyone is equal, but you have a strong minority of people enforcing equality? Umm... no. What are they, more equal?

Also, I feel Marxism in theory and Communism in effect are completely different things.

Well, there is always the fact that a communist government as exist today is self contradictory. Everyone is equal, but you have a strong minority of people enforcing equality? Umm... no. What are they, more equal?The proletariat is the majority.

<Info>

None of which requires communism.

Yes, many of those ideals are good ones. Just like many socialist ideals are good ones. Just like many capitalist ideals are good ones.

The trick is to figure out which blend works best, because, like political parties, they're not so hot on their own.

None of which requires communism.

Yes, many of those ideals are good ones. Just like many socialist ideals are good ones. Just like many capitalist ideals are good ones.

The trick is to figure out which blend works best, because, like political parties, they're not so hot on their own.
The aim of my post was to dispell the myth that communists were utopian.
Anyway I don't believe capitalist ideals are good ones, I see them as hypocrit. And I recognize the message of the capitalist propaganda is void and full of empty catch words like freedom and democracy but there is nothing more than the preservation of the class privileges.

Considering Utopia includes slavery... it's kind of silly to think that communists want to be slaves... or any group for that matter that isn't seriously kinky.

But please, don't confuse rich bastards with rich non-bastards.

My family is upper middle class, we're pretty damned nice people, despite being surrounded by idiots. I have family members who're lower upper class. Still nice folks.

Not every capitalist is a scheming fat cat.

Considering Utopia includes slavery... it's kind of silly to think that communists want to be slaves... or any group for that matter that isn't seriously kinky.
why do you say communists want to be slaves? :confused:

Utopia the book had slavery.

It's not communism.

Utopia the book had slavery.

It's not communism.
ah sorry. yeah i was gonna say that there is no state in the classless society (therefore communism is not 'slavery to the state' as some people might say... and i thought you were saying :) )

Happy to clarify.

To people who keep insisting Communism has failed:

Marx said the path to Communism was Socialism. If Socialism is democratic, and is the democratic control of the economy by the workers, then the USSR, China, Cuba, and all the other nations that "were communist" were not. One, the had (or have) dictatorship governments. Two, a minority controls the economy. Therefore none of those nations have truely attempted to make it to Communism. The closest nations so Communism are nations in Europe lead by Democratic Socialists, which practice Market Socialism. They are some of the most free nations on the globe.

To people who keep insisting Communism has failed:

Marx said the path to Communism was Socialism. If Socialism is democratic, and is the democratic control of the economy by the workers, then the USSR, China, Cuba, and all the other nations that "were communist" were not. One, the had (or have) dictatorship governments. Two, a minority controls the economy. Therefore none of those nations have truely attempted to make it to Communism. The closest nations so Communism are nations in Europe lead by Democratic Socialists, which practice Market Socialism. They are some of the most free nations on the globe.
And moreover communism is an international movement. Those who say a nation is communist do not understand communism.

I'm not against communism, or anything, actually I'm for it, but there are problems with it.
:confused:

The Problems with Communism:
The limits on Freedom
making everybody equal can limit economical freedom, so people may not reac their full potential.
It can be very easy for somebody with power to take over and become a merciless dictator, as greed is part of human nature.
It has to be very carefully to make sure it does not turn into slave labour, particularly when it is a Communist dictatorship.

If you have any more Pros or Cons of Communism, please add them.
You're obviously confused as to what communism actually is. In Communism there IS no state, so there is no ruler. There are NO limits of freedom, within reason of course. There will be nobody above anyone else to STOP people achieving their full potential, nor will anyone be able to seize power.

And greed is part of humn nature? Giv eme a break. So is everything positive.

And a communist dictatorship? No such thing. Go read up a bit. ;)

Capitalists have always accused communists of being utopians.
However, over the last 200 years the ideas of Marx has sparked modern socialism and all industrialized country have achieved over half of the communist manifesto recommended measured that are :
The ban on child labor.

Long BEFORE there was even a U.S.S.R. the United States has been making Laws to restrict Child Labor, regardless of the Communist Manefesto. Seems Capitalism was ahead of Communism even then.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/rc_016300_childlabor.htm

During the period from 1902 to 1915, child labor committees emphasized reform through state legislatures. Many laws restricting child labor were passed as part of the progressive reform movement of this period.

Regards,
Gaar

Also, I feel Marxism in theory and Communism in effect are completely different things.

Yeah, so is Democracy in Theory and Democratic Republic in effect, what's your point?

That the wrong people have tried Communism, or they weren't as smart as you? Or that they didn't get it right or something? Why is it failing in EVERY way it is being tried then?

Regards,
Gaar

Yeah, so is Democracy in Theory and Democratic Republic in effect, what's your point?

That the wrong people have tried Communism, or they weren't as smart as you? Or that they didn't get it right or something? Why is it failing in EVERY way it is being tried then?

Regards,
Gaar

Well for one thing, they tried MARXISM, or not even that, they tried Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism. Get my drift?

People CAN learn from their mistakes, and besides, some Communists aren't Marxists at all, and wouldn't necessarily fall into the mire of dictatorship...

Long BEFORE there was even a U.S.S.R. the United States has been making Laws to restrict Child Labor, regardless of the Communist Manefesto. Seems Capitalism was ahead of Communism even then.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/rc_016300_childlabor.htm

During the period from 1902 to 1915, child labor committees emphasized reform through state legislatures. Many laws restricting child labor were passed as part of the progressive reform movement of this period.

Regards,
Gaar

The founding of the USSR is not synonymous with the birth of Communism.

A more accurate date would be the publishing of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 - which predates the period you name by over half a century.

Mind you, I don't claim causality. But communism had made this point long before.

To people who keep insisting Communism has failed:

Marx said the path to Communism was Socialism. If Socialism is democratic, and is the democratic control of the economy by the workers, then the USSR, China, Cuba, and all the other nations that "were communist" were not. One, the had (or have) dictatorship governments. Two, a minority controls the economy. Therefore none of those nations have truely attempted to make it to Communism. The closest nations so Communism are nations in Europe lead by Democratic Socialists, which practice Market Socialism. They are some of the most free nations on the globe.

Yes, just as most Democracies aren't TRULY Democratic, so what's your point?

Regards,
Gaar

The founding of the USSR is not synonymous with the birth of Communism.

A more accurate date would be the publishing of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 - which predates the period you name by over half a century.

Mind you, I don't claim causality. But communism had made this point long before.

Communism makes the point and Capitalism puts it into effect...

What does that tell you?

Regards,
Gaar

Long BEFORE there was even a U.S.S.R. the United States has been making Laws to restrict Child Labor, regardless of the Communist Manefesto. Seems Capitalism was ahead of Communism even then.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/rc_016300_childlabor.htm

During the period from 1902 to 1915, child labor committees emphasized reform through state legislatures. Many laws restricting child labor were passed as part of the progressive reform movement of this period.

Regards,
Gaar
What can I say? the Communist manifesto was released in 1848 and advocated the ban on child labor. http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
I believe you are still stuck in a cold war set of mind and confuse the USSR with communism and the USA with capitalism.

Communism makes the point and Capitalism puts it into effect...

What does that tell you?

Regards,
Gaar
You are confusing several things here. You should read the communist manifesto and forget some of your grief about the USSR, it doesn't exist anymore anyway. Try to think beyond your national borders.

You are confusing several things here. You should read the communist manifesto and forget some of your grief about the USSR, it doesn't exist anymore anyway. Try to think beyond your national borders.

I didn't mention U.S.S.R.

I merely made the point that, well before Communism even attempted to put such things in play the U.S. was ALREADY beginning to put such theories into practice...

Something about that you don't get?

Regards,
Gaar

My thoughts ...

I don't know if i want the same exact amount of money as everyone . Wouldn't this mean i may not be able to afford certian luxuries . What if i work really hard to be rich and relax . Why wouldnt i be allowed to do that .

My money would pretty much go to the goverment so they can be luxurious and overly greedy with my hard working money ?

I really dont want that . I had a better plan of helping people when i got some money . A lot of rich people do this already.

There are only a few issues if you are poor ..housing ,food ,education health/medical and luxuries ...

Why would you have to make everyones pay equal to knock out the poor . What about people who are freeloaders and dont want to get a job . Not all of the poor is of the unfourtanate .. My parents started poor but my father got off his ass and got a good job . It took time but he stuck it out .My mother worked for a while , stood home a bit to raise us and then went back to work to help my father out . Maybe taxes should just be lower and their pay higher . Maybe the goverment shouldnt get so much out of their pay check eh ..

This all makes me question where most of the money is really going . I smell a rat in this option and even the current one i am in .

I didn't mention U.S.S.R.

I merely made the point that, well before Communism even attempted to put such things in play the U.S. was ALREADY beginning to put such theories into practice...

Something about that you don't get?

Regards,
Gaar
I don't get it at all.
You are comparing a philosophy to a country? The US vs communism? It doesn't make any sense to me. I can understand that the US government has been influenced by such and such philosophy, or that the US has taken its roots in such and such philosophies. I can not understand how you can compare the US and a philosophy and conclude that one of them is better than the other. I have the feeling that you are thinking about the US as a force dedicated to fight communism and that you are still at war with communism. Unfortunatelly your words are inaccurate and I don't get what you are trying to say at all.

Why would you have to make everyones pay equal to knock out the poor .You don't have to. Communism is not about making everyone having equal pay. Communism is about property and power.
What about people who are freeloaders and dont want to get a job .In the communist manifesto, one of the recommended measures is to implement mandatory work for all those who are able to work.

Not all of the poor is of the unfourtanate .. My parents started poor but my father got off his ass and got a good job . It took time but he stuck it out .My mother worked for a while , stood home a bit to raise us and then went back to work to help my father out . Maybe taxes should just be lower and their pay higher . Maybe the goverment shouldnt get so much out of their pay check eh ..They shouldn't pay tax at all.

This all makes me question where most of the money is really going . I smell a rat in this option and even the current one i am in .The money you talk about is just a tool for hidding power and coearcion.

I don't get it at all.
You are comparing a philosophy to a country? The US vs communism. It doesn't make any sense to me. I can understand that the US government has been influenced by such and such philosophy, or that the US has taken its roots in such and such philosophies. I can not understand how you can compare the US and a philosophy and conclude that one of them is better than the other. I have the feeling that you are thinking about the US as a force dedicated to fight communism and that you are still at war with communism. Unfortunatelly your words are inaccurate and I don't get what you are trying to say at all.

