NationStates Jolt Archive

First off, I'm not making a case for communism. I want other leftists to do that for me.
I have seen a million communists write anti-capitalist cases for communism. What I want to see is one that explains the advantages (that do not include freedom from exploitation) of communism from an economic standpoint. I can't quite phrase my case for a communist economy. I know what it entails, I know that it would be effective, but I can't figure out exactly how the economy would be set up. Have any of you other leftists found articles that explain the merits of a communist economy?
Post the link in the thread please. Thank you

bumpified!!!

Yes, you get to lose all risks of personal responsibility all for the small sacrafice of your freedom.

Then you get the neato cybernetic implants and get to fly around space in a cool giant cube... Oh wait, that's the Borg. Oh well, same thing.

Yes, you get to lose all risks of personal responsibility all for the small sacrafice of your freedom.

Then you get the neato cybernetic implants and get to fly around space in a cool giant cube... Oh wait, that's the Borg. Oh well, same thing.
Pwned by the capitalist! If you need any backup B0zzy, I'll help you...

All who post (except me) are communists.

Yes thats right I am a Fascist so naturally I act McCarthyistic, but I get angry when people blame everything on the poor communists :'(

Any way communism is basically you get only what you need, no more, no less. You are given jobs based on what you are most able to do and forced to be that occupation.

Go communism (You didnt hear it from me)

The lot of you are communists still

Yes, you get to lose all risks of personal responsibility all for the small sacrafice of your freedom.

that's sort of it, but only economically, in a really simplified way.

it's like saying that a democracy is where you can do anything you want, as long as you get 51% of the people to agree with you.


however, i believe that he was directing this thread towards the communists, for a bit of personal clarification.

last time i checked, that did not include you.

Well, being an anarchist I'm not going to argue in favour of communism. That said there are a couple of meeting points for any viable discussion. Namely that the market cannot satisfy collective needs or goods, but we wantted to stay away from negativity. One topic you might want to read up on is the Spanish Civil War, specifically the work arrangements that happened during that time. For a while there the anarchists and communists cooperated quite closely, though it would be safe to say that there was some tension there.

Basically it all came down to collective bargaining add infinitum, George Orwell reported that waiters, chefs and restaurant owners would negotiate hours, wages, and even the menu, the owner tended to make more money out of recognition that he owned and invested capital in the building and apparently waiters were insulted when offered tips!!! They'd already negotiated a fair wage and were working there because they 'chose' too, apparently a tip was implying that they lacked autonomy. More on anarchism here. (http://www.anarchy.be/faq/)

that's sort of it, but only economically, in a really simplified way.

it's like saying that a democracy is where you can do anything you want, as long as you get 51% of the people to agree with you.


however, i believe that he was directing this thread towards the communists, for a bit of personal clarification.

last time i checked, that did not include you.

democracy doesnt exist. Its all smoke and mirrors

democracy doesnt exist. Its all smoke and mirrors


someone mentioned, offhandedly in another thread, that there was a way to put people on an 'ignore' list of some kind.

can someone please tell me how to do so?

Any way communism is basically you get only what you need, no more, no less. You are given jobs based on what you are most able to do and forced to be that occupation.



Exactly, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work". Many people bash communists because of 'forced labor' but in reality it is no different if you are a capitalist because if you do not work, you will not survive for long, unless you are born into a rich family or something, and in the case of communism, born into a family with strong political ties.

democracy doesnt exist. Its all smoke and mirrors
It is true that we don't have a pure democracy...

All who post (except me) are communists.

Yes thats right I am a Fascist so naturally I act McCarthyistic, but I get angry when people blame everything on the poor communists :'(

Any way communism is basically you get only what you need, no more, no less. You are given jobs based on what you are most able to do and forced to be that occupation.

Go communism (You didnt hear it from me)

The lot of you are communists still
Therein lies the problem, who decides what you need?

I'm a centrist, so I can review the case for communism fairly unbiased.

I could see benefits if the nation is very poor, unindustrialised, and with undeveloped agriculture. Communist governments excel at building up heavy industry and consolidating subsistence agriculture (although collectivization almost always results in some degree of famine). Plus, in wartime, they can switch over to war production much quicker than a capitalist nation. These are the ones I can name off the top of my head.

someone mentioned, offhandedly in another thread, that there was a way to put people on an 'ignore' list of some kind.

can someone please tell me how to do so?
Click profile on your profile.

First off, I'm not making a case for communism. I want other leftists to do that for me.
I have seen a million communists write anti-capitalist cases for communism. What I want to see is one that explains the advantages (that do not include freedom from exploitation) of communism from an economic standpoint. I can't quite phrase my case for a communist economy. I know what it entails, I know that it would be effective, but I can't figure out exactly how the economy would be set up. Have any of you other leftists found articles that explain the merits of a communist economy?
Post the link in the thread please. Thank you

There really is no "case" for Communism; we have all the empirical evidence we need...

In almost EVERY instance it has been attempted, in whatever manner it may, it has FAILED miserably!

Whereas, Democracy on the other hand, in whatever manner it is attempted (i.e. Democratic Republic, like we have here in the U.S.) has flourished and created some of the Wealthiest Nations the World has ever seen...

And it seems the less "Social" structure built in to the Democracy, the better it does Economically.

We have "empirical" evidence of the comparisons, we don't have to "assume" anything in this discussion, do we?

Regards,
Gaar

Hasn't it already been proven that communism is technically impossible?

I think we can all agree that true communism, the sort of all for one and one for all mentality, is an ideal way for people to live with one another. But human nature stands in the way. True communism is impossible because of our own human nature. Humans naturally want to be better and gain more than their fellow humans. It's an inexcapable fact of nature, and because of it (for the time being) communism in its pure form, and only useful form, is impossible.

Therein lies the problem, who decides what you need?

The state and cost of needs. Needs include food shelter water clothes and a means of way to get to your job, they will give you a car if you need it to go to work on time but other than that you may get a bike or have to walk

Yes, you get to lose all risks of personal responsibility all for the small sacrafice of your freedom.

Then you get the neato cybernetic implants and get to fly around space in a cool giant cube... Oh wait, that's the Borg. Oh well, same thing.



The essential point to be made about Communism, the very most important one of all, is that only in Communism does a person get to make 100% income for themselves (the only catch being that they can't be Capitalist leeches taking profits for themselves while paying wages)

You have been so fully indoctrinated that there is no saving your mind. I would suggest a college-level education, but you would get a retar, er, I mean business degree. (a little jab at your method of debate)

I want to see facts B0zzy. No opinions or perceptions. Just facts. But that is asking far too much from you. You know absolutely nothing about communism. You mistakenly think it is a freedomless society that stifles an individuals right to express themselves. Funny, that these are the very problems Marx had with Capitalism!

If you want to see a real Communist society, inquire with another post. If not, save me the time of looking for the essay I found on that subject.

Hasn't it already been proven that communism is technically impossible?

I think we can all agree that true communism, the sort of all for one and one for all mentality, is an ideal way for people to live with one another. But human nature stands in the way. True communism is impossible because of our own human nature. Humans naturally want to be better and gain more than their fellow humans. It's an inexcapable fact of nature, and because of it (for the time being) communism in its pure form, and only useful form, is impossible.

I improved communism by mixing in a tad bit of capitalism. Basically you get what you need and maybe a lil extra based on your performance. For this to work capitalism must stop and isolation must take hold

First off, I'm not making a case for communism. I want other leftists to do that for me.
I have seen a million communists write anti-capitalist cases for communism. What I want to see is one that explains the advantages (that do not include freedom from exploitation) of communism from an economic standpoint. I can't quite phrase my case for a communist economy. I know what it entails, I know that it would be effective, but I can't figure out exactly how the economy would be set up. Have any of you other leftists found articles that explain the merits of a communist economy?
Post the link in the thread please. Thank you

As a leftist, not a communist, I feel that you can never achieve success running all one system and only one system. Hybrid systems are the most successful way to encompass all facets of society. Communism, socialism, and capitalism should all be run congruently in varying degrees and should be fluid, not stagnant, so that each can increase or decrease it's impact on society as needed.

The problem is that those who benefit from the running of only one system have disseminated massive amounts of propaganda scaring the crap out of people into believing that hybrid systems will destroy them, when in reality, all they will destroy is the corruption and huge profits made by those who exploit and sit at the head of mono-systems in leadership roles.

As a leftist, not a communist, I feel that you can never achieve success running all one system and only one system. Hybrid systems are the most successful way to encompass all facets of society. Communism, socialism, and capitalism should all be run congruently in varying degrees and should be fluid, not stagnant, so that each can increase or decrease it's impact on society as needed.

The problem is that those who benefit from the running of only one system have disseminated massive amounts of propaganda scaring the crap out of people into believing that hybrid systems will destroy them, when in reality, all they will destroy is the corruption and huge profits made by those who exploit and sit at the head of mono-systems in leadership roles.
point made.

There really is no "case" for Communism; we have all the empirical evidence we need...

In almost EVERY instance it has been attempted, in whatever manner it may, it has FAILED miserably!

Whereas, Democracy on the other hand, in whatever manner it is attempted (i.e. Democratic Republic, like we have here in the U.S.) has flourished and created some of the Wealthiest Nations the World has ever seen...

And it seems the less "Social" structure built in to the Democracy, the better it does Economically.

We have "empirical" evidence of the comparisons, we don't have to "assume" anything in this discussion, do we?

Regards,
Gaar


Why can't you be a democratic communist state, especially with the fact that democracy is the only institution in which communism can actually be fair?

someone mentioned, offhandedly in another thread, that there was a way to put people on an 'ignore' list of some kind.

can someone please tell me how to do so?
Click on the poster's name to go to their profile page thingy. Look on the right half of the page, about halfway down. There should be bolded white words that say "Add (whoever) to your ignore list".

The state and cost of needs. Needs include food shelter water clothes and a means of way to get to your job, they will give you a car if you need it to go to work on time but other than that you may get a bike or have to walk
How much though, and can we trust a governing body to decide needs?

i would support it but im to dumb to make a good case so...

Why can't you be a democratic communist state, especially with the fact that democracy is the only institution in which communism can actually be fair?

