NationStates Jolt Archive


Communism: Good or Bad?

Pages : [1] 2 3
Londonburg
25-04-2005, 22:52
Just want to see what people think.
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 22:59
A (major) reform of straight chinese communism from the 50s would be great!
Economic Associates
25-04-2005, 23:00
I dislike communism because it tries to use the rich as a scapegoat to unify people.
Bodies Without Organs
25-04-2005, 23:01
Anarcho-communism: good.

Statist/Authoritarian Communism: bad.
The Koriban System
25-04-2005, 23:01
well its a good idea on paper but its pretty heartless in practice
General of general
25-04-2005, 23:01
Bad. Communism doesn't work.
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:02
well its a good idea on paper but its pretty heartless in prastice
IT isn't heartless, it's just unfortunately been corrupted in the Soviet's practice with Lenin and Stalin, because they both idealized Hitler (in the worser aspects, not the better).
Bodies Without Organs
25-04-2005, 23:03
Bad. Communism doesn't work.

Where has it actually been applied in order to draw this conclusion?
Economic Associates
25-04-2005, 23:04
IT isn't heartless, it's just unfortunately been corrupted in the Soviet's practice with Lenin and Stalin, because they both idealized Hitler (in the worser aspects, not the better).

I am pretty sure that any form of government/social movement that revolves around the taking power away from people is heartless on paper and in practice.
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:04
Bad. Communism doesn't work.
When has it not worked exactly?
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:04
Where has it actually been applied in order to draw this conclusion?
Great minds think alike.
Londonburg
25-04-2005, 23:04
I think I should have given the poll more options... oh well, never mind.
DrunkenDove
25-04-2005, 23:05
Which kind?
Bodies Without Organs
25-04-2005, 23:06
IT isn't heartless, it's just unfortunately been corrupted in the Soviet's practice with Lenin and Stalin, because they both idealized Hitler (in the worser aspects, not the better).

Eh? Neat trick for Lenin. The chap died in 1924, at which point Hitler was only really appearing on the international stage as a bit player, and Lenin's contributions to communist theory were already set in place.
General of general
25-04-2005, 23:06
When has it not worked exactly?

Well, it didn't work in Germany and the USSR. Though, some communist nations seem to function, it is most definetly not the best way of government and it's awful for the population.
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:07
I am pretty sure that any form of government/social movement that revolves around the taking power away from people is heartless on paper and in practice.
It's basic Marxism at its simplist, a trade off. I'm just as jolly ho about rihts as the next guy, but honestly, if you think America is the free of the free, Its not even worth discussing, because it definately isn't, we have tons of stupid laws that make absolutely no sense.
Democratic socialism is more ideal, but if communism is the subject at hand, then I say it isn't a bad system.
General of general
25-04-2005, 23:07
Where has it actually been applied in order to draw this conclusion?

The USSR and the DDR. They tried and failed.
Bodies Without Organs
25-04-2005, 23:07
Well, it didn't work in Germany and the USSR. Though, some communist nations seem to function, it is most definetly not the best way of government and it's awful for the population.

Both the USSR and East Germany are probably better described as state capitalist societies, rather than actual communist ones.

EDIT: that looks like I'm just playing at semantics there in order to excuse them, but my actual point was that they had become locked in an arms race with the USA/Western block and so had diverted their proimary economic activities to keeping up with their opponents. Post-WWII, obviously.
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:09
Eh? Neat trick for Lenin. The chap died in 1924, at which point Hitler was only really appearing on the international stage as a bit player, and Lenin's contributions to communist theory were already set in place.
Exactly my point, I think I just stated that sentance badly, my appologies. My point was that Stalinization was the wrongness of communism, not the theory itself, but I got sidetracked.
Bodies Without Organs
25-04-2005, 23:09
I am pretty sure that any form of government/social movement that revolves around the taking power away from people is heartless on paper and in practice.

The whole point of communism is to return power to the people: the ultimate aim in even the most statist/authoritarian communist doctrines is for the government to eventually whither away completely.
Neitzsche
25-04-2005, 23:10
works great in theory, but then again so did the gold standard.
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:10
The USSR and the DDR. They tried and failed.
Those were basically the same, in theory, and they weren't true communism anyways.
Andaluciae
25-04-2005, 23:10
Both the USSR and East Germany are probably better described as state capitalist societies, rather than actual communist ones.
Ah, state capitalism, little more than a propaganda phrase. For "state capitalism" is a contradiction. Capitalism inherently relies on the non-intereference of the state in the markets, yet both nations controlled their markets totally.