U.S. versus Communism? Try Democractic Republc and Capitalism versus Communism.

I believe you CAN make such Judgements simply by looking at how each has performed under "Real World" circumstances.

In other words, we have solid PROOF how each performs, do we not?

Regards,
Gaar

That isnt my point, my point is that the existence of these societies disproves the myth that greed is human nature. In fact, it points towards the possibility that greed comes from capitalism.

I'm greedy. I want more than that which I have. However, this does not mean I'm just going to screw over anyone I need to in order to GET more than I have and I am most certainly not going to infringe upon my friends for anything more significant than a ride or the lend of five bucks in order to get stuff I want. But it is impossible to feel 'close' to the majority of people, and there are those who would screw over even people close to them. But that is their choice. They can allow greed to overcome friendships if they like. Edit: My point there was that in close-knit groups, it's likely that personal loyalty will take precedence over personal ambition.

Here's the thing I don't understand. Whilst we've never achieved a 'true' Communism any more than we have acheieved a true Democracy, there have been numerous states which have put some form of Communism, or tried to put Communism, into place. The USSR was a dictatorship and a threat to the world for over 50 years. It destroyed itself from the inside - the economy fell apart. China, 50,000,000 plus dead, is now rapidly increasing in economic strength - after adopting capitalist methods for business. It is now Communist only in name. It amuses me that all these nations which call themselves Communist are being claimed by pro-Communism people not to be Communist... the distinctions are very small, and they've all aimed for it. Today, of course, we're mostly capitalist, because we haven't had a general destruction of capitalist systems. Because it works, at least more than the alternative.

Ok, what I really don't get is this:

You're obviously confused as to what communism actually is. In Communism there IS no state, so there is no ruler. There are NO limits of freedom, within reason of course. There will be nobody above anyone else to STOP people achieving their full potential, nor will anyone be able to seize power.

Communism cannot be enforced without a state. No state = no law enforcement. And you know where I'm going here. And please don't say "But only people who WANT to be Communist will be!" because you know as well as I do - a lack of law enforcement will lead to anarchy, not communism. And what is to say things are fair?

As I proposed in my example, certain industries will be completely overloaded, whilst others will be nearly abandoned. This cannot be rectified without in some way or another, forcing people to work. Or, alteratively, what happens if some painter is felt not to be doing his share? Sure, he's contributing something to culture, but culture doesn't feed people, and he's mooching off the farmers. So the farmers shun him, or beat him up - then he decides he'd prefer not to get lynched, so he spends X hours a day working, then comes home. But he's tired by then, and doesn't have the energy to do much work. Bam, a great artist is lost. Or of course, a completely inept person could propose to be an artist, thereby not contributing anything to society culturally or physically.

There is no practicable way to enforce large-scale communism without the presence of an overbearing regime.

U.S. versus Communism? Try Democractic Republc and Capitalism versus Communism.

I believe you CAN make such Judgements simply by looking at how each has performed under "Real World" circumstances.

In other words, we have solid PROOF how each performs, do we not?

Regards,
Gaar
What has the ban on child labor to do with democratic republic or capitalism?

What has the ban on child labor to do with democratic republic or capitalism?

I don't know, you tell me...

Someone earlier was trying to "claim" that Communism had some type of "patent" on the idea, and I just wanted to point out that the U.S. was doing such things even before Communism had gained a foothold in ANY Nation...

Regards,
Gaar

I don't know, you tell me...

Someone earlier was trying to "claim" that Communism had some type of "patent" on the idea, and I just wanted to point out that the U.S. was doing such things even before Communism had gained a foothold in ANY Nation...

Regards,
Gaar
Communism gained more foothold in the US the day they banned child labor.
Note : I'm not attacking the US in any way. I'm just arguing the benefits of communism. No need to be on the defensive about that.

Anyway I don't believe capitalist ideals are good ones, I see them as hypocrit. And I recognize the message of the capitalist propaganda is void and full of empty catch words like freedom and democracy but there is nothing more than the preservation of the class privileges.

Capitalism doesn't work to retain class or make society static with regard to rich and poor. The only way rigid class structures could actually be enforced would be by government stepping in, since without that, what's to stop poor people making money and ceasing to be poor? (this happens with some regularity in the west today). What would have to exist to preserve class structure would be feudalism, where people on the low end of society were actually not allowed to earn enough and become richer.

As a capitalist, I strongly object to any kind of economic government intervention of this nature or any other, because I believe that poor people have the right to become rich. As a capitalist, I couldn't care less about preserving the supremacy of the upper class, or shaping society, or creating economic tiers or whatever. I want everyone to determine their own place in society.

Communism gained more foothold in the US the day they banned child labor.
Note : I'm not attacking the US in any way. I'm just arguing the benefits of communism. No need to be on the defensive about that.

... did you... did you seriously just say that children's rights are an exclusively Communist ideal...?

Because... you do know that it is perfectly possible to hold similar values without subscribing to the same systems, right? I believe killing is wrong. Buddhists believe killing is wrong. Ergo I am Buddhist? I think not! (Good thing I'm not Descartes, either =P) Or, ergo my idea came from Buddhism? Again, untrue.

And actually, the reason the West banned child labor was mainly because of writers like Dickens, who aroused sympathy for the young in his various books of Victorian England, not because of Communism.

Communism gained more foothold in the US the day they banned child labor.
Note : I'm not attacking the US in any way. I'm just arguing the benefits of communism. No need to be on the defensive about that.

Actually, I believe you are doing a MUCH BETTER job of pointing out just how flexible Democracy can be...

But you are entitled to your OPINION, just as I am mine.

Regards,
Gaar

There are NO limits of freedom, within reason of course. There will be nobody above anyone else to STOP people achieving their full potential, nor will anyone be able to seize power.


In Libertarian capitalism there are no limits to freedom, within reason of course. However, I think we have alternate definitions of "within reason". To me, "within reason" implies that there will be restrictions on rights which infringe on the rights of others, like "the right to murder", or "the right to commit fraud". To you, it would seem, within reason implies that there must be limits on the right to owning a means of production, the right to come to an agreement with someone about how much will pay them and for what, and other limitations.

Capitalism involves less freedom-limiting than communism or socialism.

I want everyone to determine their own place in society.Then everyone will put himself on top.
What is all this rethoric about? Capitalists pretend everybody can be a billionaire and stop working but billionaires are billionaires only because there is a lower class to work for them and there can't be billionaires without proletarians.

... did you... did you seriously just say that children's rights are an exclusively Communist ideal...?

Because... you do know that it is perfectly possible to hold similar values without subscribing to the same systems, right? I believe killing is wrong. Buddhists believe killing is wrong. Ergo I am Buddhist? I think not! (Good thing I'm not Descartes, either =P) Or, ergo my idea came from Buddhism? Again, untrue.

And actually, the reason the West banned child labor was mainly because of writers like Dickens, who aroused sympathy for the young in his various books of Victorian England, not because of Communism.
The point I made is about the accusations of utopianism.
The ban on child labor is a communist ideal nonetheless. My original point was that it the ban on child labor was POSSIBLE and proven to be so. You singled it out but what about minimum wages and working hour limits? What about social security and centralization of the banking industry in the hands of the state? All of this was POSSIBLE.
The next steps are possible as well. The abolition of inheritance, the nationalisation of major industries...

Actually, I believe you are doing a MUCH BETTER job of pointing out just how flexible Democracy can be...

But you are entitled to your OPINION, just as I am mine.

Regards,
Gaar
I believe democracy is the best way to govern a country.

In Libertarian capitalism there are no limits to freedom, within reason of course. However, I think we have alternate definitions of "within reason". To me, "within reason" implies that there will be restrictions on rights which infringe on the rights of others, like "the right to murder", or "the right to commit fraud". To you, it would seem, within reason implies that there must be limits on the right to owning a means of production, the right to come to an agreement with someone about how much will pay them and for what, and other limitations.

Capitalism involves less freedom-limiting than communism or socialism.
Capitalists defend the freedom to appropriate land. This is just rethoric. The freedom to appropriate land denies this freedom to just everybody but the owner.

Then everyone will put himself on top.
What is all this rethoric about? Capitalists pretend everybody can be a billionaire and stop working but billionaires are billionaires only because there is a lower class to work for them and there can't be billionaires without proletarians.

Everyone won't put themselves at the top, but they will have the right to try to. I'm not pretending that everyone can be a billionaire, but I'd assert that everyone can lead at least a fairly comfortable life.

When I say "everyone should determine their place in society", what I'm more getting at is that "nobody should determine somebody else's place in society". The thing about both feudalism and communism is that they are based on the premise that somebody knows what's best for everyone else, and so society should do that. Capitalism acknowledges that nobody necessarily knows what's best for society, so nobody should have a say over what other people do.

I believe democracy is the best way to govern a country.

Well let the proof be in the pudding then. In the west we seem to have voted for largely capitalist ideas about property and freedom.

Everyone won't put themselves at the top, but they will have the right to try to. I'm not pretending that everyone can be a billionaire, but I'd assert that everyone can lead at least a fairly comfortable life.

When I say "everyone should determine their place in society", what I'm more getting at is that "nobody should determine somebody else's place in society". The thing about both feudalism and communism is that they are based on the premise that somebody knows what's best for everyone else, and so society should do that. Capitalism acknowledges that nobody necessarily knows what's best for society, so nobody should have a say over what other people do.I'm confident capitalists think their way is best for society. I think you confuse capitalism with anarchism.

Well let the proof be in the pudding then. In the west we seem to have voted for largely capitalist ideas about property and freedom.
This vote is meaningless. In my country, the people voted overwhelmingly for socialism, but the government is controlled by the bourgeois so it doen't matter. In the US, there is no democracy. You elect which puppet will follow the orders of Halliburton and other equally soulless global corporation controlling more assets than the government anyway.
The freedom you talk about is the freedom of the corporations at the expense of the freedom of the people.