You can't in practice. In theory, you can.

Most likely because the resources needed by the state to conduct the direction of an entire economy ould make this impossible in practice. Marx's ideal outcome of Communism would be the elimination of government altogether, so I guess a kind of democratic communist anarchy would be the end result, in theory.

I feel that you can never achieve success running all one system and only one system.

Exactly. Take the extreme either way, either complete capitalism or total communism, and you have a self-destructive system that's doomed to failure. That's why I see no argument here. Most modern countries today incorporate both socialism and capitalism into their method of governing. Seems to work quite well. :)

Hasn't it already been proven that communism is technically impossible?

I think we can all agree that true communism, the sort of all for one and one for all mentality, is an ideal way for people to live with one another. But human nature stands in the way. True communism is impossible because of our own human nature. Humans naturally want to be better and gain more than their fellow humans. It's an inexcapable fact of nature, and because of it (for the time being) communism in its pure form, and only useful form, is impossible.

First of all, human nature doesn't necessarily say people want more than others. What you are basically referring to in the case of communist nations is situations in which people exploited the system which would be much harder if the nation was actually democratic. We've all seen that's very hard to do, but it doesn't get harder being a communist democracy or a capitalist one. The only problem is that starting a government in the modern age requires the support of the powerful and corrupt, and thus any new revolution is doomed to be exploited.

There really is no "case" for Communism; we have all the empirical evidence we need...

In almost EVERY instance it has been attempted, in whatever manner it may, it has FAILED miserably!

Whereas, Democracy on the other hand, in whatever manner it is attempted (i.e. Democratic Republic, like we have here in the U.S.) has flourished and created some of the Wealthiest Nations the World has ever seen...

And it seems the less "Social" structure built in to the Democracy, the better it does Economically.

We have "empirical" evidence of the comparisons, we don't have to "assume" anything in this discussion, do we?

Regards,
Gaar

By america i infer you mean the united states. The us is a lot bigger then europe (Germany is slightly smaller then montana). Besides Us found the first oil well, all the gold in the west and alaska, didnt get too involved in the wws until it couldnt do any real damage as it did to the other countries, involved in less wars and all of this is contributed to ISOLATION not capitalism.

now for the demo repub guy, US is not a demo repub (although they claim they are). The popular votes count for naught as its only the electorial votes that count. The electorial colleges can vote any way they want even ignoring the popular votes, whether it has yet happened i dont know.

The electorial colleges can vote any way they want even ignoring the popular votes, whether it has yet happened i dont know.

I never understood it myself. It is a relic from the 18th century and has only dangers with no benefits whatsoever.

The essential point to be made about Communism, the very most important one of all, is that only in Communism does a person get to make 100% income for themselves (the only catch being that they can't be Capitalist leeches taking profits for themselves while paying wages)

What? I mean... what? How in the World do you come up with that?

Shall we evaluate that statement in just a single instance? Let us assume that what you say is true, are you trying to tell me that if I was a farmer and grew a crop, in a Communistic Society, that I would get to collect all of the money that was going to come from the sale of that crop?

Regards,
Gaar

How much though, and can we trust a governing body to decide needs?

It depends on the individual. More children more needs, and for everyone it is kept to a bare minimum

Most likely because the resources needed by the state to conduct the direction of an entire economy ould make this impossible in practice. Marx's ideal outcome of Communism would be the elimination of government altogether, so I guess a kind of democratic communist anarchy would be the end result, in theory.

Which is why I think the commies have a lot in common with us anarchists, Marx's ideal "state" is closely congruent with anarcho-communism (oddly) with a large state mechanism serving only a transitory function until the proper classless society can be achieved. Anarchist's - neglecting a few details - feel the same way about a classless society and that the transitory function is unnecessary and indeed obstructive.

Hasn't it already been proven that communism is technically impossible?

I think we can all agree that true communism, the sort of all for one and one for all mentality, is an ideal way for people to live with one another. But human nature stands in the way. True communism is impossible because of our own human nature. Humans naturally want to be better and gain more than their fellow humans. It's an inexcapable fact of nature, and because of it (for the time being) communism in its pure form, and only useful form, is impossible.


Communism is not an idealistic realm. It is not a Utopia. Marx realized that in any society, people have differences of need and opinion. That is why he theorized communism to be as democratic as possible, in order to get past those conflicts of interest that would arise. In pure Communism, we vote to decide what the common good is, then what we decide becomes law. It applies to all fields. If people vote to support a fledgeling industry, the industry will be supported. If people vote to close down a dirty factory, it will close. If the people and a minority group are opposed, the people will cut off the means of production to the minority group.

Selfishness is easily curbed by making every decision one that is made collectively. A selfish person will see the means of production cut off from them, making it impossible for them to produce things for themselves.

Marx designed the system knowing that people are selfish in nature. Marx understood his enemy (the capitalist) and knew he would not be easily conquered. Capitalist ideas and values would continue to exist in society long after revolution.

You can't in practice. In theory, you can.

Most likely because the resources needed by the state to conduct the direction of an entire economy ould make this impossible in practice. Marx's ideal outcome of Communism would be the elimination of government altogether, so I guess a kind of democratic communist anarchy would be the end result, in theory.

Or it could just be that since the world's communist states were all really recently formed and the modern world requires corruption to finance revolution the financiers wouldn't allow a place where they truly would be equal. As for the state directing everything, with enough decentralization of government that could theoretically be managed. The system would basically be like the one we have now but with corporations elected.

First of all, human nature doesn't necessarily say people want more than others. What you are basically referring to in the case of communist nations is situations in which people exploited the system which would be much harder if the nation was actually democratic. We've all seen that's very hard to do, but it doesn't get harder being a communist democracy or a capitalist one. The only problem is that starting a government in the modern age requires the support of the powerful and corrupt, and thus any new revolution is doomed to be exploited.

Power corrupts, my friend. How can you say that any man, when given power, wouldn't be corrupted as a result? If the old elite is taken down with a revolution, whats to stop the new elite from becoming corrupt themselves? Any system, including communism, needs people with more power than others. It's human nature to use that power and influence for self-gain.

Which is why I think the commies have a lot in common with us anarchists, Marx's ideal "state" is closely congruent with anarcho-communism (oddly) with a large state mechanism serving only a transitory function until the proper classless society can be achieved. Anarchist's - neglecting a few details - feel that the transitory function is unnecessary and indeed obstructive.

Damn if you quote m, i know marx was the commie guy. I meant to say
Marx worked with the anarchy guy.

What? I mean... what? How in the World do you come up with that?

Shall we evaluate that statement in just a single instance? Let us assume that what you say is true, are you trying to tell me that if I was a farmer and grew a crop, in a Communistic Society, that I would get to collect all of the money that was going to come from the sale of that crop?

Regards,
Gaar

Well, Gaar, one arrangement that could be made is something called mutual assistance, like the oil-for-doctors arrangement currently in operation between Venezuela and Cuba. Cuba get's cheap oil millions of Venezuelans get healthcare for the first time, and for free too!

There are other models for collective good that don't rely upon mutual competition.

Best wishes,
Afghregistan

As for the state directing everything, with enough decentralization of government that could theoretically be managed.

Yes it could, with the only downside being that this would make central planning more difficult, and so the state's grip on the economy would weaken.

Or it could just be that since the world's communist states were all really recently formed and the modern world requires corruption to finance revolution the financiers wouldn't allow a place where they truly would be equal

This is true. After all, if the people of the Third World could have expressed their minds after the revolution, they would not have wanted to be simply Russian chess pieces in the Cold War. Communism might have turned out drastically different had this prerequisite corruption been nonexistent.

What? I mean... what? How in the World do you come up with that?

Shall we evaluate that statement in just a single instance? Let us assume that what you say is true, are you trying to tell me that if I was a farmer and grew a crop, in a Communistic Society, that I would get to collect all of the money that was going to come from the sale of that crop?

Regards,
Gaar

That's the principle that communism is based on. The idea is to eliminate the middlemen. To tell the truth I don't think distribution solves the matter either, but communist philosophy is based on recognition of this problem.

Selfishness is easily curbed by making every decision one that is made collectively. A selfish person will see the means of production cut off from them, making it impossible for them to produce things for themselves.

Tell me, how is a collective decision made? We are all individuals with individual agendas.

that's sort of it, but only economically, in a really simplified way.

it's like saying that a democracy is where you can do anything you want, as long as you get 51% of the people to agree with you.


however, i believe that he was directing this thread towards the communists, for a bit of personal clarification.

last time i checked, that did not include you.

I thank you Dementedus_Yammus for making them feel unwelcome, but basically in a true communistic system there is no loss of freedom because in a true communist nation the dictatorship of the proletariot is real democracy the people vote on how the revolution should continue, either in small communities, nations or even the whole world. (Please note that this is much different than "American Democracy" because the people actually get to make the decisions as apposed to the government having leaders to make the choices for you and lie to you about what they stand for). Therefore, let me make the clarification that true communism has never existed, because someone has always risen to power and not given it away as it should have.

So anyway in a communist system in the final stage there is no government in a normal sense, small communities would make decisions for themselves or just leave it to the individual families, whatever. But everything would belong to everyone, meaning that resources machinery to make goods, the goods everything would belong to everyone so anyone could use them.

Now you see the reason why there are "stages" of communism is because there is necessity to have the a cultural revolution first and an economic one. This may take anywhere from a decade to several hundred years the nations would be what we refer to as a "socialist democracy" since the economy would be slowly becoming more and more communistic and the governemnt would be slowly dissapearing in every sense. I hope this clears a few things for everyone.

(by the way I am a socialist)

Why can't you be a democratic communist state, especially with the fact that democracy is the only institution in which communism can actually be fair?

Because in order to be a "true" Democracy people have control of their "own" destinies, and their Profession and what they will get is not decided by the State but by the "Free Market". That is why to have a true Democracy, in whatever form it may come, it will work best with true Capitalism, they fit very well together.

And Capitalism is the Antithesis of Communism.