No, the proper term is Stalinist Communism. Or totalitarian communism. Not state capitalism.
Florida Oranges
25-04-2005, 23:11
When has it not worked exactly?

New Harmony, Indiana.
General of general
25-04-2005, 23:11
Both the USSR and East Germany are probably better described as state capitalist societies, rather than actual communist ones.

True...But they are still examples of failed experiments in communism.
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:12
Ah, state capitalism, little more than a propaganda phrase. For "state capitalism" is a contradiction. Capitalism inherently relies on the non-intereference of the state in the markets, yet both nations controlled their markets totally.

No, the proper term is Stalinist Communism. Or totalitarian communism. Not state capitalism.
I think those were all heading the same direction, no need to have corrected him (or her).
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:14
True...But they are still examples of failed experiments in communism.
I really don't think I would count those in my mind, maybe on small scale, the beginning process mimicked communist ideas, but as for calling the failing communism, I disagree, because Stalin corrupted it to such a point that it no longer lived up to the definition. That was capitalist propaganda to turn people to DeStalinization and trying to ward off China from being a great country through communism.
Londonburg
25-04-2005, 23:15
Which kind?
Maybe "I would like a reformed Communism" and some other stuff.
Bodies Without Organs
25-04-2005, 23:17
Ah, state capitalism, little more than a propaganda phrase. For "state capitalism" is a contradiction. Capitalism inherently relies on the non-intereference of the state in the markets, yet both nations controlled their markets totally.

No, the proper term is Stalinist Communism. Or totalitarian communism. Not state capitalism.

I added an edit to my post in order to make it more clear what I meant here: certainly just relabelling the Eastern bloc as state capitalism seems to be nothing but a piece of semantic trickery.

I would argue about whether capitalism necessarily relies on the non-interference of the state in the markets: certainly for classical models of laissez-faire capitalism though.

My point here was that post WWII and the Eastern bloc had become trapped in financing one side of an arms race, and it was to this aim that the internal economic affairs were subordinated: thus the purpose of industry was not to improve the welfare of the people, but rather to support their massive armies.

Looking at the USSR pre-WWII in comparison we see a country which had just propelled itself out of an era of serfdom and was making the first shaky steps to industrialise itself, and as such it is hard to draw any real conclusions as to whether communism could work or not in those countries were it was first expected to occur - the already industrialised hearts of capitalism such as the UK or Germany.
Gurdenvazk
25-04-2005, 23:17
If it wasn't so flawed it would be good. Bare in mind I am not saying capitalism is much better...I just think the communism has to many flaws.
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:17
New Harmony, Indiana.
Are you kidding me?!
Londonburg
25-04-2005, 23:18
What do you think about
a) Marx
b) Engels
c) Lenin
d) Trotsky
e) Stalin
f) Mao?
Londonburg
25-04-2005, 23:19
Their ideas, not them personally.
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:20
I would argue about whether capitalism necessarily relies on the non-interference of the state in the markets: certainly for classical models of laissez-faire capitalism though.
I commend you on a very nice point that I was thinking about bringing up when I first saw that, however I wasn't sure if I would be attacked for bringing up capitalism too much in justifying communism.
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:21
What do you think about
a) Marx
b) Engels
c) Lenin
d) Trotsky
e) Stalin
f) Mao?
Do you mean which do I think are true communist ideologies?
Florida Oranges
25-04-2005, 23:21
Are you kidding me?!

No, I'm not. It was a legitimate communist settlement and it failed.
Londonburg
25-04-2005, 23:22
Do you mean which do I think are true communist ideologies?
Interpret it how you will
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:23
No, I'm not. It was a legitimate communist settlement and it failed.
I believe it was more Utopian (no worries with that... don't attack me I was playing words). As for being legitimate... first, when do you mean (time period)?
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:24
Interpret it how you will
In which case I will answer: none of the above.
However, if it is which I think is best, Marxism, by far.
Funktabia
25-04-2005, 23:25
The whole point of communism is to return power to the people: the ultimate aim in even the most statist/authoritarian communist doctrines is for the government to eventually whither away completely.
But there's the rub. Why sould anyone expect politicians who have absolute power to willingly give it back to the masses? Power over others is most likely the reason they would seek office in the first place. And then, a nutcase like Stalin bullies his way to the top. To the terror of the citizentry, I might add. I think it's better not to give that kind of power to the government in the first place. That way, the government has less ability to infringe upon the rights of the people.
Mekonia
25-04-2005, 23:25
What do you think about
a) Marx
b) Engels
c) Lenin
d) Trotsky
e) Stalin
f) Mao?