There are millions of convicted criminals in the world. There are tens, nay hundreds of millions who are mostly law abiding but still expoit the system (illegal downloads, anyone?). British chavs are characterised by their laziness and inherent unwillingness to work (chavs, not the working class as a whole), and there are plenty of able bodied people who live on the dole and have no incentive to work. Those who do work may well cut corners to make their lives easier. Even I do it, and I'm a person who's fairly picky about doing a decent job. All these people number in the thousands of millions. So how do these people fit into your utopia, hmm?

This vote is meaningless. In my country, the people woted largely for socialism, but the government is controlled by the bourgeois so it doen't matter. In the US, there is no democracy.

Most of the components of American government are, to my knowledge, elected by the populace. Stop pretending that capitalists are some tiny gentleman's club who sit around in dinner jackets plotting to enslave the poor. In modern society, everyone who buys, sells, works and employs is a capitalist. Millions of people own land, loads of people run businesses big and small. Are they psychotic class-obsessed fat cats?

Even if the American government is controlled by some underground bourgeois conspiracy (which I think you'll have a hard time proving), what about Britain, Australia, most of Europe? Sure, we have a little more economic government intervention over here, but they're not exactly rounding up all the land owners and sending the to gulags or anything. Or is the entire western world controlled by this secret bourgeois elite network?

There are millions of convicted criminals in the world. There are tens, nay hundreds of millions who are mostly law abiding but still expoit the system (illegal downloads, anyone?). British chavs are characterised by their laziness and inherent unwillingness to work (chavs, not the working class as a whole), and there are plenty of able bodied people who live on the dole and have no incentive to work. Those who do work may well cut corners to make their lives easier. Even I do it, and I'm a person who's fairly picky about doing a decent job. All these people number in the thousands of millions. So how do these people fit into your utopia, hmm?
The people who work in the farms in Africa don't have an easier life for working. Those who own their farm and sell their work have the easy go but they contribute nothing. Share holders just own but don't work. Those who exploit the system are not the ones you think.

I've frequently heard this argument ("Real Communism hasn't been tried yet, therefore Communism is not a failure") - even by some of my more optimistic fellow Americans.

My response(s)

1) What about Human nature is going to change to enable Communism? People need a personal interest and a sense of "ownership" in the things they manage, in order to feel a strong sense of motivation to improve, to make a profit, to gain more for themselves etc. This is the very reason that China is booming now that they let people have more of an ownership stake. (This is often summarized in the succinct phrase: Greed works. or, if you prefer - "To become rich, is glorious")

2) Individual humans, or even a group of humans acting as centralized leadership, simply cannot contain in their brains all the best possibilities, all of the myriad enterprises, activities, etc that can and should take place in the society. This is what the Capitalists call "The Genius of the Marketplace" or "The invisible hand of the market." How is Communism going to do top down management better than capitalist market based competition for the best solution? (bonus question: How can large corporations really manage themselves best when they get so big they are too complex for their own leadership to understand? - and when they kill off competitive pressure to improve in their market?)

3) What makes Marx such a genius that he can predict some future form of government that no one has ever seen or experienced, or at least implemented correctly though they tried...? Why keep claiming Marx was right? When I hear this line "first you must have Capitalism before you can have real Communism", I just want to reply "so, real Communists are hardcore Capitalist advocates, then?"

I'm confident capitalists think their way is best for society. I think you confuse capitalism with anarchism.

I am a capitalist, and I don't want to actually ENFORCE my opinion on society. How can you enforce economic liberty? All I want to do is stop other people enforcing their social ideals onto me. I don't care about class preservation, nor do I care about class destruction. I just want to live my life as I wish and let others live theirs.

Most of the components of American government are, to my knowledge, elected by the populace. Stop pretending that capitalists are some tiny gentleman's club who sit around in dinner jackets plotting to enslave the poor. In modern society, everyone who buys, sells, works and employs is a capitalist. Millions of people own land, loads of people run businesses big and small. Are they psychotic class-obsessed fat cats?The US government controls nothing when compared to the global corporations. You are saying that because the system is not ruled by psychotic class-obsessed fat cats it is ok. The system is far from optimal. There is a lot room to improve, starting from the abolition of inheritance.

Even if the American government is controlled by some underground bourgeois conspiracy (which I think you'll have a hard time proving), what about Britain, Australia, most of Europe? Sure, we have a little more economic government intervention over here, but they're not exactly rounding up all the land owners and sending the to gulags or anything. Or is the entire western world controlled by this secret bourgeois elite network?
I've talked about Europe. I live in Europe. My governement is controlled by the corporations. The bourgeois elite has nothing secrete. You are making up a conspiracy theory in order to make communism look like something extreme.

I am a capitalist, and I don't want to actually ENFORCE my opinion on society. How can you enforce economic liberty? All I want to do is stop other people enforcing their social ideals onto me. I don't care about class preservation, nor do I care about class destruction. I just want to live my life as I wish and let others live theirs.
Then let them have free beaches, free roads, free water, free food, free CDs and free oil. Property rights are not freedom.

The US government controls nothing when compared to the global corporations. You are saying that because the system is not ruled by psychotic class-obsessed fat cats it is ok. The system is far from optimal. There is a lot room to improve, starting from the abolition of inheritance.

In any system there is room for improvement. Whether or not abolition of inheritance is necessary is another point for discussion.


I've talked about Europe. I live in Europe. My governement is controlled by the corporations. The bourgeois elite has nothing secrete. You are making up a conspiracy theory in order to make communism look like something extreme.

I'm making up a conspiracy theory? You're the one who told me that the whole US government was controlled by a bourgeois minority!

Then let them have free beaches, free roads, free water, free food, free CDs and free oil. Property rights are not freedom.

Are you assuming that because you call these goods and services "free", there is no cost?

Somebody has to pay for it.

Property rights are a way to bring order to chaos.

1) What about Human nature is going to change to enable Communism? People need a personal interest and a sense of "ownership" in the things they manage, in order to feel a strong sense of motivation to improve, to make a profit, to gain more for themselves etc. This is the very reason that China is booming now that they let people have more of an ownership stake. (This is often summarized in the succinct phrase: Greed works. or, if you prefer - "To become rich, is glorious")China is booming at the expense of the third world.

3) What makes Marx such a genius that he can predict some future form of government that no one has ever seen or experienced, or at least implemented correctly though they tried...? Why keep claiming Marx was right? When I hear this line "first you must have Capitalism before you can have real Communism", I just want to reply "so, real Communists are hardcore Capitalist advocates, then?"
No. Real communists are progressists. Capitalism is the past. Communists look to the present.

Then let them have free beaches, free roads, free water, free food, free CDs and free oil. Property rights are not freedom.

But they are. People have the right to own food, visit beaches, own CDs, own oil. They just can't take them as they please, they have to exchange them with whoever made the CDs, whoever farmed the food. What's going to make the people who farm the food just give it up for public consumption? It's an infringement on the right of someone who produces something to have to give it to whoever wants it for free.

China is booming at the expense of the third world.

How do you figure? What are you talking about?

No. Real communists are progressists. Capitalism is the past. Communists look to the present.

Real communists are oppressors.

Real communists are oppressors.

No, real communists do not believe in any form of power monopoly.

In any system there is room for improvement. Whether or not abolition of inheritance is necessary is another point for discussion.Abolition of inheritance is absolutelly necessary. This is what this thread is about. Communism. Communism is partly about abolishing inheritance.

I'm making up a conspiracy theory? You're the one who told me that the whole US government was controlled by a bourgeois minority!It is controlled by the bourgeois minority. There is no conspiracy. It is just the system which works like that.

No, real communists do not believe in any form of power monopoly.

What was Marx referring to when he spoke of "the dictatorship of the proletariat"?

But they are. People have the right to own food, visit beaches, own CDs, own oil. They just can't take them as they please, they have to exchange them with whoever made the CDs, whoever farmed the food. What's going to make the people who farm the food just give it up for public consumption? It's an infringement on the right of someone who produces something to have to give it to whoever wants it for free.
You have to pay those who farm the food, not those who own the farm.

No. Real communists are progressists. Capitalism is the past. Communists look to the present.

Excuse me, but that's total bullshit. Capitalism is very much modern and present. Capitalism is the philosophy of the world's most sucessful countries, here, now, in the present. Capitalists create new technologies all the time, innovation is often thanks to competition, a very capitalist idea.

If anything, communism is stale and old. Marx predicted something hundreds of years ago which never happened. And the very idea of "I know what's best for society, you should do as I say" which communism involves is the philosophy of yesterday. People don't want to listen to some crazy idealist anymore. They want to do as they please, thank you very much.

What was Marx referring to when he spoke of "the dictatorship of the proletariat"?

A transistionary stage wherin the underclass seizes democratic control of the means of production.

What was Marx referring to when he spoke of "the dictatorship of the proletariat"?
if you take the word of modern communists, Marx apparently didn't know anything about "real" communism, and Marxism isn't "real" communism. obviously the guy who invented modern communism is less of an authority on the subject than a bunch of high school or college kids who read some economics and history books :).

It is controlled by the bourgeois minority. There is no conspiracy. It is just the system which works like that.

I'm sorry, but your argument makes an impossible leap of logic.

Every adult in the nation is allowed to pick a leader, ergo a tiny minority are able to put who they want into power? What kind of retarded claim is that?

Excuse me, but that's total bullshit. Capitalism is very much modern and present. Capitalism is the philosophy of the world's most sucessful countries, here, now, in the present. Capitalists create new technologies all the time, innovation is often thanks to competition, a very capitalist idea.

If anything, communism is stale and old. Marx predicted something hundreds of years ago which never happened. And the very idea of "I know what's best for society, you should do as I say" which communism involves is the philosophy of yesterday. People don't want to listen to some crazy idealist anymore. They want to do as they please, thank you very much.
Do you live in the US?

I'm sorry, but your argument makes an impossible leap of logic.

Every adult in the nation is allowed to pick a leader, ergo a tiny minority are able to put who they want into power? What kind of retarded claim is that?
the theory is that rich people actually control all power and use that power to oppress everybody else, and they use the media to trick all non-rich people into thinking they have a voice (when actually the rich people make all decisions from their Rich Fortress of Doom on the Lost Volcano Island). all non-rich people are miserable and oppressed and would be much happier if they could get their hands on the rich people's money. rich people also never work, don't deserve their money, and should have their property confiscated and redistributed.

You have to pay those who farm the food, not those who own the farm.