Regards,
Gaar

Which is why I think the commies have a lot in common with us anarchists, Marx's ideal "state" is closely congruent with anarcho-communism (oddly) with a large state mechanism serving only a transitory function until the proper classless society can be achieved. Anarchist's - neglecting a few details - feel that the transitory function is unnecessary and indeed obstructive

Absolutely. The state was only temporary, with its emphasis on preparing the proletariat for transition to the end result, which is egalitarian anarchy.

First off, I'm not making a case for communism. I want other leftists to do that for me.
I have seen a million communists write anti-capitalist cases for communism. What I want to see is one that explains the advantages (that do not include freedom from exploitation) of communism from an economic standpoint. I can't quite phrase my case for a communist economy. I know what it entails, I know that it would be effective, but I can't figure out exactly how the economy would be set up. Have any of you other leftists found articles that explain the merits of a communist economy?
Post the link in the thread please. Thank you

I have meetings with the Revolutionary Communist Party, and I wanted to invite everyone interested in having "red discussions" with me and some of my comrades to please email me @ hitokiribattousai@thisisfake.com. I would be very interested in hearing from anyone that has any questions or talking with anyone that has an open mind and discust for the current system ;).

PS: we are always looking for people to help with the effort either for anti-war/bush stuff or the communist effort. So anyone that is intersted in either please send me an email.

I thank you Dementedus_Yammus for making them feel unwelcome, but basically in a true communistic system there is no loss of freedom because in a true communist nation the dictatorship of the proletariot is real democracy the people vote on how the revolution should continue, either in small communities, nations or even the whole world. (Please note that this is much different than "American Democracy" because the people actually get to make the decisions as apposed to the government having leaders to make the choices for you and lie to you about what they stand for). Therefore, let me make the clarification that true communism has never existed, because someone has always risen to power and not given it away as it should have.

So anyway in a communist system in the final stage there is no government in a normal sense, small communities would make decisions for themselves or just leave it to the individual families, whatever. But everything would belong to everyone, meaning that resources machinery to make goods, the goods everything would belong to everyone so anyone could use them.

Now you see the reason why there are "stages" of communism is because there is necessity to have the a cultural revolution first and an economic one. This may take anywhere from a decade to several hundred years the nations would be what we refer to as a "socialist democracy" since the economy would be slowly becoming more and more communistic and the governemnt would be slowly dissapearing in every sense. I hope this clears a few things for everyone.

(by the way I am a socialist)

Ha ha socialists. I agree with marx and engles who NO ONE MENTIONED when they said that socialism would never work. The guy added me to his ignore list and i think he was a democrat who was in denial that his country is lying to him.

Power corrupts, my friend. How can you say that any man, when given power, wouldn't be corrupted as a result? If the old elite is taken down with a revolution, whats to stop the new elite from becoming corrupt themselves? Any system, including communism, needs people with more power than others. It's human nature to use that power and influence for self-gain.

Theoretically democracy works to at least curb people's ability to abuse power because that power is wholly dependent on constituents. Thus it becomes just a little harder to abuse one's power.

That's the principle that communism is based on. The idea is to eliminate the middlemen. To tell the truth I don't think distribution solves the matter either, but communist philosophy is based on recognition of this problem.

No sorry, read The Communist Manifesto...

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

It is about the collective. Everyone puts into the whole, and everyone is "supposed" to receive an equal share from the collective, so everyone is equal.

Unfortunately, this never works quite they way they would like it to.

Regards,
Gaar

Communism = planned economy.

You will be given a job based on two factors. What you are good at and/or want to do, and what is needed by everyone else (i.e. if no one wanted to farm, and no one was made to farm, everyone would starve (simple example, I know, so don't bother picking it apart or anything)).

Because the government can direct the flow of the economy directly, in theory, it should be more productive & efficient then a capitalist free market set up. No useless good for example. No marketing campaigns to sell you things you won't need.

The problem is that every time this get implemented, the thing falls apart, as the government thinks that more of X is needed, when really, everyone is lacking Y. The problems we have with modern day governments, is that there are only two methods of managing large numbers of people. Democracy, or a police state. An anarchy would never work on any large scale. The same applies to communism. Human tendencies get in the way. On a small scale though, where everyone knows everyone else, anarchy and communism are the best government types.

Communism in its purest form sounds a lot like Heaven. Well, if I died, I'd hope Heaven was like it...

It is about the collective. Everyone puts into the whole, and everyone is "supposed" to receive an equal share from the collective, so everyone is equal.

The only problem is of course, that the people in charge of distribution also have no kind of checks on their access to the nation's economic resource, so the end result is often endemic corrpution.

In the final egalitarian anarchy, this would function perfectly. however, this has not yet, and may never be achieved in practice. Still it is intriguing to see Marx's entire system on paper.

-snip-

Keep making insulting posts like that and the mods are going to ignore your name.

You insult Bozzy's post about communism, while not making any valid points for communism. You should consider adding something to the argument.

As for a college education, that isn't going to help out communism very much. I am a Finance major who has taken several college level economics classes and economics is based on property ownership and the free market. The closest you will get to a good communistic economic policy is market socialism where economies of scale make it impossible for small level competition to exist.

Well, Gaar, one arrangement that could be made is something called mutual assistance, like the oil-for-doctors arrangement currently in operation between Venezuela and Cuba. Cuba get's cheap oil millions of Venezuelans get healthcare for the first time, and for free too!

There are other models for collective good that don't rely upon mutual competition.

Best wishes,
Afghregistan

Really?

And just "who arranges" all of these things? You know the "transfer of things from one place to another and who gets what share?

You did say that a perfect Communism had "no Government", didn't you?

Regards,
Gaar

What? I mean... what? How in the World do you come up with that?

Shall we evaluate that statement in just a single instance? Let us assume that what you say is true, are you trying to tell me that if I was a farmer and grew a crop, in a Communistic Society, that I would get to collect all of the money that was going to come from the sale of that crop?

Regards,
Gaar


Well, technically money is outlawed, but yes, you do get to accumulate all of what you produce. Capitalism leaves someone else making profits from your work (a good example, my dad's company was paid $100 an hour for his services to another company (freightliner) while my dad made $35 of that.). Communism has the most personal incentive because the more you produce (personally) the more you get to consume, because your small group of fellow producers get to reap all the seeds of their own labor. Note, most people do not work alone, but if you work as a team, the small group of people you do work with get to reap all the benefits of what they manage to produce as a team.

Because in order to be a "true" Democracy people have control of their "own" destinies, and their Profession and what they will get is not decided by the State but by the "Free Market". That is why to have a true Democracy, in whatever form it may come, it will work best with true Capitalism, they fit very well together.

And Capitalism is the Antithesis of Communism.

Regards,
Gaar

So you're saying laws medicare, etc. are anti-democratic? the point of Democracy is that everyone works for the decisions of the demos, that's where the word comes from. Bill of Rights type stuff are limits on democracy that curtail its abuses, not inherent parts of democracy. A corporation working for itself in a capitalist system is not serving the demos and is therefore slightly less democratic than one whose decisions are made by the people.

Communism = planned economy.

You will be given a job based on two factors. What you are good at and/or want to do, and what is needed by everyone else (i.e. if no one wanted to farm, and no one was made to farm, everyone would starve (simple example, I know, so don't bother picking it apart or anything)).

Because the government can direct the flow of the economy directly, in theory, it should be more productive & efficient then a capitalist free market set up. No useless good for example. No marketing campaigns to sell you things you won't need.

The problem is that every time this get implemented, the thing falls apart, as the government thinks that more of X is needed, when really, everyone is lacking Y. The problems we have with modern day governments, is that there are only two methods of managing large numbers of people. Democracy, or a police state. An anarchy would never work on any large scale. The same applies to communism. Human tendencies get in the way. On a small scale though, where everyone knows everyone else, anarchy and communism are the best government types.

And just "who" is it that is deciding such things?

And what would have happened, if such people had not recognized the abilities of say Einstien, or Hawkings?

And we still haven't really answered that naging question about who is deciding yet, have we?

Regards,
Gaar

And just "who arranges" all of these things? You know the "transfer of things from one place to another and who gets what share?

Unfortunately, the same people who have unrestricted access to the nation's wealth. Still, it's a good idea

The system designed would not function in a true Communist state, at least in the later stages.

You did say that a perfect Communism had "no Government", didn't you

Yes, in the final satge when the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is phased out.

The only problem is of course, that the people in charge of distribution also have no kind of checks on their access to the nation's economic resource, so the end result is often endemic corrpution.

In the final egalitarian anarchy, this would function perfectly. however, this has not yet, and may never be achieved in practice. Still it is intriguing to see Marx's entire system on paper.

Those checks do sort of exist in a communist democracy, however.

And just "who" is it that is deciding such things?

In theory, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. However, this often results in a few very wealthy oligarchs controlling the entire economy.

Well, technically money is outlawed, but yes, you do get to accumulate all of what you produce. Capitalism leaves someone else making profits from your work (a good example, my dad's company was paid $100 an hour for his services to another company (freightliner) while my dad made $35 of that.). Communism has the most personal incentive because the more you produce (personally) the more you get to consume, because your small group of fellow producers get to reap all the seeds of their own labor. Note, most people do not work alone, but if you work as a team, the small group of people you do work with get to reap all the benefits of what they manage to produce as a team.

Who facilitates the market and how is it paid for? Farmers cannot simply raise their crops and sell them themselves. There has to be intermediaries that work to support and set the market, and those people do not work for free, so already by simply participating in a market, they lose a portion of their crop.

Those checks do sort of exist in a communist democracy, however.

They should exist (and would in a proper communist state), but often don't because the democratic components have often no real effect on the upper echelons of government.

Communism = planned economy.

You will be given a job based on two factors. What you are good at and/or want to do, and what is needed by everyone else (i.e. if no one wanted to farm, and no one was made to farm, everyone would starve (simple example, I know, so don't bother picking it apart or anything)).

Because the government can direct the flow of the economy directly, in theory, it should be more productive & efficient then a capitalist free market set up. No useless good for example. No marketing campaigns to sell you things you won't need.

The problem is that every time this get implemented, the thing falls apart, as the government thinks that more of X is needed, when really, everyone is lacking Y. The problems we have with modern day governments, is that there are only two methods of managing large numbers of people. Democracy, or a police state. An anarchy would never work on any large scale. The same applies to communism. Human tendencies get in the way. On a small scale though, where everyone knows everyone else, anarchy and communism are the best government types.