Marx=bored ol fool
Engels=never heard of him(who is he)
Lenin=He's the man
Trotsky=died painfully
Stalin=I didn't 'lose' 20 million peasants over nite, they fell into that hole
Mao=like him least of all

Verdict=Lenin Rules!
Andaluciae
25-04-2005, 23:26
-snip-
I still don't see it. The point of capitalism is not to provide for a massive-ass military. The point of capitalism is that the markets efficiently and justly distribute resources with minimal government involvement, or at least that was the original idea.
Florida Oranges
25-04-2005, 23:27
I believe it was more Utopian (no worries with that... don't attack me I was playing words). As for being legitimate... first, when do you mean (time period)?

By legitimate I meant it followed the concept of communism pretty well. It wasn't some Stalinist regime, it was the real deal.
Londonburg
25-04-2005, 23:27
Some people say that religion and communism are incompatible. Opinions, anyone?
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:27
But there's the rub. Why sould anyone expect politicians who have absolute power to willingly give it back to the masses? Power over others is most likely the reason they would seek office in the first place. And then, a nutcase like Stalin bullies his way to the top. To the terror of the citizentry, I might add. I think it's better not to give that kind of power to the government in the first place. That way, the government has less ability to infringe upon the rights of the people.
That's one of the many reasons that isn't real communism, its an idea that hasn't been put into practice yet.
Skywolf
25-04-2005, 23:30
Communism, in theory, absolutely rocks. In reality, it would never work. Humans are greedy creatures. They always want more. And many of them will do anything to get what they want. I actually think the Soviet Union would have worked well for a while, but Lenin went crazy.
Dadave
25-04-2005, 23:34
I am pretty sure that any form of government/social movement that revolves around the taking power away from people is heartless on paper and in practice.
amen,it can't be proved that it doesn't work as mentioned by another poster.neither can dancing on the sun be proved to melt your feet,but i have a pretty good idea i don't want to try.
the main unavoidable problem with socialism/communism(i know they are different b4 i get flamed)is it requires a huge buaracracy to administer it.
this causes numerous problems/imbalances.first,the huge burden of housing and feeding all the paperpushers falls on the worker,i know they p.p. are supposedly working.simple fact of life is,alot of people are useless,especially the gov. types.they take up space,contribute nothing and drain resources.
also notable about life,people who get a modicum of power over other's tend to abuse that position for personal gain or just for ego.not all,ever see a bully cop?
that's why the founding fathers tried to keep big government in check,while still havong it protect the whole of society without having unlimited control/power over the average person.
i am starting to lean more towards states rights these days,as i see our gov.fed, leaning in the direction of total control over our daily lives.if i dislike the practice s of my state,i can move to one i agree with.
socialism may work for a period,on an island,with a select few like minded people.other then that,i think it is a joke that will always lead to abuse to the average person by the select administrators that know what is best for me!
i think all can agree,stalin was a dictator..not even close to a socialist,just perverted the system to his own ends(like i fear alot of people would..pol pot comes too mind)that's why i think it will never be workable..people are involved,and history proves that given to much power over someone tends to corrupt most.
lenin,and i don't claim to be the greatest student of his dogma,think he did try to establish some form of pure socialism,and that sorta degenerated into communism..i may be wrong about that,but there is no arguing about stalin,pol pot,the noth vietnamese,and even china was a bit outta control with there flavor of socialism.
concentrating centrally planned power seems very dangerous to me.and with socialism,i see no other way to administer it other then central planning,which opens up above mentioned abuses and problems.
free market with a minor flavor of social planning/safety net is the best i can think of for now.unless we can take human weakness out of the equation.
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:36
Sorry, my computer isn't cooperating...
Okay, back to New Harmony... anyways, you still didn't answer ym question of when, but I'll assume in the beginning. You have a point that there were good ideals in place, however, in my opinion, it would have been a lot harder then, because of the lack of technology.
Andaluciae
25-04-2005, 23:43
Yeah, Jolt's really being crappy at the moment it appears, so if I stop being able to post all of a sudden...
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:43
Yeah, Jolt's really being crappy at the moment it appears, so if I stop being able to post all of a sudden...
Yeah, same here...
Pure Metal
25-04-2005, 23:43
communism can work, under certain conditions. those conditions are not yet met, so any communist who wishes for a change of reigime sooner than, say, the 22nd century is a bit misguided, imho. communism could indeed produce a utopian paradise society, depending on the type and these conditions being met.
anybody who associates communism and totalitarianism is wrong.
Bodies Without Organs
25-04-2005, 23:44
Yeah, Jolt's really being crappy at the moment it appears, so if I stop being able to post all of a sudden...