Unlike under communism, nobody's MAKING you work on the farm. If the guy who owns the farm doesn't pay you enough, you can go work for someone who will. The owner will lose an employee. Otherwise, you can save up and just buy the farm. You can run your own farm if you want.

Do you live in the US?

No, I live in Devon, England.

I'm sorry, but your argument makes an impossible leap of logic.

Every adult in the nation is allowed to pick a leader, ergo a tiny minority are able to put who they want into power? What kind of retarded claim is that?
Watch your local politicians talk. They are all powerless. Their only talk are about trying to attract capital, giving incentive to corporations. the global market economy is above their authority.

A transistionary stage wherin the underclass seizes democratic control of the means of production.

"Seizes democratic control"? How do you do that? Is that like voting?

Unlike under communism, nobody's MAKING you work on the farm. If the guy who owns the farm doesn't pay you enough, you can go work for someone who will. The owner will lose an employee. Otherwise, you can save up and just buy the farm. You can run your own farm if you want.
How do you save up money when you have just enough or not enough to eat and have drinkable water?

the theory is that rich people actually control all power and use that power to oppress everybody else, and they use the media to trick all non-rich people into thinking they have a voice (when actually the rich people make all decisions from their Rich Fortress of Doom on the Lost Volcano Island). all non-rich people are miserable and oppressed and would be much happier if they could get their hands on the rich people's money. rich people also never work, don't deserve their money, and should have their property confiscated and redistributed.

It all makes perfect sense now. The rich are hypnotising me into voting for them! And I'm running out of tin foil for my anti-hypnosis helmet!!!

No, I live in Devon, England.
Well then you live in a bourgeois country where most people benefit from capitalist exploitation. You should not think that the world is happy with that.

"Seizes democratic control"? How do you do that? Is that like voting?
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

It all makes perfect sense now. The rich are hypnotising me into voting for them! And I'm running out of tin foil for my anti-hypnosis helmet!!!
Don't argue with people who agree with you.

if you take the word of modern communists, Marx apparently didn't know anything about "real" communism, and Marxism isn't "real" communism. obviously the guy who invented modern communism is less of an authority on the subject than a bunch of high school or college kids who read some economics and history books :).

Ideas evolve over time. Not everything that Marx wrote may be relevant today. There are 19th century anarcho-communists that were critics of Marx, such as Bakunin and Kropotkin.

Watch your local politicians talk. They are all powerless. Their only talk are about trying to attract capital, giving incentive to corporations. the global market economy is above their authority.

Actually they always blab on about further government control and restriction, and are constantly trying to obtain more power for themselves. We should give politicians more power over our lives? Good thinking. Oh wait.

Don't argue with people who agree with you.

It was sarcasm, I was continuing his joke.

Actually they always blab on about further government control and restriction, and are constantly trying to obtain more power for themselves. We should give politicians more power over our lives? Good thinking. Oh wait.
You are obsessed with politicians and you don't see they're just puppets. I'm not talking about giving more power to them. I'm talking about give more power to the people.

Well then you live in a bourgeois country where most people benefit from capitalist exploitation. You should not think that the world is happy with that.

It's true. Most people in Britain reap the benefits of capitalism. Why take that away from us?

"Seizes democratic control"? How do you do that? Is that like voting?

Depends on the interpretation, I guess. If it can be brought about by voting, yes. Likely, however, safeguards will be put in place by those who don't wish to see such an eventuality that will prevent this.

What will probably happen, if certain preconditions arise, and other means to acheive change are unavailable, is that the majority of workers will say "enough is enough" and take control. It doesn't necessarily have to be violent.

It was sarcasm, I was continuing his joke.
I found it funny. Your sarcasm was funny as well.

It's true. Most people in Britain reap the benefits of capitalism. Why take that away from us?

Most people in the world, however, do not. Think of the world as a global village and you'll see the problem, here.

It's true. Most people in Britain reap the benefits of capitalism. Why take that away from us?
Cause it is at the expense of the third world.

You are obsessed with politicians and you don't see they're just puppets. I'm not talking about giving more power to them. I'm talking about give more power to the people.

Yes, they're puppets to other politicians. What they're not is puppets to the evil-scheming capitalist club. If they were, wouldn't they be trying to reduce economic restrictions on business?

Yes, they're puppets to other politicians. What they're not is puppets to the evil-scheming capitalist club. If they were, wouldn't they be trying to reduce economic restrictions on business?
They are?

Most people in the world, however, do not. Think of the world as a global village and you'll see the problem, here.

The people of the third world are often suffering because they are under the control of dictators and despots, people who think they know what's best for society. If these sorts of regimes would become freer, people would become richer. Other factors like war and natural disaster reduce wealth in many places.

In cases where companies actually force their third world employees to do anything, like stay working at that company's sweatshop, or work without pay, then those companies are breaking the law. Corrupt acts like that should be stopped. I don't think that capitalism itself is responsible for this, because capitalists despise acts of force and fraud against anybody. A lot of sweatshop labour provides work for people who would otherwise starve. It's not perfect, but take it away and you screw them even worse.

They are?

They're constantly introducing pointless regulations against business and trade. Labour are traditionally socialists, they want to slow down business. They certainly aren't kissing the asses of capitalists any more than the public wants them to.

It's not perfect, but take it away and you screw them even worse.It is not about taking it away but about improving it. Think not about the past and the present but about the present and the future.

They're constantly introducing pointless regulations against business and trade. Labour are traditionally socialists, they want to slow down business. They certainly aren't kissing the asses of capitalists any more than the public wants them to.
You are lucky. I wish they would do that in my country.

You are lucky. I wish they would do that in my country.

What's your country? To my knowledge we in Britain are some of the more capitalist people of Europe.

The people of the third world are often suffering because they are under the control of dictators and despots, people who think they know what's best for society. If these sorts of regimes would become freer, people would become richer. Other factors like war and natural disaster reduce wealth in many places.

However. It is important to note that Central and South America used to be almost wholly democratic- but when left-wing movements stepped too far, the classes with something to lose seized absolute power. Yes, they thought they knew what was best for society, and the USA agreed with them in the interests of capitalism.

A similar story occured in post-colonial Africa. Most of the new nations were democratic, until the military and upper classes seized power.

In cases where companies actually force their third world employees to do anything, like stay working at that company's sweatshop, or work without pay, then those companies are breaking the law. Corrupt acts like that should be stopped. I don't think that capitalism itself is responsible for this, because capitalists despise acts of force and fraud against anybody. A lot of sweatshop labour provides work for people who would otherwise starve. It's not perfect, but take it away and you screw them even worse.

A valid point. That is not to say that it's the best possible outcome for these nations, however.

What's your country? To my knowledge we in Britain are some of the more capitalist people of Europe.
France.

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

I've read it. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" means is that one class of society seizes control of government, which in turn seizes control of private property and that one class makes the decisions about what is to be produced for the common good.

It's not called a dictatorship for nothing and it doesn't magically end when everyone's fat and happy. It goes back to the first part of my original post. A committee cannot decide what makes people happy. Only individuals can decide that for themselves.

Depends on the interpretation, I guess. If it can be brought about by voting, yes. Likely, however, safeguards will be put in place by those who don't wish to see such an eventuality that will prevent this.

What will probably happen, if certain preconditions arise, and other means to acheive change are unavailable, is that the majority of workers will say "enough is enough" and take control. It doesn't necessarily have to be violent.

Safeguards like a constitution and rule of law?

What will probably happen, if certain preconditions arise, and other means to acheive change are unavailable, is that the majority of workers will say "enough is enough" and take control. It doesn't necessarily have to be violent.

Not have to be violent? Do you think people will stand by and give up thier property and livelihoods without the threat of force?

I've read it. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" means is that one class of society seizes control of government, which in turn seizes control of private property and that one class makes the decisions about what is to be produced for the common good.

It's not called a dictatorship for nothing and it doesn't magically end when everyone's fat and happy. It goes back to the first part of my original post. A committee cannot decide what makes people happy. Only individuals can decide that for themselves.
Indeed. The problem is that they can't.
Let say you are ruled by a king. The king wants to rule. You don't want to be ruled by the king. How can you let both decide for themselves?

Not have to be violent? Do you think people will stand by and give up thier property and livelihoods without the threat of force?You can take their property by abolishing inheritance for instance. But I agree it has to be violent most of the time anyway because they will not let this happen, although in some parts of the world, I think it can be done peacefully.

Indeed. The problem is that they can't.
Let say you are ruled by a king. The king wants to rule. You don't want to be ruled by the king. How can you let both decide for themselves?

What does this have to do with communism?

Let's say you live in a nation where you have the opportunity to make decisions for yourself. You have an idea or a skill and put that to use to make a living. Then, a bunch of folks who never had an original idea in their lives or never bothered to get a skill decide they want what you have and take it from you. In my dictiuonary, that's called theft and I have the right to defend myself, my family, and my property.

What does this have to do with communism?

Let's say you live in a nation where you have the opportunity to make decisions for yourself. You have an idea or a skill and put that to use to make a living. Then, a bunch of folks who never had an original idea in their lives or never bothered to get a skill decide they want what you have and take it from you. In my dictiuonary, that's called theft and I have the right to defend myself, my family, and my property.
Your nation is the tool of slavery of the third world. It only exist so as to protect the class privileges of the bourgeois. The proletarians have no nation. They can be bought, sold and expatriated just as any resource.

You can take their property by abolishing inheritance for instance. But I agree it has to be violent most of the time anyway because they will not let this happen, although in some parts of the world, I think it can be done peacefully.

I'm not really sure how abolishing inheritance is a legitimate way to take property. A person works all his life to build assets and wealth, and wants to give it to whom he pleases.

What's the point of taking that away? Are we just a little covetous of our neighbors stuff?

I'm not really sure how abolishing inheritance is a legitimate way to take property. A person works all his life to build assets and wealth, and wants to give it to whom he pleases.

What's the point of taking that away? Are we just a little covetous of our neighbors stuff?
Working does not give you the right to appropriate what belongs to all. Everybody has a right to education, a home, food, clean water, medecine and an opportunity to work, be him born in a rich or in a poor familly.
If anything, working does give you the right to improve your own life, not to build a dynasty of feudal lords.

Indeed. The problem is that they can't.
Let say you are ruled by a king. The king wants to rule. You don't want to be ruled by the king. How can you let both decide for themselves?