What about a more decentralized system, one with states that have their own ability to check the federal government like ours? In this case wouldn't the government be much more able to manage things on a local level?

Well, technically money is outlawed, but yes, you do get to accumulate all of what you produce. Capitalism leaves someone else making profits from your work (a good example, my dad's company was paid $100 an hour for his services to another company (freightliner) while my dad made $35 of that.). Communism has the most personal incentive because the more you produce (personally) the more you get to consume, because your small group of fellow producers get to reap all the seeds of their own labor. Note, most people do not work alone, but if you work as a team, the small group of people you do work with get to reap all the benefits of what they manage to produce as a team.

Sorry, you have described something, but it isn't Communism...

I think you may need to do a bit of reading, and rejoin the conversation when you have a better understanding of what you are talking about.

Or perhaps you have this new type of Communism? Shall we discuss it and see how much it may resemble other "System" that aren't Communism? Cause it doesn't seem to have a lot in common with the Communism I am aware of.

Regards,
Gaar

a true communist government is like robin hood on steroids

Sorry, you have described something, but it isn't Communism...

I think you may need to do a bit of reading, and rejoin the conversation when you have a better understanding of what you are talking about.

Or perhaps you have this new type of Communism? Shall we discuss it and see how much it may resemble other "System" that aren't Communism? Cause it doesn't seem to have a lot in common with the Communism I am aware of.

Regards,
Gaar

I think the Communism you're familiar with is the Stalinist brand.

There really is no "case" for Communism; we have all the empirical evidence we need...

In almost EVERY instance it has been attempted, in whatever manner it may, it has FAILED miserably!

Whereas, Democracy on the other hand, in whatever manner it is attempted (i.e. Democratic Republic, like we have here in the U.S.) has flourished and created some of the Wealthiest Nations the World has ever seen...

And it seems the less "Social" structure built in to the Democracy, the better it does Economically.

We have "empirical" evidence of the comparisons, we don't have to "assume" anything in this discussion, do we?





Communism requires democracy. Communism is essentially democracy extended to every non-personal interaction.

What about a more decentralized system, one with states that have their own ability to check the federal government like ours? In this case wouldn't the government be much more able to manage things on a local level?

A good idea, but not according to the systems alrady practiced. The central focus of Communism is a strong centralized state whose sole purpose is to prepare the people for the eventual dissolution of the government. It is supposed to be tenporary.

Sorry, you have described something, but it isn't Communism...

Technocracy? I seem to recall they had no money in their economic structure.

Communism requires democracy. Communism is essentially democracy extended to every non-personal interaction.

It would, but the way it is practiced does not result in this.

Communism leads, if practiced properly, to egalitarian anarchy. This could be interpreted as the purest form of democracy.

Who facilitates the market and how is it paid for? Farmers cannot simply raise their crops and sell them themselves. There has to be intermediaries that work to support and set the market, and those people do not work for free, so already by simply participating in a market, they lose a portion of their crop.

The point of Communism is to have as few middlemen as possible. Theoretically the government can look down and see which tasks are redundant and which are needed.

So you're saying laws medicare, etc. are anti-democratic? the point of Democracy is that everyone works for the decisions of the demos, that's where the word comes from.

What? To some degree they are counter to a Conservatives view of Democracy, yes. But being in a Democracy I also recognize the Right of the People to make Laws that they deem necessary and essential for the welfare of the Society. So while I may disagree with these things, I recognize their Right to exist, should the People deem them necessary.

Bill of Rights type stuff are limits on democracy that curtail its abuses, not inherent parts of democracy. A corporation working for itself in a capitalist system is not serving the demos and is therefore slightly less democratic than one whose decisions are made by the people.

The Bill of Rights "guarantees" certain Rights for the People. It also places limitations on what the Government has Authority over.

Anything else I can help you with?

Regards,
Gaar

Power corrupts, my friend. How can you say that any man, when given power, wouldn't be corrupted as a result? If the old elite is taken down with a revolution, whats to stop the new elite from becoming corrupt themselves? Any system, including communism, needs people with more power than others. It's human nature to use that power and influence for self-gain.


With no one as a president and no government except the decisions of the people, there is no elite in a democratic communist society. Little power means little corruption.

A good idea, but not according to the systems alrady practiced. The central focus of Communism is a strong centralized state whose sole purpose is to prepare the people for the eventual dissolution of the government. It is supposed to be tenporary.



Technocracy? I seem to recall they had no money in their economic structure.

While it's supposed to be temporary, I'm not sure its supposed to think of itself as temporary. And the only way I could see it phasing out would be if government got progressively more decentralized. Most communist governments are centralized because they are dictatorial and feudalism sucks.

Communism requires democracy. Communism is essentially democracy extended to every non-personal interaction.

No, if Communism could implement such a thing, it may have a better chance at success, but there are still several more hurdles that need to be overcome by Communism. Not the least of which is its inability to let its "best and brightest" excel at whatever they may deem their intellect worthy of.

So any such Society will lag behind in most types of innovations.

Regards,
Gaar

The point of Communism is to have as few middlemen as possible. Theoretically the government can look down and see which tasks are redundant and which are needed.

Theoretically and in practice, capitalism, the free market, and the profit motive are much more efficient at eliminating middle men than the government. A government at the size needed to maintain a large society will always be bogged down with bureaucracy and it will spread to the economy in a communistic system. The free market on the other hand will cause unnecessary middlemen to be forced out in the pursuit of lower prices and higher profit margin.

Another question, who determines the wages of the supervisors and managers of the business and how are they selected?

While it's supposed to be temporary, I'm not sure its supposed to think of itself as temporary. And the only way I could see it phasing out would be if government got progressively more decentralized. Most communist governments are centralized because they are dictatorial and feudalism sucks.

A decentralization program would be perfect for easing the transition in to anarchy. However, there was the fear that the easing of the controls of the central state would taint the process and so they became dictatorial. This dictatorship for the "preservation of the Communist ideal" eventually degenerated in to the excesses of Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, etc.

Feudalism does suck. A lot. :D

Tell me, how is a collective decision made? We are all individuals with individual agendas.


A collective decision is made by voting. Even if everyone is selfish, the collective society is still going to benefit from every selfish decision, even if it only benefits 51% of society.

The point of Communism is to have as few middlemen as possible. Theoretically the government can look down and see which tasks are redundant and which are needed.
The problem is that economics are infinitely complex. We can see incidents where planned economies attempted such throughout history. And the result is equally visible. Half-mile lines for toilet paper, four block lines for an orange. Economics is a tough thing to do. It's infinitely complex, and to attempt to operate it deliberately has only resulted in disaster.

What? To some degree they are counter to a COnservatives view of Democracy, yes. But being in a Democracy I also recognize the Right of the People to make Laws that they deem necessary and essential for the welfare of the Society. So while I may disagree with these things, I recognize their Right to exist, should the People deem them necessary.



The Bill of Rights "guarantees" certain Rights for the People. It also places limitations on what the Government has Authority over.

Anything else I can help you with?

Regards,
Gaar

Your description of rights is correct but what you neglect is that because the government whose authority is being limited is a democracy the bill of rights functions as a limit on democracy. These rights, however, are also guarantees of autonomy. What I'm trying to say is that far from self-determination being the pinnacle of democracy it is in fact anti-democratic. Thus a democracy does not necessarily need to maximize personal choice.

A collective decision is made by voting. Even if everyone is selfish, the collective society is still going to benefit from every selfish decision, even if it only benefits 51% of society.
So, it's a screw the minority situation?

the question is: what do you want the government's hands on?

communists say that the government should have its hands on your wallet but off your civil rights.

american liberals/libertarians say the government should be off of them both.

conservatives want the government off your wallet but on your civil rights.

and authoritarians want the government on everything.


what kind of government it is (democracy/monarchy) has nothing to do with it, as a democracy can easily elect a government that takes complete control of all parts of your life.

when stalin took a communist government and began throwing people in the gulags for going against the government, he effectively turned it into an authoritarian government.

on the other hand, benevolent dictators are quite possible. look at the hands-off economy of the british monarchy during the height of its power.


so really, there are three dimensions to the political spectrum: economic hands on/off ; social hands on/off ; and people's say in the government.

The problem is that economics are infinitely complex. We can see incidents where planned economies attempted such throughout history. And the result is equally visible. Half-mile lines for toilet paper, four block lines for an orange. Economics is a tough thing to do. It's infinitely complex, and to attempt to operate it deliberately has only resulted in disaster.

That's what decentralization solves!

Economics is a tough thing to do. It's infinitely complex, and to attempt to operate it deliberately has only resulted in disaster.

This is because the economy is created by the actions of its individual members, not a single central source. Central planning seems impossible to work properly (in practice) given the innate individualist nature of the economy.

That's what decentralization solves!

How?

So, it's a screw the minority situation?

Unless you have checks and balances and a bill of rights.

While it's supposed to be temporary, I'm not sure its supposed to think of itself as temporary. And the only way I could see it phasing out would be if government got progressively more decentralized. Most communist governments are centralized because they are dictatorial and feudalism sucks.

And this is why it fails...

There is no way for it to end.

Each year there are different priorities and different amounts of things being produced, someone is always "in-charge" because there are always new people coming into the system to work who have to be "evaluated" and "placed"...

It becomes a vicious cycle that the People soon see for what it truly is.

Regards,
Gaar

That's what decentralization solves!
Even decentralization is dangerous. The complexities are still there. It's just on a more micro scale. So, you say you're going to split it up amongst industries and decentralize it. You'd literally have to have a beureaucracy that would take up half of society determining where stuff goes. And to tell what a correct distribution is is still incredibly tough.

Unless you have checks and balances and a bill of rights.

However, the Communist system is led in theory by the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and all decisions are made by the majority will of the people. Anyone in the minority would be seen as opposition to the DoP and an enemy of the Revolution, so a Bill of Rights would likely never be developed.

How?

Because a decentralized government can get a more detailed, accurate idea of what's going on because each unit (state, whatever) has a narrower focus.