You let subjects act freely provided they do not initiate acts of fraud or force against others. The king, or whatever government system you have, should act as merely an administator to ensure that nobody does commit these acts.

What's the practical difference, by the way, between a despotic king and a coalition of communist revolutionaries? Both want to make other people do things that they'd rather not do. Both hold power against the will of the majority.

You let subjects act freely provided they do not initiate acts of fraud or force against others. The king, or whatever government system you have, should act as merely an administator to ensure that nobody does commit these acts.

What's the practical difference, by the way, between a despotic king and a coalition of communist revolutionaries? Both want to make other people do things that they'd rather not do. Both hold power against the will of the majority.
The difference is that the proletariat is the majority. The king is the minority.
You also forget that the town, food, the water sources and your home belongs to the king. Therefore je has a responsibility to feed his people.

Your nation is the tool of slavery of the third world. It only exist so as to protect the class privileges of the bourgeois. The proletarians have no nation. They can be bought, sold and expatriated just as any resource.

Not true. In a capitalist society, every person, rich or poor, has the same basic rights. The right to buy, sell, trade, say and do as they please, provided these do not infringe on the rights of any other person to buy, sell, say, do etc as they please. (Assuming that people don't have the right to just take whatever of your property they want)

Not true. In a capitalist society, every person, rich or poor, has the same basic rights. The right to buy, sell, trade, say and do as they please, provided these do not infringe on the rights of any other person to buy, sell, say, do etc as they please. (Assuming that people don't have the right to just take whatever of your property they want)
Those who are rich have the right to buy and to sell and those who are poor have the right to sell themselves.

Your nation is the tool of slavery of the third world. It only exist so as to protect the class privileges of the bourgeois. The proletarians have no nation. They can be bought, sold and expatriated just as any resource.

I see. Your nation is a tool of slavery, period. All workers in a communist nation are slaves to whatever strongman happens to hold power at the time.

Wealth is not a finite resource. wealth is created and is dynamic. The "Third World" needs to get rid of their corrupt strongmen and learn how to use their resources and skills to better themselves.

The difference is that the proletariat is the majority. The king is the minority.

If communists today were the majority, all democratic countries would instantly convert. But oh, I forgot, all democracy is actually run by bourgeois capitalist minority conspiritors, not, as it would appear more obviously, by everyone who votes. Silly me.

I see. Your nation is a tool of slavery, period. All workers in a communist nation are slaves to whatever strongman happens to hold power at the time.

Wealth is not a finite resource. wealth is created and is dynamic. The "Third World" needs to get rid of their corrupt strongmen and learn how to use their resources and skills to better themselves.
Wealth is a finite resource. Why else do we talk about the economy at all?
Why not let everybody take whatever they want if it is infinite?

If communists today were the majority, all democratic countries would instantly convert. But oh, I forgot, all democracy is actually run by bourgeois capitalist minority conspiritors, not, as it would appear more obviously, by everyone who votes. Silly me.
In my country, the socialists and communists got more votes than the conservatives and yet the conservatives were elected. Is that the democracy you are talking about?

I see. Your nation is a tool of slavery, period. All workers in a communist nation are slaves to whatever strongman happens to hold power at the time.


Mm, that's a very good point. Apologists for communism constantly insist that people under capitalism are slaves to corporations and the rich, ignoring the fact that true slavery is unpaid and mandatory, the exact opposite of work in a capitalist system, and the exact parallel of work in the system which they propose.

In my country, the socialists and communists got more votes than the conservatives and yet the conservatives were elected. Is that the democracy you are talking about?

Prove it.

Wealth is a finite resource. Why else do we talk about the economy at all?
Why not let everybody take whatever they want if it is infinite?

If wealth is a finite resource, then how do economies expand?
How do stock markets accumulate in value?
What does production produce?

Wealth can be produced. That's why it's not literally "finite".

But that aside, Communism is dead because it can't compete with capitalism - sooner or later the capitalists grind communism into the ground.

It's because of human nature. No one wants to live in a dump with drab clothing and endless drudgery - with no hope of ever having fancy consumer goods.

Give them the hope of having those consumer goods... and communism dies.

Mm, that's a very good point. Apologists for communism constantly insist that people under capitalism are slaves to corporations and the rich, ignoring the fact that true slavery is unpaid and mandatory, the exact opposite of work in a capitalist system, and the exact parallel of work in the system which they propose.
call that exploitation by the rich if you are not confortable with the slavery word. This kind of exploitation is paid as a machine is paid : just enough to maintain the workers in a suitable state to work.

Wealth is a finite resource. Why else do we talk about the economy at all?

To understand how to create and use wealth.

Why not let everybody take whatever they want if it is infinite?

Why not let everyone create what they want? Why do they have to take someone else's?

Prove it.
Do I really need to? Go to google. Didn't you hear how the far right's le pen party went to the second round?
There was 4 communist parties, 1 socialist and 2 left-wing green parties facing 2 right-wing conservative parties (one moderate and one extreme).
The left got more votes but the right was elected.

call that exploitation by the rich if you are not confortable with the slavery word. This kind of exploitation is paid as a machine is paid : just enough to maintain the workers in a suitable state to work.

Sounds more like communism to me. Capitalists come to mutual agreements with their employees as to how much they will exchange in terms of money and labour. Communists dictate who works where and for what.

It's not a case of my discomfort with the word "slavery", it's that it's an inaccurate analogy for paid work.

If wealth is a finite resource, then how do economies expand?by creating wealth

How do stock markets accumulate in value?you confuse financial value and wealth.

What does production produce?wealth.

Wealth can be produced. That's why it's not literally "finite".
Wealth has to be produced, that is why it is finite.

But that aside, Communism is dead because it can't compete with capitalism - sooner or later the capitalists grind communism into the ground.

It's because of human nature. No one wants to live in a dump with drab clothing and endless drudgery - with no hope of ever having fancy consumer goods.

Give them the hope of having those consumer goods... and communism dies.
Yet several socialist measures have been implemented over the last century. How did that happen if socialism can't compete with capitalism?

Do I really need to? Go to google. Didn't you hear how the far right's le pen party went to the second round?
There was 4 communist parties, 1 socialist and 2 left-wing green parties facing 2 right-wing conservative parties (one moderate and one extreme).
The left got more votes but the right was elected.

I find that really hard to believe without a credible source. Even if it is the case though, it is certainly not something which is happening across the board. In Britain, the socialists of the Labour party have held power for almost 10 years.

Do I really need to? Go to google. Didn't you hear how the far right's le pen party went to the second round?
There was 4 communist parties, 1 socialist and 2 left-wing green parties facing 2 right-wing conservative parties (one moderate and one extreme).
The left got more votes but the right was elected.

What am I missing? Is le Pen the president of France?

by creating wealth
stock market doesn't accumulate value, you confuse economy and finance here.
wealth.
Wealth has to be produced, that is why it is finite.

Yet several socialist measures have been implemented over the last century. How did that happen if socialism can't compete with capitalism?

I think what he means is that full-blown socialism of the "lynch all capitalists" variety can't compete with modern capitalism. In almost all systems there is a mixture of socialist and capitalist principles, it's just that in modern society, I would say the degree of capitalism's potency is more acute than that of socialism.

Sounds more like communism to me. Capitalists come to mutual agreements with their employees as to how much they will exchange in terms of money and labour. Communists dictate who works where and for what.

It's not a case of my discomfort with the word "slavery", it's that it's an inaccurate analogy for paid work.Yet the employees work for the capitalists and the capitalists don't work.

Yet several socialist measures have been implemented over the last century. How did that happen if socialism can't compete with capitalism?

Communism and socialism are not the same thing.
For starters, a nation has to be able to "afford" socialism.

Large scale socialist measures have a cost associated with them. Nothing is "free", no matter what government "takes" it in the name of the people.

I find that really hard to believe without a credible source. Even if it is the case though, it is certainly not something which is happening across the board. In Britain, the socialists of the Labour party have held power for almost 10 years.
Well, just trust me or go to google and find for yourself.
In France, The "socialists" held power for 14 years and they privatized all our major industries. They actually lied to get elected and then they bowed to the pressure of the global capitalists.

by creating wealth
you confuse financial value and wealth.
wealth.
Wealth has to be produced, that is why it is finite.

I'm thinking that "finite" means more cannot be produced. It's a limited quantity.

Yet several socialist measures have been implemented over the last century. How did that happen if socialism can't compete with capitalism?

It means that capitalism is flexible and is willing to concede that some cannot care for themselves and deserve help.

What am I missing? Is le Pen the president of France?
No it is Chirac.

I think what he means is that full-blown socialism of the "lynch all capitalists" variety can't compete with modern capitalism. In almost all systems there is a mixture of socialist and capitalist principles, it's just that in modern society, I would say the degree of capitalism's potency is more acute than that of socialism.
What is full-blown socialism?

Communism and socialism are not the same thing.
For starters, a nation has to be able to "afford" socialism.

Large scale socialist measures have a cost associated with them. Nothing is "free", no matter what government "takes" it in the name of the people.
Socialism is the path to communism.
I think most people here think communists want to just erase everything and start over from scratch.

What is full-blown socialism?
As in, the original implementation in the Soviet Union, or Communist China.

Yet the employees work for the capitalists and the capitalists don't work.

Now that's silly. Of course they work. They work in the marketplace of ideas and in the financial markets to insure their ideas create wealth.

It means that capitalism is flexible and is willing to concede that some cannot care for themselves and deserve help.
Well if you call socialism capitalism, then I agree with capitalism.

socialism is the nice name for communism
mind you it is less left and more anarchic than communism , i recently purchased a t-shirt which puts it perfectly

"The socialism I believe in is everyone working for each other, everyone having a share of the rewards. It's the way I see football, the way I see life" Bill Shankly

As in, the original implementation in the Soviet Union, or Communist China.
Oh ok. Indeed those ones have a hard time competing. Fortunatelly they're not the only ones.

Oh ok. Indeed those ones have a hard time competing. Fortunatelly they're not the only ones.

I see Communism is actually Leninism. It's the only way to get the proletariat to go along with the revolution, as they are too dumb to know what's good for them (at least that's what Lenin thought).

What is full-blown socialism?

Full-blown socialism is where you send all the dinner-jacket landowners into slavery to build canals and nationalize every industry you can lay your hands on.

Now that's silly. Of course they work. They work in the marketplace of ideas and in the financial markets to insure their ideas create wealth.
Oh no. Some of them just call their banker once in a while and ask how's business. A capitalist is the one who rent his capital. He doesn't necessarily have to work.

Oh no. Some of them just call their banker once in a while and ask how's business. A capitalist is the one who rent his capital. He doesn't necessarily have to work.

A party official doesn't work, either. They just call the workers once in a while and ask how's business. A party official is the one who took his capital by force of arms during the revolution. He doesn't have to work anymore.

Well if you call socialism capitalism, then I agree with capitalism.

The problem is not that I call socialism "capitalism". It's that you have a distorted view of capitalism.

I see Communism is actually Leninism. It's the only way to get the proletariat to go along with the revolution, as they are too dumb to know what's good for them (at least that's what Lenin thought).
That is only one kind of socialism. It is a special kind because it was implemented straight from feudalism. And indeed Lenin was right that in feudalism people were too dumb to understand because they had no access to education.
What Marx talked about was moving from full-blown capitalism to socialism. It is another path.

That is only one kind of socialism. It is a special kind because it was implemented straight from feudalism. And indeed Lenin was right that in feudalism people were too dumb to understand because they had no access to education.
What Marx talked about was moving from full-blown capitalism to socialism. It is another path.

One of the problems inherent in socialism is that someone has to pay for something - or people all have to be willing to work for the common good.

Knowing people, that last part isn't possible, except in a coffeehouse at 2 AM talking politics with someone from the Left.

Full-blown socialism is where you send all the dinner-jacket landowners into slavery to build canals and nationalize every industry you can lay your hands on.
I can see it is the only way in feudalism.

Oh, so a lifetime of indentured servitude to several banks that hold your debt on unsecured credit cards isn't feudalism?

A party official doesn't work, either. They just call the workers once in a while and ask how's business. A party official is the one who took his capital by force of arms during the revolution. He doesn't have to work anymore.
Those kind of people are parasite and should be put to work.

Those kind of people are parasite and should be put to work.

Fat chance. When was the last time you saw le Pen lift a shovel?

The problem is not that I call socialism "capitalism". It's that you have a distorted view of capitalism.
Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production in my dictionary.

One of the problems inherent in socialism is that someone has to pay for something - or people all have to be willing to work for the common good.

Knowing people, that last part isn't possible, except in a coffeehouse at 2 AM talking politics with someone from the Left.
That is the problem in any system. One always has to pay for something. I don't get your problem.

Oh, so a lifetime of indentured servitude to several banks that hold your debt on unsecured credit cards isn't feudalism?
Well no, that is capitalism.

That is the problem in any system. One always has to pay for something. I don't get your problem.

They don't have to pay for anything in communism. Government, or if you're uncomfortable with that word( :p ) "the people", take produce from those who produce by force and distribute it as they see fit.

Fat chance. When was the last time you saw le Pen lift a shovel?
At least le pen is not Robespierre.

They don't have to pay for anything in communism. Government, or if you're uncomfortable with that word( :p ) "the people", take produce from those who produce by force and distribute it as they see fit.
Those who produce are the ones who pay then.

That is the problem in any system. One always has to pay for something. I don't get your problem.

Wealth is produced by people who are motivated to do so.

Remove the motivation, and regardless of the number of workers, productivity and wealth decline.

You can motivate people by many means.

Greed.

Or at the point of a rifle.

Lenin used the rifle, as did Stalin. It was the only way to ensure productivity.

We aren't, as you may notice in the US, being forced at gunpoint to work at our jobs.

Wealth is produced by people who are motivated to do so.

Remove the motivation, and regardless of the number of workers, productivity and wealth decline.

You can motivate people by many means.

Greed.

Or at the point of a rifle.

Lenin used the rifle, as did Stalin. It was the only way to ensure productivity.

We aren't, as you may notice in the US, being forced at gunpoint to work at our jobs.
Or you can as well starve the people who are not working.
I think there is no difference. Anyway, you need people to work.

That is the problem in any system. One always has to pay for something. I don't get your problem.

ahhhh i like it in a political arguement when capitalists or right wingers mention this,

the bueaty of marxism there would be no money, money is yet another commodity, the universal commodity, otherwise we would use somthing else like coal.

then when marxists explain this the right winger usually shuts up or trys to destory it.


listen out in political convosations for
It's politcal correctness gone mad
its my uncles favourite, he says it when he hasnt got a good case for capital punishment or immigration or the EU.

The limits on Freedom
making everybody equal can limit economical freedom, so people may not reac their full potential.

Quite the opposite! If everyone is equal, then you have created an equal playing ground. There are no unfair priveleges for certain people, and there is equality of opportunity. Everyone has an equal chance of fulfilling their potential. How many scientists were forced into debt and could not pursue their dream? How many budding inventors were crushed by the monopolistic opposition? How many great doctors could not afford to train? We don't know, but they have been denied their opportunities by capitalism's injustice.

It can be very easy for somebody with power to take over and become a merciless dictator, as greed is part of human nature.
It has to be very carefully to make sure it does not turn into slave labour, particularly when it is a Communist dictatorship.

I see your point. However, my reply is similar to the first one. In capitalism, people can build up great empires of wealth, and as we all know, money is power. They can use their economic influence to gain political power (and they do!) and attempt to disrupt democracy. In extreme cases, they can take over a state in a coup and set up a dictatorship.
In a true communist state, no-one has vast riches that they can use to exert power over others. All people have equal economic power: they are all workers and consumers. So it would be difficult for one person to gain an advantage over the rest.

We aren't, as you may notice in the US, being forced at gunpoint to work at our jobs.

Maybe you aren't... I am! I'm an oppressed worker!

My paychecks oppress me!

Maybe you aren't... I am! I'm an oppressed worker!

My paychecks oppress me!

Paychecks are one thing - the threat of a lead shampoo is another.

I see your point. However, my reply is similar to the first one. In capitalism, people can build up great empires of wealth, and as we all know, money is power. They can use their economic influence to gain political power (and they do!) and attempt to disrupt democracy. In extreme cases, they can take over a state in a coup and set up a dictatorship.
In a true communist state, no-one has vast riches that they can use to exert power over others. All people have equal economic power: they are all workers and consumers. So it would be difficult for one person to gain an advantage over the rest.

One person = Stalin. One person = Mao.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production in my dictionary.

So what's the problem?

the bueaty of marxism there would be no money, money is yet another commodity, the universal commodity, otherwise we would use somthing else like coal.

then when marxists explain this the right winger usually shuts up or trys to destory it.

They shut up? No, and nor do they try to destroy it. They quite categorically do destroy it, because it is a flawed principle. To abandon money wouldn't work so well, because money is simply a tool we use to display how much labor a person has put in. And labor can take many forms - the hard physical labor you seem to think all the proles are subjected to, the wheeling and dealing of businessmen, the creativity of various people, from marketeers to painters. You take that away, and what? How can you ensure a person has put in their fair share without money, or a philosophical equivalent?


Quite the opposite! If everyone is equal, then you have created an equal playing ground. There are no unfair priveleges for certain people, and there is equality of opportunity. Everyone has an equal chance of fulfilling their potential. How many scientists were forced into debt and could not pursue their dream? How many budding inventors were crushed by the monopolistic opposition? How many great doctors could not afford to train? We don't know, but they have been denied their opportunities by capitalism's injustice.

Those of us with a grounding in reality will note a critical flaw in the above argument.

Namely, how many scientists will be plowing the fields instead of doing research, splitting the atom, devising more efficient food growing strains? How many inventors will be too exhausted from their hours of hard work to even try and come up with the lightbulb, the steam engine, the automobile, the internal combustion engine, the telephone, television, or computer? How many great doctors would be unable to read because cleaning the sewers takes priority?

So what's the problem?
Read Das Kapital and read The communist manifesto.
You will notice all the critics here are adressed in the communist manifesto. I don't have enough time to adress them so well here. I can just give you quick answers and you don't seem to get it. Please read at least the manifesto and then come with your critics. You will see a lot of it is still valid at this day and that your critics are the same as 150 years ago.

Read Das Kapital and read The communist manifesto.
You will notice all the critics here are adressed in the communist manifesto. I don't have enough time to adress them so well here. I can just give you quick answers and you don't seem to get it. Please read at least the manifesto and then come with your critics. You will see a lot of it is still valid at this day and that your critics are the same as 150 years ago.

Hello, I've all ready told you once that I have read it. I get it, no problem. I just think it's BS. It wasn't vaild then, it's not valid now.

Marx was wrong. Lenin was wrong. You can't manufacture an economy based on principles that are against human nature. To try is folly.

Hello, I've all ready told you once that I have read it. I get it, no problem. I just think it's BS. It wasn't vaild then, it's not valid now.

Marx was wrong. Lenin was wrong. You can't manufacture an economy based on principles that are against human nature. To try is folly.
Human nature is that the strong rapes and kills the weak.
Last time I checked in my country we have a system that goes against this nature.
Do you agree with the analisys of Marx about the problems created by the bourgeois?

Namely, how many scientists will be plowing the fields instead of doing research, splitting the atom, devising more efficient food growing strains? How many inventors will be too exhausted from their hours of hard work to even try and come up with the lightbulb, the steam engine, the automobile, the internal combustion engine, the telephone, television, or computer? How many great doctors would be unable to read because cleaning the sewers takes priority?

No, scientists would be in a labratory. Another part of Communism is that each does what they are best at and able to do, therefore society is more productive. Under Communism, people work for less than under Capitalism, so why would workers be to tired to do anything else?

Might I quote an article about human nature?


Human beings rose to the top of the food chain not by competing against each other and crushing one another in the struggle to "get ahead", but through cooperation. Only by cooperating were humans able to combine their resources to hunt, build shelters, and eventually domesticate plants, animals, develop pottery, build the pyramids, etc., etc. Just look at a human baby! Compared to a deer, which can stand up and run within minutes of birth, human young are totally helpless for years. Baby humans could not survive even a few days without the help of others! So you see, primitive humans needed to cooperate if they were to survive the elements, wild animals, find enough to eat, etc. For the vast majority of human existence, there were no classes, and we lived communally in small bands, dividing up the work and dividing up the wealth in the interests of everyone.