Your description of rights is correct but what you neglect is that because the government whose authority is being limited is a democracy the bill of rights functions as a limit on democracy. These rights, however, are also guarantees of autonomy. What I'm trying to say is that far from self-determination being the pinnacle of democracy it is in fact anti-democratic. Thus a democracy does not necessarily need to maximize personal choice.

Please explain how you get to... "it is anti-Democratic", I must have missed that point.

Not only should Democracy maximize personal choice, it also lets someone "not choose"... If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Regards,
Gaar

Because a decentralized government can get a more detailed, accurate idea of what's going on because each unit (state, whatever) has a narrower focus.

How are the interactions between the regions handled?

It seems that the government would be required to be much more expansive to maintain this level of detailed decentralization. This means the inclusion of more middlemen, and a much more expensive government.

Who facilitates the market and how is it paid for? Farmers cannot simply raise their crops and sell them themselves. There has to be intermediaries that work to support and set the market, and those people do not work for free, so already by simply participating in a market, they lose a portion of their crop.


Pfft, retail value is always marked up. There is nothing wrong with that in Communism. The point I was making was that business owners don't get the chance to take profits from your work. There is nothing wrong with selling goods at a higher price than you bought them for. You also have to remember though, communism bans money.

Because a decentralized government can get a more detailed, accurate idea of what's going on because each unit (state, whatever) has a narrower focus.
Given enough resources a centralized system could also do that. Resources to implement such are a problem in both a centralized and decentralized format. There really isn't all that much of a difference.

And what about extraregional goods? Let's say you need coal in a place where there isn't coal. Then the regional distribution command cannot provide that good, thus a need for a central system anyways.

However, the Communist system is led in theory by the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and all decisions are made by the majority will of the people. Anyone in the minority would be seen as opposition to the DoP and an enemy of the Revolution, so a Bill of Rights would likely never be developed.

It isn't required to be an athenian democracy, while its supposed to approach it it can remain communist and follow the model of liberal democracy (IE a system of rights and protections). This may not be the orginal communist philosophers' ideal, but I really don't see why it wouldn't still be communist.

Pfft, retail value is always marked up. There is nothing wrong with that in Communism. The point I was making was that business owners don't get the chance to take profits from your work. There is nothing wrong with selling goods at a higher price than you bought them for. You also have to remember though, communism bans money.
There is nothing wrong with employers making a profit. It's their idea, they organized and took the risk to purchase the machinery and resources. You freely agreed to work for them. If you lose your job, that's all you lose. If the company goes bankrupt, they lose their job and everything they put into it. They get more because they risked more. I'd say that's pretty damn fair.

A quote form "1984" reveals the problems of a Communist state, namely reality is far different from reality:

'Comrades!' cried an eager youthful voice. 'Attention, comrades! We have glorious news for you. We have won the battle for production! Returns now completed of the output of all classes of consumption goods show that the standard of living has risen by no less than 20 per cent over the past year....

The Communist nations had the same kind of propaganda. There was a total disconect between the economic realities and their propaganda dream world. Thus, this disconnect is why these states fail on all levels, because the sate run economy cannot work in practice, given the nature of the world at this time.

Given enough resources a centralized system could also do that. Resources to implement such are a problem in both a centralized and decentralized format. There really isn't all that much of a difference.

And what about extraregional goods? Let's say you need coal in a place where there isn't coal. Then the regional distribution command cannot provide that good, thus a need for a central system anyways.

You need a central system, I'm just saying that with local branches of power it can more accurately manage each area. This is really the reason most of the communist governments of the world failed economically: they tried to fit everything under one plan instead of varying it by region.

A quote form "1984" reveals the problems of a Communist state, namely reality is far different from reality:



The Communist nations had the same kind of propaganda. There was a total disconect between the economic realities and their propaganda dream world. Thus, this disconnect is why these states fail on all levels, because the sate run economy cannot work in practice, given the nature of the world at this time.

They had propaganda because they had abuse of power, not because they were communist.

You need a central system, I'm just saying that with local branches of power it can more accurately manage each area. This is really the reason most of the communist governments of the world failed economically: they tried to fit everything under one plan instead of varying it by region.
And I'm saying the immense amounts of resources required to do such would make it incredibly prohibitive.

Given enough resources a centralized system could also do that. Resources to implement such are a problem in both a centralized and decentralized format. There really isn't all that much of a difference.

And what about extraregional goods? Let's say you need coal in a place where there isn't coal. Then the regional distribution command cannot provide that good, thus a need for a central system anyways.

Naw, no central planning, non-coal producing regions can contact coal producing regions and work out an arrangement for an equitable trade. Also the non coal producing region would have an incentive to improve power efficiency and the collective could come to a general consensus on the best way to direct research without having to resort to wasteful subsidies to privately owned corporations.

They had propaganda because they had abuse of power, not because they were communist.
Then why did so many leftists worldwide praise the Soviet Union during its days of power, and now that it has failed, it is condemned? Orwell was incredibly concerned about this.

Sorry, you have described something, but it isn't Communism...

I think you may need to do a bit of reading, and rejoin the conversation when you have a better understanding of what you are talking about.

Or perhaps you have this new type of Communism? Shall we discuss it and see how much it may resemble other "System" that aren't Communism? Cause it doesn't seem to have a lot in common with the Communism I am aware of.

Regards,
Gaar


Fool, I am a rabid Communist. I know my system. Communism gives workers All of the income from their goods. Marx's dispute with wages was that they don't give workers ALL THAT THEY PRODUCE! Your notion of communism is that which was taught to you by American culture and our public schools. Only someone well versed in Marxism knows how it functions. Marx called for the abolishment of wages because wages did not give workers 100% of what they physically produced. Marx wouldn't create a hypocritical system. He was far too smart for that.

They had propaganda because they had abuse of power, not because they were communist.

The Communist system as practiced encourages the abuse of power.

A quote form "1984" reveals the problems of a Communist state, namely reality is far different from reality:



The Communist nations had the same kind of propaganda. There was a total disconect between the economic realities and their propaganda dream world. Thus, this disconnect is why these states fail on all levels, because the sate run economy cannot work in practice, given the nature of the world at this time.


so?

just because the first people to try it were out of touch with reality doesn't mean the rest have to be.

i bet the first car engine didn't work to well, but look where we are now.

Fool, I am a rabid Communist. I know my system. Communism gives workers All of the income from their goods. Marx's dispute with wages was that they don't give workers ALL THAT THEY PRODUCE! Your notion of communism is that which was taught to you by American culture and our public schools. Only someone well versed in Marxism knows how it functions. Marx called for the abolishment of wages because wages did not give workers 100% of what they physically produced. Marx wouldn't create a hypocritical system. He was far too smart for that.
It's because the workers don't put everything into it. Entrepeneuers pour resources of all sorts into a venture. The only effort does not come from the workers. They are compensated in a manner that they agree to.

The Communist system as practiced encourages the abuse of power.


no more than the capitalist system does.

a communist system with a democratic government that has term limits ensures that nobody is in the authoritative positions long enough to do any damage to anyone.

There is nothing wrong with employers making a profit. It's their idea, they organized and took the risk to purchase the machinery and resources. You freely agreed to work for them. If you lose your job, that's all you lose. If the company goes bankrupt, they lose their job and everything they put into it. They get more because they risked more. I'd say that's pretty damn fair.

I think the issue is that they still are benefiting off of work they didn't do. It's not that they don't have a right to it so much as that it still means productivity is not giving its full benefit to the workers. That is what communism tries to avoid.

Beyond that, SBMM, what was your previous nation?

There are two -- technically three -- situations in which communism -- in the sense of everyone being equal -- can really work.

1. A society which has always been communist. If there never was a government, and the society never was competetive, it can just keep going like that. Obviously, we can't get that now, and it really requires a shift in human nature. Anyone planning on creating an AI civilisation, make a note.

2. A very low-tech society. If everyone is living at subsitance level, there will be a natural inclination to give the spare of what /you/ have to others, because if you do it, they will, and you won't end up trying to live off a single food product. This system is essentially non-economic.

3. A very high-tech society. If all production of food, consumer goods, whatever, is automated, or so nearly so that people can just wander in and do the bits that aren't as a sort of hobby, then everyone will have everything they want. There would be, again, no economy. This, on a side note, is a pretty common view of Paradise -- you take what you want and do nothing.

Yes, I suppose my particular view on communism is basically non-economic. It's not really communism, is it? Not by conventional definitions, at least.

It'd be nice, though.

'Comrades!' cried an eager youthful voice. 'Attention, comrades! We have glorious news for you. We have won the battle for production! Returns now completed of the output of all classes of consumption goods show that the standard of living has risen by no less than 20 per cent over the past year....

Call me crazy, but doesn't this resemble the business news casts during any given stock market bubble? All kinds of money made on paper, but eventually shown to be a bubble. Just substitute the word 'Comrades' for 'Investors'

just because the first people to try it were out of touch with reality doesn't mean the rest have to be.

The unfortunate problem is that the damage done to Communism by these abusers will make it nearly impossible for it to ever rise again to its old levels.

i bet the first car engine didn't work to well, but look where we are now.

True, point well made. It will be hard to encourage enough people to take an honest look at Communism again to try to improve it, unfortunately.

It's because the workers don't put everything into it. Entrepeneuers pour resources of all sorts into a venture. The only effort does not come from the workers. They are compensated in a manner that they agree to.

They agree to it and accept it, but while it is true that not all of the profits come from the effort of workers usually more money is taken than the organizing of the business it worth.

Pfft, retail value is always marked up. There is nothing wrong with that in Communism. The point I was making was that business owners don't get the chance to take profits from your work. There is nothing wrong with selling goods at a higher price than you bought them for. You also have to remember though, communism bans money.

There is far, far more to maintaining a market than maintaining the store at which it is sold, there is financing, there is distribution. All of this involves a great many people who will take from the overhead.

The problem you are addressing deals with people taking more than their fair share out of profits. If it is the case that owner of a business acquires more wealth than his value merits, it is a problem with corruption, not capitalism. The free market explicitly states that if wages and costs are not dispersed at the fair market value, the business will suffer, so if a manager or owner of the business is receiving more than their actual value, he will be detrimental to the company, and will either be forced out, or the company will flounder.