And although on the surface is appears that nowadays we are all "individuals", the truth is we are even more dependant on literally thousands and even millions of other humans around the world. Can any one person design a car, mine and process the metals and other materials needed, build the factory, and the put together a car themselves? To even pose the question shows how absurd the idea is. And what about the gasoline to fuel it? Or the roads to drive it on? What about the food we eat? The list goes on and on - and we have only scratched the surface. Think about it carefully, and you will see that under capitalism, almost everyone is indirectly linked to everyone else through the world market and the exchange of commodities.


And one another, on a different note.


The reduction of the working day, and an increase in the productivity of society are the prerequisites for the disappearance of the class division of society, and for the birth of socialism. It would be, as Marx put it, a society where everyone contributes according to their abilities and receives according to their needs. Such a society is no utopia but the only alternative to a slow and painful descent into barbarism. But it will not come about automatically even in a million years. Only a socialist revolution, that is, the conscious movement of the working class to take control over their own lives, can effect this change. This requires the building in advance of a trained and educated leadership that can ensure its success. For the last hundred years, at least since World War I, the capitalist system has ceased to play an historically progressive role. It stands like a roadblock in the path of human progress. We cannot wait for its instability to drive us back into the dark ages. There will be many opportunities for us in the coming years. But the success of socialism is not inevitable, it can only be guaranteed in advance by the extent to which we begin preparing for it today.

Human nature is that the strong rapes and kills the weak.
Last time I checked in my country we have a system that goes against this nature.
Do you agree with the analisys of Marx about the problems created by the bourgeois?

The problem is that you can't force people into a society that counts on everyone to work for the common good - in a way that goes far beyond what any current government does. In a way that subverts any sense of private ownership.

Today, to accomplish this worldwide, you would probably have to kill half the people on earth, in a massive war that would destroy most of civilization. Then you would have to subjugate the rest at gunpoint - only in this way could you impose socialism.

On the other track, if you wait about 200 more years, and if we don't blow ourselves up before then, or all convert to radical Islam, there's a chance that we'll move in that direction.

But only a chance. Capitalism hasn't been a barrier to progress for the US - in fact, it has made the US wildly successful in historic terms. There's no reason that it can't continue.

The problem is that you can't force people into a society that counts on everyone to work for the common good - in a way that goes far beyond what any current government does. In a way that subverts any sense of private ownership.

Today, to accomplish this worldwide, you would probably have to kill half the people on earth, in a massive war that would destroy most of civilization. Then you would have to subjugate the rest at gunpoint - only in this way could you impose socialism.It is a gradual process. Workers must defend their rights in every nation first and build bridges with their peers in other nations. In the most advanced nations, what is most important is to preserve what has already been acquired and gain some ground if possible while doing what is possible to help in the worker struggle in less advanced nations. I don't know where you are from. In my country, the 35 hours/week are a worker victory and we must fight the ultra-conservative capitalist who are trying to remove it. If you are a worker in the US, you must organize in unions and demmand a minimum wage increase, and better working conditions.

On the other track, if you wait about 200 more years, and if we don't blow ourselves up before then, or all convert to radical Islam, there's a chance that we'll move in that direction.Over the last 2 centuries, we have experienced a steady social progress. If it continues at the same rate over 2 more centuries, I will consider it is a success.

But only a chance. Capitalism hasn't been a barrier to progress for the US - in fact, it has made the US wildly successful in historic terms. There's no reason that it can't continue.Actually the US is not capitalist. The US has used this propaganda platform (as well as the religious one) in the last 40 years in the cold war. The US has experienced the same social progress as the rest of the industrialized world and sometimes pionneered it (although it was a little slower lately). I'm confident the US citizens will put their past behind them and be a progressive force in this world again.

It is a gradual process. Workers must defend their rights in every nation first and build bridges with their peers in other nations. In the most advanced nations, what is most important is to preserve what has already been acquired and gain some ground if possible while doing what is possible to help in the worker struggle in less advanced nations. I don't know where you are from. In my country, the 35 hours/week are a worker victory and we must fight the ultra-conservative capitalist who are trying to remove it. If you are a worker in the US, you must organize in unions and demmand a minimum wage increase, and better working conditions.


In a capitalist society, nobody actually dictates how many hours a week everyone has to work. Hours, labour and pay are mutally agreed on by employer and employee. So in your country, people aren't allowed to work more than 35 hours a week? What if they want to or need to? Capping the amount that someone can work is retarded.

No, scientists would be in a labratory. Another part of Communism is that each does what they are best at and able to do, therefore society is more productive. Under Communism, people work for less than under Capitalism, so why would workers be to tired to do anything else?

You presume that Communism would not only be able to identify each person's talents accurately (What about people who want to do something they aren't very good at, and will need far more personal investment in terms of time and effort than a talented person? What about polymaths?), but that there would never be a prevailing notion that such-and-such a career is unnecessary, or unessential.

You also presume that under Communism, people need to work less. Could I see some reasoning for this daydream, other than the fact that Communism tends not to care if tens of millions starve to death? Because the only other remotely possibly alternative is that there are only going to be people in manufacturing and industry jobs... no science or medicine, then.



Might I quote an article about human nature?

Human beings rose to the top of the food chain not by competing against each other and crushing one another in the struggle to "get ahead", but through cooperation. Only by cooperating were humans able to combine their resources to hunt, build shelters, and eventually domesticate plants, animals, develop pottery, build the pyramids, etc., etc. Just look at a human baby! Compared to a deer, which can stand up and run within minutes of birth, human young are totally helpless for years. Baby humans could not survive even a few days without the help of others! So you see, primitive humans needed to cooperate if they were to survive the elements, wild animals, find enough to eat, etc. For the vast majority of human existence, there were no classes, and we lived communally in small bands, dividing up the work and dividing up the wealth in the interests of everyone.

And although on the surface is appears that nowadays we are all "individuals", the truth is we are even more dependant on literally thousands and even millions of other humans around the world. Can any one person design a car, mine and process the metals and other materials needed, build the factory, and the put together a car themselves? To even pose the question shows how absurd the idea is. And what about the gasoline to fuel it? Or the roads to drive it on? What about the food we eat? The list goes on and on - and we have only scratched the surface. Think about it carefully, and you will see that under capitalism, almost everyone is indirectly linked to everyone else through the world market and the exchange of commodities.

This entire argument is highly flawed, because it supposes that people are incapable of working together under capitalism. The very argument there is that since people are already linked to countless others, it would make sense to move to the system which makes use of this. Yet I see no stagnation in the production of cars - and certainly not in Japan and America, those most distinctly Capitlaist nations.


And one another, on a different note.

The reduction of the working day, and an increase in the productivity of society are the prerequisites for the disappearance of the class division of society, and for the birth of socialism. It would be, as Marx put it, a society where everyone contributes according to their abilities and receives according to their needs. Such a society is no utopia but the only alternative to a slow and painful descent into barbarism. But it will not come about automatically even in a million years. Only a socialist revolution, that is, the conscious movement of the working class to take control over their own lives, can effect this change. This requires the building in advance of a trained and educated leadership that can ensure its success. For the last hundred years, at least since World War I, the capitalist system has ceased to play an historically progressive role. It stands like a roadblock in the path of human progress. We cannot wait for its instability to drive us back into the dark ages. There will be many opportunities for us in the coming years. But the success of socialism is not inevitable, it can only be guaranteed in advance by the extent to which we begin preparing for it today.


Yet again, I would like to see some sort of logical reasoning behind this idea that under Communism, less work needs to be done. The same amount of people are around (Unless you're counting on the revolution killing half of them? But even then, the same proportions of people will remain.), so how can less work be done? Oh, of course, because the borgious will be working as well... but no, wait, they'll all be dead. Because let's be honest, as soon as the revolution is complete, they'll kill everyone who preferred the old way. To claim otherwise is not folly, it is pure delusion.

Second, I note that with the exceptions of the arms and space races, Capitalism was doing most of that whole 'progress' thing - and Capitalist nations weren't killing 20,000,000+ people to do it, either. So on what basis can the statement "For the last hundred years, at least since World War I, the capitalist system has ceased to play an historically progressive role. It stands like a roadblock in the path of human progress." be made with a straight face? It was capitalist enterprise which launched SpaceShipOne, after all. Under Communism, we would produce what the leadership deemed necessary. If this happened to be a space program, huzzah! Just hope you're lucky enough to get adequate meals. If this happened to be a million wooden desks, then what can the people do? They gotta do as they're told, or they get punished.

Finally, I would like to ask, who dictates ability and need? Despite the earlier claim that child labor laws are an exclusively Communist idea, most kids from age 10 or 11 up can do a lot of things, and younger would still be useful. Similarly, what's a fair limit on weekly working hours? Who can regulate this without a powerful engine running things? And of need, well. I don't 'need' 90% of what I have, and nor do any of you I'll wager. Under the concept of 'to each according to his need', everyone gets enough food (Only just enough) to live, shelter (But a small one), clothing (Only in cold countries), and a hole in the ground to defecate in. We don't need any more than that.

Therefore I submit that Communism would enslave Humanity with no ideal other than to serve itself. It would not forment some great planetary ideal of progress and evolution, it would engender starvation and poverty. It would remove the impetus of people to work, therefore causing the economy to collapse. Critical jobs would remain unfilled, either because of their apparent undesirability, or because there is no way for people to become educated to them. It would remove freedom of thought, because society would as an entity dictate how things were to be done. Imagine a division such as the current one over gay marriage in a Communist nation. Who decides? Why, the people in power of course. Oh, but everyone is in power? Then how are things enforced, and how do things get done?

Communism defeats itself quite spectacularly. In order to uphold its own ideals, a system must be put in place which forces people to uphold them. But this, then, removes the social freedom promised by Communism and furthermore it creates a society where a handful of people are in power making the decisions, whilst everyone else has no choice but to obey. Hey, hold on a moment... that sounds awfully familiar.

Human nature is that the strong rapes and kills the weak.
Last time I checked in my country we have a system that goes against this nature.
Do you agree with the analisys of Marx about the problems created by the bourgeois?

What a pathetic, bleak view of human nature.

What you see as a problem, I see as the strength of free markets, and that strength raises the human standard of living and makes possible the support of those unable to care for themselves.

In a capitalist society, nobody actually dictates how many hours a week everyone has to work. Hours, labour and pay are mutally agreed on by employer and employee. So in your country, people aren't allowed to work more than 35 hours a week? What if they want to or need to? Capping the amount that someone can work is retarded.
Ask the people in the street if they want to work more. Thinking people want to work more than 35 hours when many are jobless is retarded. more than 90% of the french people are happy with the 35h/w.
Note the working hours are capped in almost all industrialized country. Only the retarded ones didn't cap it.
In your retarded capitalist dream, the market dictate the working hours and the employers dictate the market, like it was done in the UK 200 years ago when people died of easily preventable desease.

What a pathetic, bleak view of human nature.

What you see as a problem, I see as the strength of free markets, and that strength raises the human standard of living and makes possible the support of those unable to care for themselves.
Ah the free market. The free market is going to magically resolve all the problems in the world. Do not worry about it, the free market will fix that up.
But what is the free market?
The free market as defined by the capitalists is the freedom of the bourgeois to use their power to enslave the proletarians. The freedom to band together and to control the prices.

Ah the free market. The free market is going to magically resolve all the problems in the world. Do not worry about it, the free market will fix that up.
But what is the free market?
The free market as defined by the capitalists is the freedom of the bourgeois to use their power to enslave the proletarians. The freedom to band together and to control the prices.

And socialism is the freedom of the state to take away everything I worked for with my own hands.

....
Man man man ... You are still confusing the fall of the USSR with the fall of communism.

And socialism is the freedom of the state to take away everything I worked for with my own hands.
And the state is defined as the organisation of all the people.
BTW you didn't work for everything you have. Socialism is about taking what you didn't work for away from you and to give it to those who work for it.

Ah the free market. The free market is going to magically resolve all the problems in the world. Do not worry about it, the free market will fix that up.
But what is the free market?
The free market as defined by the capitalists is the freedom of the bourgeois to use their power to enslave the proletarians. The freedom to band together and to control the prices.

Free market economics doesn't make the distinction between so called "bourgeois" and "proletarian". Free market means free for everybody to offer their goods, services, utilities, labour or whatever else, be they captains of industry or machine operators or artists or whatever.

BTW you didn't work for everything you have. Socialism is about taking what you didn't work for away from you and to give it to those who work for it.

Why is it the right of government or even "the people" to determine what he deserves and what he doesn't? Provided he didn't actually steal the goods he owns, they're his, because whoever owned them previously either gave them to him or traded them for something, or he made them himself.

Free market economics doesn't make the distinction between so called "bourgeois" and "proletarian". Free market means free for everybody to offer their goods, services, utilities, labour or whatever else, be they captains of industry or machine operators or artists or whatever.
But that only those who have the capital (I call them the bourgeois) are allowed to buy it.

Ah the free market. The free market is going to magically resolve all the problems in the world. Do not worry about it, the free market will fix that up.
But what is the free market?
The free market as defined by the capitalists is the freedom of the bourgeois to use their power to enslave the proletarians. The freedom to band together and to control the prices.

The only systems that ever controlled prices were socialist and communist ones.

I'm sorry you don't understand how markets work. Get your nose out of that trash manifesto and learn some real economics.

Communism has been discredited as undemocratic, brutal, and anti-progressive. The communist ideal has been reached and found wanting. Nobody who lived under it wanted it except the party bosses who looted while the people stood in food lines and were maimed, killed, and sickened in the unsafe, toxic factories.

"oh," you say, "true communism has never been attained."

And it never will, because it's a fantasy.

Why is it the right of government or even "the people" to determine what he deserves and what he doesn't? Provided he didn't actually steal the goods he owns, they're his, because whoever owned them previously either gave them to him or traded them for something, or he made them himself.
He didn't made land, nor did he made rivers. He didn't made oil or beach either.

And the state is defined as the organisation of all the people.
BTW you didn't work for everything you have. Socialism is about taking what you didn't work for away from you and to give it to those who work for it.

That doesn't seem to work that way in practice.

The farmers in the Ukraine who worked the land were taken off the land by Stalin and intentionally starved to death. Literally speaking, their lives were taken from them.

The only systems that ever controlled prices were socialist and communist ones.

I'm sorry you don't understand how markets work. Get your nose out of that trash manifesto and learn some real economics.You seem to be very well aware of economics yourself.

Communism has been discredited as undemocratic, brutal, and anti-progressive. The communist ideal has been reached and found wanting. Nobody who lived under it wanted it except the party bosses who looted while the people stood in food lines and were maimed, killed, and sickened in the unsafe, toxic factories.

"oh," you say, "true communism has never been attained."

And it never will, because it's a fantasy.
Most european nations are socialist. Socialist are on the left-wing side because it is progressive. Capitalism is on the right-wing side because it is conservative (it was not the case 150 years ago but now it is).

That doesn't seem to work that way in practice.

The farmers in the Ukraine who worked the land were taken off the land by Stalin and intentionally starved to death. Literally speaking, their lives were taken from them.
In my country, it worked that way. The government put some heavy taxes on capital and on inheritance and everybody was happy. Then the capitalists tried to fight back to have their privileges back and the people are protesting. Remember the farmer named José Bové. He destroyed capitalist farms and was overwhelmingly supported by the population. When they tryed to send him to jail, there was riots and they finally gave up.

You seem to be very well aware of economics yourself.

Most european nations are socialist. Socialist are on the left-wing side because it is progressive. Capitalism is on the right-wing side because it is conservative (it was not the case 150 years ago but now it is).

Not true. I'm British and in my seaside town there is at least one outlet of every major fast-food company. And the same is true for the rest of Europe. Sure, there are some socialist policies in Europe, like stricter employment laws and heavier taxation, but it's not like we all parade through the streets saluting a big red flag.

In my country, it worked that way. The government put some heavy taxes on capital and on inheritance and everybody was happy. Then the capitalists tried to fight back to have their privileges back and the people are protesting.

Here in the US, when you tax a business, they raise the price of goods and pass it on to the consumer.

If you freeze the prices and tax them (as Nixon did - he had wage and price freezes - and he was a Republican), businesses just close. Forever.

Obviously, if anyone tried to fight back in your country, then the statement "everybody was happy" is patently false. If everyone was happy, no one would be complaining at all.

The rate of technical innovation in socialist countries is slower as well. Was the integrated circuit (and the advent of powerful computer chips) driven by market forces, or by socialist ideals?

There's a balance somewhere. But it's not as simple as "we'll put a heavy tax on so-and-so".

Not true. I'm British and in my seaside town there is at least one outlet of every major fast-food company. And the same is true for the rest of Europe. Sure, there are some socialist policies in Europe, like stricter employment laws and heavier taxation, but it's not like we all parade through the streets saluting a big red flag.
Socialism is the transition between capitalism and communism.
What is important is that we are progressing and not regressing. Working hours are going down and not up. Minimum wages are going up. Most industrialized countries are progressing.

The rate of technical innovation in socialist countries is slower as well. Was the integrated circuit (and the advent of powerful computer chips) driven by market forces, or by socialist ideals?The computer was invented by the military, funded by the state. The internet was invented by the military, funded by the state. ALL (except maybe some exotic discoveries) space research has been funded by the state. Nuclear research has been funded by the state.
I'll grant the "click to buy" concept was invented by a private institution.
Where do you get this idea than inovation is somewhat magically superior when it is privatelly funded?

The computer was invented by the military, funded by the state. The internet was invented by the military, funded by the state. ALL (except maybe some exotic discoveries) space research has been funded by the state. Nuclear research has been funded by the state.
I'll grant the "click to buy" concept was invented by a private institution.

Initially, yes. But all further innovations were done by private companies, with private money. The state seems to have an inability to take things beyond a certain point (the problem we have with space travel). Computer chips were taken along the path of Moore's Law by private companies and investors. Not by states.

The Soviet Union, for example, admitted in the late 1970s that it was unable to keep up - even at that early stage - with the rate of chip development in the private sector.

Free market economics doesn't make the distinction between so called "bourgeois" and "proletarian". Free market means free for everybody to offer their goods, services, utilities, labour or whatever else, be they captains of industry or machine operators or artists or whatever.

there's no such thing as a free market. and what's so great about the freedom to work 18 hours a day for 2 dollars?

there's no such thing as a free market. and what's so great about the freedom to work 18 hours a day for 2 dollars?
if you are free to work for 18 hours a day for 2 dollars, then (by definition of "free") you also have the choice to not work for that amount of time and money. that's what is so great.

The state seems to have an inability to take things beyond a certain point

Actually the state has *better things to do*. Like hospitals, education etc. Private industry is about financial profit. State industry isn't.

The state seems to have an inability to take things beyond a certain point (the problem we have with space travel).
It doesn't. Where the funds come from doesn't change how inovation is done.

if you are free to work for 18 hours a day for 2 dollars, then (by definition of "free") you also have the choice to not work for that amount of time and money. that's what is so great.Then defend your freedom not to work 18 hours a day for $2 instead of defending some useless freedom.

Socialism is the transition between capitalism and communism.
What is important is that we are progressing and not regressing. Working hours are going down and not up. Minimum wages are going up. Most industrialized countries are progressing.

But capitalism is stronger than ever before. People are consumers, they champion the right to choose what they buy and sell and do, they reap the benefits of private industry and strong business. People love capitalism. In any society there is likely to be a blend of socialism and capitalism, but it's not as if socialism is somehow eclipsing capitalism right now.

In my country, it worked that way. The government put some heavy taxes on capital and on inheritance and everybody was happy. Then the capitalists tried to fight back to have their privileges back and the people are protesting. Remember the farmer named José Bové. He destroyed capitalist farms and was overwhelmingly supported by the population. When they tryed to send him to jail, there was riots and they finally gave up.

I have not a clue who the farmer was. All I can say is if he destroyed other people's property and got away with it, that's too bad. Criminals should be prosecuted.

But capitalism is stronger than ever before. People are consumers, they champion the right to choose what they buy and sell and do, they reap the benefits of private industry and strong business. People love capitalism. In any society there is likely to be a blend of socialism and capitalism, but it's not as if socialism is somehow eclipsing capitalism right now.
Maybe where you live. Here capitalism is not liked that much. McDonalds stores are destroyed and people tend to be annoyed by aggressive marketing practices.