You have also not addressed how communism fixes this problem. How does communism maintain that people get the fair value of their labor?

Call me crazy, but doesn't this resemble the business news casts during any given stock market bubble? All kinds of money made on paper, but eventually shown to be a bubble. Just substitute the word 'Comrades' for 'Investors'

Too much. :(

I am an investor, and I felt the pain that resulted from the bubble and its bursting. I was caught up in it like everyone else, and it hit me pretty hard. Still, I'd rather be investing then than now, moneywise. (I used to have CMGI at $200, now it's $2, JDSU at $150, and so on)

They agree to it and accept it, but while it is true that not all of the profits come from the effort of workers usually more money is taken than the organizing of the business it worth.
More rewards for more risk! That's what I'm talking about!

No, if Communism could implement such a thing, it may have a better chance at success, but there are still several more hurdles that need to be overcome by Communism. Not the least of which is its inability to let its "best and brightest" excel at whatever they may deem their intellect worthy of.

So any such Society will lag behind in most types of innovations.

Regards,
Gaar


Not when the society can choose to support the ideas, creations and opinions of the best and brightest. Political parties and political thought will still exist, and since no society willfully stagnates, intellectual and scientific changes are welcome. There is no oppression for the intelligent, and anything particuarly useful will recieve enough public support to be further continued into the industrial realm, with personal incentive for the intelligent being the goods and prestige they can recieve.

The unfortunate problem is that the damage done to Communism by these abusers will make it nearly impossible for it to ever rise again to its old levels.



True, point well made. It will be hard to encourage enough people to take an honest look at Communism again to try to improve it, unfortunately.

What really needs to happen is something totally divorced from the language of ther communist nations of the past. Just like you can't name a ship the titanic anymore, you're right that you can't call a government communist and expect people to buy it. However one of the ideas Marx had about communism was that it wouldn't come like that at all. In fact, Western Europe is now closer to a stable form of communism than Eastern Europe ever was.

Not when the society can choose to support the ideas, creations and opinions of the best and brightest. Political parties and political thought will still exist, and since no society willfully stagnates, intellectual and scientific changes are welcome. There is no oppression for the intelligent, and anything particuarly useful will recieve enough public support to be further continued into the industrial realm, with personal incentive for the intelligent being the goods and prestige they can recieve.
Wow, guess what, that happens in capitalism. Only private citizens sponsor the inventor. It's called investing. It's called individual choice.

What really needs to happen is something totally divorced from the language of ther communist nations of the past. Just like you can't name a ship the titanic anymore, you're right that you can't call a government communist and expect people to buy it. However one of the ideas Marx had about communism was that it wouldn't come like that at all. In fact, Western Europe is now closer to a stable form of communism than Eastern Europe ever was.
Western Europe is social democrat. Corporations still make the vast majority of the goods for profit, often times with government backing. And it's all built on the groundwork laid by capitalists.

Your disowning your sides failures and trying to make the other sides success your success, when it really isn't.

Wow, guess what, that happens in capitalism. Only private citizens sponsor the inventor. It's called investing. It's called individual choice.

But individual choice isn't important, didn't you know that?

Everything will work out better for you if you let society decide things for you. ;)

In fact, Western Europe is now closer to a stable form of communism than Eastern Europe ever was.

This may be the end result (without some serious world changing disaster, of course). Their systems do have problems with replicating bureaucracy and inefficency, but these can be easily fixed should the people attempt it. The Euro is also a good step in this direction.

There are two -- technically three -- situations in which communism -- in the sense of everyone being equal -- can really work.

1. A society which has always been communist. If there never was a government, and the society never was competetive, it can just keep going like that. Obviously, we can't get that now, and it really requires a shift in human nature. Anyone planning on creating an AI civilisation, make a note.

2. A very low-tech society. If everyone is living at subsitance level, there will be a natural inclination to give the spare of what /you/ have to others, because if you do it, they will, and you won't end up trying to live off a single food product. This system is essentially non-economic.

3. A very high-tech society. If all production of food, consumer goods, whatever, is automated, or so nearly so that people can just wander in and do the bits that aren't as a sort of hobby, then everyone will have everything they want. There would be, again, no economy. This, on a side note, is a pretty common view of Paradise -- you take what you want and do nothing.

Yes, I suppose my particular view on communism is basically non-economic. It's not really communism, is it? Not by conventional definitions, at least.

It'd be nice, though.


i have been kicking the concept of number three around in my head for a while, and it's nice to see that i'm not the only one who has thought of it.

in a place where all the requirements (food, material goods, ect.) are created by machine labor (or created by outside labor) the entire focus of the society can be on what amounts to, basically, the arts and sciences, and on education. thus, everyone's jobs are equally important, and recompensation for such can be equal.

interesting tidbit: the word 'robot' is actually derived from the slovak word for 'slave'

In fact, Western Europe is now closer to a stable form of communism than Eastern Europe ever was.

Western Europe is a capitalistic model. A small amount of wealth redistribution in a private ownership driven economy does not make a communism.

There are two -- technically three -- situations in which communism -- in the sense of everyone being equal -- can really work.

1. A society which has always been communist. If there never was a government, and the society never was competetive, it can just keep going like that. Obviously, we can't get that now, and it really requires a shift in human nature. Anyone planning on creating an AI civilisation, make a note.

2. A very low-tech society. If everyone is living at subsitance level, there will be a natural inclination to give the spare of what /you/ have to others, because if you do it, they will, and you won't end up trying to live off a single food product. This system is essentially non-economic.

3. A very high-tech society. If all production of food, consumer goods, whatever, is automated, or so nearly so that people can just wander in and do the bits that aren't as a sort of hobby, then everyone will have everything they want. There would be, again, no economy. This, on a side note, is a pretty common view of Paradise -- you take what you want and do nothing.

Yes, I suppose my particular view on communism is basically non-economic. It's not really communism, is it? Not by conventional definitions, at least.

It'd be nice, though.

That's the basic idea, though.

End-stage communism was the freezing of history, the dissolution of a traditional economy (though an economy would always exist because all an economy is is the exchange of goods)

From the viewpoint of a free-market capitalist who is intelligent and benevolent enough to not automatically hate my opposite (we actually have a lot in common), I can tell you that neither my ideal utopia (essentially, anarcho-capitalism with a permanent Bill of Rights dealy) nor any communists utopia will ever be achieved while our society is still ignorant.

You see, a democracy is only as intelligent and informed as its majority is. There has always been the idea of an autocracy of the geniuses, but in this world, we live under a system where society itself determines how things go.

As it stands, capitalism is a war between the consumer and the producer. When you have a pliable consumer, the producer always wins and capitalism fails. When you have a united, informed consumer, the war continues and capitalism succeeds. Capitalism is, in essence, an anarchy of the economy.

For communism, however, you see the peace and clear skies after the storm. The war ends as the consumer ultimately wins out and capitalism fails. However, this leaves the consumer weak, out of breath, and very succeptable to anyone who will offer a hand to guide it through the darkness. Whether this hand guides the consumer to the door or to a dark corner in which the consumer will be raped depends on whether or not the consumer is intelligent enough to know which way the door is so it can find its way without a helping hand.

So, you see, in the end both systems depend on the intelligence of the consumer. Capitalism, the system I prefer (though I feel both could work, I like the way my life is now...I wouldn't want the changes that would come with communism), is inherently un-sustainable as it suffers from over-production, something the invisible hand can regulate, but never end. Only through communism (and I am forever happy I will never live to see this day) can a society be created where the open loops of our universe can be closed and the entropy of our society reversed.

What am I saying?

Enjoy capitalism until you die, make sure your kids know everything my ideal consumer would need, and hope they get to enjoy capitalism like you did.

Okay, my arms feel like flailing. And I'm tired. I'm also dead set on finding out who SBMM is. TG me if you feel like it. I'm damn curious. As such...


this is Dick Cheney, signing off for the night!

(My claim that I am Dick Cheney has been repeatedly refuted, but I still make it.)

There is far, far more to maintaining a market than maintaining the store at which it is sold, there is financing, there is distribution. All of this involves a great many people who will take from the overhead.

The problem you are addressing deals with people taking more than their fair share out of profits. If it is the case that owner of a business acquires more wealth than his value merits, it is a problem with corruption, not capitalism. The free market explicitly states that if wages and costs are not dispersed at the fair market value, the business will suffer, so if a manager or owner of the business is receiving more than their actual value, he will be detrimental to the company, and will either be forced out, or the company will flounder.

You have also not addressed how communism fixes this problem. How does communism maintain that people get the fair value of their labor?

It doesn't. The value thing isn't what communism is designed to solve, it's just on the way to the real problem. The issue is that with more and more value being taken people have less and less money to buy things and thus corporations charge less and less but in order to do this they must lower wages further, etc. Eventually no one can pay for anything and it all falls apart. Communism tries to avoid this by doing what effectively amounts to an advanced form of a minimum wage. Businesses are required to give enough wages and charge enough to keep the system working.

I like capitalism the best, but am primarily utilitarian economically. I believe the "greatest good for the greatest number", so if another system would supplant capitalism, I would support that instead.

Still, for now, I'd have to go with capitalism if forced to choose.

Beyond that, SBMM, what was your previous nation?


Die Capitalist Pigs was just banned, my most used nation was left for too long and it expired. That one was Comandante.

anyway, i thank you all.

my history class was assigned a paper, where we must take two famous dead people, and write a diologue between themselves and me.

i picked Karl Marx and Adam Smith


this thread has given me plenty of good material.

Western Europe is a capitalistic model. A small amount of wealth redistribution in a private ownership driven economy does not make a communism.

What I'm saying is that in direct government ownership of essential industries and strict regulation of corporate behavior they represent a stage of evolution towards communism which is much more advanced than what basically amounted to huge all-powerful corporations in the so called communist states.

Western Europe is social democrat. Corporations still make the vast majority of the goods for profit, often times with government backing. And it's all built on the groundwork laid by capitalists.

Your disowning your sides failures and trying to make the other sides success your success, when it really isn't.

What's my side?

Wow, guess what, that happens in capitalism. Only private citizens sponsor the inventor. It's called investing. It's called individual choice.


The point was that it will happen in Communism too. The context was that some libertarian dude questioned how Communism could support the best and brightest. And is there anything particularly wrong with society sponsoring the inventor?

What I'm saying is that in direct government ownership of essential industries and strict regulation of corporate behavior they represent a stage of evolution towards communism which is much more advanced than what basically amounted to huge all-powerful corporations in the so called communist states.

I see.

I don't know if I am correct about this, but it seems that most communists don't really espouse communism, but more of a Adam Smith style free market economy with a Rousseau inspired level of property rights.

I see.

I don't know if I am correct about this, but it seems that most communists don't really espouse communism, but more of a Adam Smith style free market economy with a Rousseau inspired level of property rights.

They vary. Me, I'm not sure if what I support is communism or capitalism or what, but I don't even claim to be a communist.

They vary. Me, I'm not sure if what I support is communism or capitalism or what, but I don't even claim to be a communist.

The most important aspect of an Adam Smith free market is that no person or entity should have any economic power. This means that neither government nor any person can have the ability to determine wages or prices. The market must be allowed to work on its own, with wages and prices being determined indirectly by the consumer and the worker (managers and owners being included as workers) through supply and demand.

Rousseau believed in property rights, up to the extent that you can actually use the property. You could own the means to production, but you couldn't hoard it for speculation or resale.

anyway, i thank you all.

my history class was assigned a paper, where we must take two famous dead people, and write a diologue between themselves and me.

i picked Karl Marx and Adam Smith


this thread has given me plenty of good material.


Always a pleasure comrade! :D

I see.

I don't know if I am correct about this, but it seems that most communists don't really espouse communism, but more of a Adam Smith style free market economy with a Rousseau inspired level of property rights.


Well, that level of commitment to the movement is a start, but in the end, we all want our classless, government free society.

A system of truly equal Communist Democracy HAS been tried. The Pilgrims (Separatists) who landed at Plymouth brought with them the practice of "farming in common" where they would pool all their assets gained and distribute them equally according to need. This idea brought about too much discontent and took away their incentive to work. Young men resented working hard for them selves and their families without compensation.

After three winters of starvation, William Bradford, leader of the colony instituted a new policy: A plot of land was given to each family, and the fruits were theirs to keep or do as they saw fit. As a result, women started working the fields, taking the children to help. People who claimed to be too ill or weak to work were out tilling the earth. That winter (1623) the colonists had more food than they needed and began trading with the surrounding natives for other commodities. In thanks, they celebrated the Thanksgiving.

However, I do not expect believers in Communism to believe real world evidence... I guess ignoring the laws of Economics makes them go away... :headbang:

The most important aspect of an Adam Smith free market is that no person or entity should have any economic power. This means that neither government nor any person can have the ability to determine wages or prices. The market must be allowed to work on its own, with wages and prices being determined indirectly by the consumer and the worker (managers and owners being included as workers) through supply and demand.

Rousseau believed in property rights, up to the extent that you can actually use the property. You could own the means to production, but you couldn't hoard it for speculation or resale.

Then I would say that's probably not what most commies are for. It is what my nation is for, though.

A system of truly equal Communist Democracy HAS been tried. The Pilgrims (Separatists) who landed at Plymouth brought with them the practice of "farming in common" where they would pool all their assets gained and distribute them equally according to need. This idea brought about too much discontent and took away their incentive to work. Young men resented working hard for them selves and their families without compensation.

After three winters of starvation, William Bradford, leader of the colony instituted a new policy: A plot of land was given to each family, and the fruits were theirs to keep or do as they saw fit. As a result, women started working the fields, taking the children to help. People who claimed to be too ill or weak to work were out tilling the earth. That winter (1623) the colonists had more food than they needed and began trading with the surrounding natives for other commodities. In thanks, they celebrated the Thanksgiving.

However, I do not expect believers in Communism to believe real world evidence... I guess ignoring the laws of Economics makes them go away... :headbang:


Ah, yes, the incentive problem...though I'm not even sure that was the issue. Nevertheless you're right in that working towards one big goal is not very satisfying. It's why voter turnout is so low. In our democracy that kind of apathy is the price we pay for a central authority.

Whether or not it's a stated issue, incentives are the backbone of an economy. Without a good reason, why trade? Why work hard if you're not going to see any reward? Would Mr. Barry have started this Role-playing game if he thought he was really getting nothing for it? Probably not.
If the government/economic entity is small enough to support Communism, it is not strong enough to do the things a major government needs to. If it is large enough to do those things, it is too big to work a "planned" economy. Remember, the Pilgrims only consisted of some 52 people by 1621. Magical as it may seem, capitalism is much more efficient than planned economies at allocating resources , goods, and services. Truly free trade cannot occur with the restrictions of planners watching.
Money is also VERY important to the workings of any economy. Imagine you only grew potatoes. If you end up wanting another good, you have to hope that you can find someone who not only has the good you want, but also wants your goods. If that person will take money, you can then trade it for the good, and all you have to do is find someone with the good you want, regardless of whether they want yours, improving your chances of getting what you want. They do this with the expectation that they can trade that money for further goods.

Basic economics. Build a skeleton of knowledge before you try to shape the body.

This is (at best) a pinko thread.

But I have to say, I understand how the Communists here feel.

The libertarians here are going to kill me later on, but let's get something sparkling clear:

I think Communism is sexy.

I also think libertarianism is sexy, but at the moment--

Unrealistic.

I believe in doing the system with a bit of philosophical purity.

I'd like to see a truly Capitalist, or truly Communist effort.

All of my favorite posters tend to be extreme.

(Save Lasciv, Pirates, Aerou, etc.)

if you grew the potatoes, you would give them to the government.

the government would find all the people who needed potatoes, and give them to them.

if you needed corn, the government would take the corn from the corn growers, and give you your share.


the problem with the pilgrims is that a communism requires a government to distribute the goods.

they had no government.

it was closer to an anarchy than a communism.

This is (at best) a pinko thread.

But I have to say, I understand how the Communists here feel.

The libertarians here are going to kill me later on, but let's get something sparkling clear:

I think Communism is sexy.

I also think libertarianism is sexy, but at the moment--

Unrealistic.

I believe in doing the system with a bit of philosophical purity.

I'd like to see a truly Capitalist, or truly Communist effort.

All of my favorite posters tend to be extreme.

(Save Lasciv, Pirates, Aerou, etc.)

A pure communistic state is the same as a pure libertarian state. Both are anarchy and infeasible until hierarchy has been completely taken out of society. I wouldn't be looking for that to happen anytime soon.

Pure capitalism is more of an anarchy than communism. Communism requires a government to control it, whether it's one person in a village, or a huge government. Capitalism requires no such thing. It requires no Government input, much closer to an anarchy.

edit: Just pointing out the fallacy of logic some "anarcho-communists" are using.

They may postulate and pretend and theorize here all they like...

But as I pointed out earlier, we have all the "real world" evidence we need, otherwise known as empirical evidence...

All else is just someone's opinion, not supported by "facts".

I have done what I can in trying to explain... obviously some minds may not be as open as others.

Regards,
Gaar

Pure capitalism is more of an anarchy than communism. Communism requires a government to control it, whether it's one person in a village, or a huge government. Capitalism requires no such thing. It requires no Government input, much closer to an anarchy.


and that's why it's such a bad thing.

you'll notice that in social anarchies, the strongest survive, and the weak get steamrolled

why should an economic anarchy be any different?

(note: i am arguing with the strongest use of the word anarchy available: in a pure social anarchy, nothing is illegal, and in a pure economic anarchy, monopolies and no minimum wage are open game)

The problem with communism is its inherent vulnerability to greed and corruption. Inevitably, a communist leader feels he wants "more" and begins cheating the people out of their money, livelihood, and freedom. This is why communism fails.

The problem with communism is its inherent vulnerability to greed and corruption. Inevitably, a communist leader feels he wants "more" and begins cheating the people out of their money, livelihood, and freedom. This is why communism fails.

Stalinist and Maoist Communism are like that. A real Communism is controlled by everyone, not a Chairman.

The problem with communism is its inherent vulnerability to greed and corruption. Inevitably, a communist leader feels he wants "more" and begins cheating the people out of their money, livelihood, and freedom. This is why communism fails.


not in the slightest.

1) capitalism is prone to the same things

2) that's only in the cases where the leader is given a chance to do so. limited term offices and democratic elections ensure that the people who can best handle the authority are put into place.

Stalinist and Maoist Communism are like that. A real Communism is controlled by everyone, not a Chairman.

Yes, yes you’re talking about one of those "Communism's" that they just haven't gotten quite right yet, right?

I mean, how many Countries have tried now?

And would someone point to just one that has been even half as successful as the U.S. has been in its use of a Democratic Republic for well over 200 years now?

I'll wait here...

Regards,
Gaar

look: democratic communism= democratic + communism

democratic=demo+cracy

cracy=government of
demos=the people

communism= a system where the nation's wealth and resources are distributed equally by the government amongst the people.


so to put the definitions together:

democratic communism - a system where the nation's wealth and resources are distributed equally amongst the people by a government made up of the people.


in a democracy, however, it is most convenient for the people to pick a figurehead to make the decisions for them, so that they can go about their daily lives.

that's not the way the first democracy was set up, though.

the original greek democratic government assembled in an ampitheater in athens, and just about anyone* could wander in for a meeting and vote.

*at that time, it was free adult males, which was better than the beginning of our nation, where free, white, property owning, adult males were the only ones with voting rights.

And would someone point to just one that has been even half as successful as the U.S. has been in its use of a Democratic Republic for well over 200 years now?


:headbang: :headbang:

the opposite of communism is capitalism

the opposite of democracy is monarchy


communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive

:headbang: :headbang:

the opposite of communism is capitalism

the opposite of democracy is monarchy


communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive

I think he's pulling this stuff out of his ass most of the time... Complete opposite of Democracy is Communism? Pfffff. Bullshit Republican propaganda.

I think he's pulling this stuff out of his ass most of the time... Complete opposite of Democracy is Communism? Pfffff. Bullshit Republican propaganda.

Do you expect reasoned argument? He bangs his head on walls all the time! There has to be some damage there.

I think he's pulling this stuff out of his ass most of the time... Complete opposite of Democracy is Communism? Pfffff. Bullshit Republican propaganda.

Well, his terminology may be incorrect, but it is true that Capitalistic/Democracy is the "Antithesis" of Communism.

At least as each has been applied in "Real World" circumstances.

Regards,
Gaar

Well, his terminology may be incorrect, but it is true that Capitalistic/Democracy is the "Antithesis" of Communism.

At least as each has been applied in "Real World" circumstances.

Regards,
Gaar


yes, but they have nothing to do with eachother

a woman with red hair kicks you in the crotch.

does that make red hair evil? no. it makes that woman evil.

a dictatorship with a communist economy is at war with you.

does that make all communisms evil? no. it makes that dictatorship evil.

I mean, how many Countries have tried now?

if you think lenin and trotsky were sincere, one. every other one came in modeled after stalin, who wasn't even really pretending.

and they're questionable - communist in (earlier) words certainly, but they gave up all claim to the title after kronstadt and the betrayal of the makhnovists, imnsho.

My question is how many of you all who claim you are one way or the other actually follow and act on what you believe is right in your daily lives? Are you really a communist simply because you think it's a good idea? Do you share what you have with everyone else only keeping what you need? (I'm not saying just communist, just pointing it out as an example)

As to a communist economy, it all depends on what market it is appealing too. Human nature and all the other counter-arguments aside, I believe the question was what were the benefits of communism economically and could it be succesful. The first problem with answering this question is what definition of communism is the question refering too?

Take it back to the 1800s, an example of communism would be in the industrial sectors.... the factories would be owned by the people who work in them.

Straight from the Communist Manifesto
"In communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer"

What Marx was against (again taken from the Manifesto)
"that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer"

Another quote:
"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations."

Translation, it doesn't involve forcing people into what they do best and allowing them to barely exist. It allows people to benefit from thier labor. Where the workers own thier factories, thus if Factory A choses to be more productive and targets a better market then Factory B, then Factory A's workers benefits more then Factory Bs. The command economy everyone associates with communism was only meant to be a temporary transition from capitalism (Or more where a ruling class owns the factories to where the workers own the factories) to communism.

In my opinion and translation, communism was meant to level the economic playing field which was rampantly divided in the 1800s. Where mega-buisness were run by a few individuals who capitalised on poor labor and intentionally kept them poor. I believe it was more meant to bring capitalism to what the route idea of "I make what I earn, I earn what I take" not "dick over a bunch of people and fill my pockets."I think the best example of this is a restuarant.
The owner of the restuarant makes money on the products sold as they provide the supplies and ingrediants, put up the money for advertising, etc.
Waiters and waitress make thier money on thier own labour in providing a service. The owner in no way benefits from the "tips" the service makes and the service doesn't make money on the products sold. (Good service makes more then 15% gratuity) If the owner chooses to provide better food and can bring in more money and the service chooses to provide a higher level of service then both groups benefit as they will both make more money. Thus eliminating the class distinction, which he specifies more as the people who benefit off of others labour and those who are used. The idea was for everyone to make what they put into thier endevour.

I hope that might explain how I view communism. It doesn't mean I translated how it was intended, I believe I translated as was intended but Marx isn't around to ask so who knows.

a woman with red hair kicks you in the crotch.

does that make red hair evil? no. it makes that woman evil.

a dictatorship with a communist economy is at war with you.

does that make all communisms evil? no. it makes that dictatorship evil.


Agreed.

I want to see facts B0zzy. No opinions or perceptions. Just facts.

You may want to rethink that since all of the facts presently indicate that every communist governemtn has resulted in death, poverty, and very poor living conditions for all. Their slave, er, citizens regularly escape to capitalist societies. That's about all the fact there is on the subject. Everything else is wishy-wash opinion and pineing for a failed theory to really really work. Much like a creationist. "Damn the evidence, I KNOW the truth!"

You may want to rethink that since all of the facts presently indicate that every communist governemtn has resulted in death, poverty, and very poor living conditions for all. Their slave, er, citizens regularly escape to capitalist societies. That's about all the fact there is on the subject. Everything else is wishy-wash opinion and pineing for a failed theory to really really work. Much like a creationist. "Damn the evidence, I KNOW the truth!"


and if you looked at the victorian era capitalistic system, you would see the same thing.

slavery abundant, corporations with no regard to the original populations of the lands they conquered

up to that point, there had never been a capitalist system that respected human rights.

and up to this point, there has never been a 'communist' country that has respected human rights.

just because it hasn't happened yet isn't to say it won't

yep, there's the facts for you.

yes, but they have nothing to do with eachother

a woman with red hair kicks you in the crotch.

does that make red hair evil? no. it makes that woman evil.

a dictatorship with a communist economy is at war with you.

does that make all communisms evil? no. it makes that dictatorship evil.

Yet not all women with red hair kick me in the crotch...

Does that say that Communism, in whatever form it may have been tried, isn't responsible for its own actions?

So why don't you show me even ONE Communistic Country that has been even mildly succesful?

And then I will show you MANY Capitalist/Democracies that have...

Regards,
Gaar

Yet not all women with red hair kick me in the crotch...

Does that say that Communism, in whatever form it may have been tried, isn't responsible for its own actions?

So why don't you show me even ONE Communistic Country that has been even mildly succesful?

And then I will show you MANY Capitalist/Democracies that have...

Regards,
Gaar


that's because communist countries, and countries that are even suspected of being communist, are immediately set upon by their capitalist neighbors.

that's because communist countries, and countries that are even suspected of being communist, are immediately set upon by their capitalist neighbors.

So, just like Liberals they blame their failures on someone else?

Regards,
Gaar

So, just like Liberals they blame their failures on someone else?

Regards,
Gaar


when did that happen?

The only problem with communism are the communists...

In a society where everyone is equal, some become "more equal" since they get to watch the equality of everyone and hence, they reduce the communist idea to absurdity.

I think, the factor that communism doesn't work is that greed and the craving for power - which is enrooted in almost every human being because it ensures the own survival - hinder the true development of that utopian form of society?

when did that happen?

Well, most recently would be their "blaming" stupid Americans for their losing the Presidential Elections...

It had nothing to do with their calling their opponents "stupid" and being Hypocrites about the 527's, did it?

That's what I thought...

Regards,
Gaar

In a world where everyone has a different opinion, and our brains aren't wired together at the speed of thought, communism won't work.

It works very well for ants. They have perfect communism. Bees, too.

One day, when the Internet is a billion times faster, and we all have direct neural implants in our brains, and we can all think together and act together, then you can have communism - probably without getting the feeling you're losing something. Because you'll gain something in the form of a world mind.

Short of that, and a hefty percentage of people will think they're being screwed by yet another set of masters in the form of the Party.

In a world where everyone has a different opinion, and our brains aren't wired together at the speed of thought, communism won't work.

It works very well for ants. They have perfect communism. Bees, too.

One day, when the Internet is a billion times faster, and we all have direct neural implants in our brains, and we can all think together and act together, then you can have communism - probably without getting the feeling you're losing something. Because you'll gain something in the form of a world mind.

Short of that, and a hefty percentage of people will think they're being screwed by yet another set of masters in the form of the Party.

That is actually an excellent point!

And to expand on it, if I may...

It is not through any such "telepathy” that these lesser creatures are able to "make it work", per se, it is because they are all doing what is for the common good of the Community and they do not question the devotion of the others in the group - to the group, it is just "understood", as it were, likely through instinct.

Now, try to look at Humanity and see if we are anything like this in any way? You see people questioning other people’s motives and describing their actions as out right lies and corruption. There is very little FAITH in the "other guy" in our Society. We all believe ourselves to be honest and forthright people but it is not a common thing to believe that of most others, why is that?

Why is it we can't look at the actions of others and see them as their acting in what "they believe" is not only their own best interest but what would be in the interest of the Society? Why is it we always think that the other guy is out to screw us?

Regards,
Gaar

Now, try to look at Humanity and see if we are anything like this in any way? You see people questioning other people’s motives and describing their actions as out right lies and corruption. There is very little FAITH in the "other guy" in our Society. We all believe ourselves to be honest and forthright people but it is not a common thing to believe that of most others, why is that?

Why is it we can't look at the actions of others and see them as their acting in what "they believe" is not only their own best interest but what would be in the interest of the Society? Why is it we always think that the other guy is out to screw us?


Because an individual bee, or an individual ant, is essentially a ganglion on legs.

They don't have any more conscious thought than my little finger. They aren't designed from the ground up for independent thought. Humans, on the other hand, are designed for independent thought, and some social cooperation.

You would have to change the way we think and the way we are built in order to have communism work. Like I said, if we were intimately interconnected at the level of thought, our way of thinking would change.

It is not through any such "telepathy” that these lesser creatures are able to "make it work", per se, it is because they are all doing what is for the common good of the Community and they do not question the devotion of the others in the group - to the group, it is just "understood", as it were, likely through instinct.
actually, the comparison to ants is not a solid one, because ants have a genetic makeup that makes their cooperation the best choice for each individual from a purely selfish position. humans are not designed that way.

see, a female ant is diploid; she has two sets of chromosomes, one from her mother and one from her father. however, a male ant is haploid, and has only one set of chromosomes to pass on. when a female ant reproduces she will pass 50% of her genetic material on to her offspring, but when a male reproduces he will pass 100% of his material to his offspring because he only has a half-set to begin with. the result of this is that when you look at an individual colony, a worker ant (which will be a female) shares 75% of her genetics with her sisters, because they have 50% inheritance from their mother and 100% from their father. however, that individual female would only have a 50% genetic relationship to any offspring she produced. thus, if she wants to get her genes into the next generation, it is better for her to help her sisters succeed than it is for her to try to produce her own offspring.

altruism is weeded out of natural populations. the reason organisms cooperate in nature is to increase their individual reproductive fitness, not to improve the fitness of the species.

As a species, we're wildly successful. Technically, we can expand to live in areas where ants cannot adapt. We could live on the moon, for example.