We would never have this problem in Cuba.
Florida Oranges
25-04-2005, 23:45
Sorry, my computer isn't cooperating...
Okay, back to New Harmony... anyways, you still didn't answer ym question of when, but I'll assume in the beginning. You have a point that there were good ideals in place, however, in my opinion, it would have been a lot harder then, because of the lack of technology.

I don't think technology has much, if anything, to do with it. There's your example right there of communism failing. Equal work, equal compensation, and eventually a bunch of angry people who are steamed that their lazy co-worker makes just as much money as them yet puts forth less effort. Communism doesn't work. It's a dumb idea.
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:45
We would never have this problem in Cuba.
WOO HOO! ;)
Andaluciae
25-04-2005, 23:45
We would never have this problem in Cuba.
*digs the ironics*
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:47
I don't think technology has much, if anything, to do with it. There's your example right there of communism failing. Equal work, equal compensation, and eventually a bunch of angry people who are steamed that their lazy co-worker makes just as much money as them yet puts forth less effort. Communism doesn't work. It's a dumb idea.
I don't know... I still think techonology, a large population, and money to get it started have a hell of a lot to do with it.
As for the second part, that's why its a communal thing, it only doesn'y work if people stop it, if it continues, it works wonderfully, stopping it is not a flaw in the ideologies, its just people not coperating with their society. Plus you can't say this doesn't happen in capitalism.
Bodies Without Organs
25-04-2005, 23:47
... and eventually a bunch of angry people who are steamed that their lazy co-worker makes just as much money as them yet puts forth less effort.

And this doesn't happen in capitalism?
Eichen
25-04-2005, 23:47
I always find it strange that this point always comes around-- "Communism hasn't really been tried."

By those same standards, I'd say neither has Capitalism.
Londonburg
25-04-2005, 23:48
OK, lets have some more views. Should America lift its politicla and economic sanctions against Cuba?
Bodies Without Organs
25-04-2005, 23:50
I always find it strange that this point always comes around-- "Communism hasn't really been tried."

By those same standards, I'd say neither has Capitalism.

Collectivism during the SCW is probably about as close as it ever got, or possibly the Makhnovists during the Russian Civil War.
Pure Metal
25-04-2005, 23:50
Communism, in theory, absolutely rocks. In reality, it would never work. Humans are greedy creatures. They always want more. And many of them will do anything to get what they want. I actually think the Soviet Union would have worked well for a while, but Lenin went crazy.
wrong. in reality, it can work - but in the future. not because of advancements in technology but because of the malleability of that very same greedy human nature you describe. its one of the founding principles of all socialism; that our violent, self-centred, greedy and possesive nature can change to one of altruism and egalitarianism. when that happens, socialism/communism is the logical system of choice in the same way that capitalism is the logical system to make good use of our current nature. this change may not happen naturally (depends if you believe Marx's historical materialism i guess), and may require a "(inter-) national programme for the formation of character" (Owen). that is, educating people in this way

i'm too tired & its too late to explain any further - look it up on wiki or something for more...
Florida Oranges
25-04-2005, 23:50
I don't know... I still think techonology, a large population, and money to get it started have a hell of a lot to do with it.

How does a large population factor into it? Robert Owen had enough money to buy a whole town; I don't think money was the problem.
Whispering Legs
25-04-2005, 23:51
Let's see. My father's parents and his sisters were executed by North Korean Communists during the Korean War. Apparently, the crime of the parents was being teachers, and the crime of the children was being their children.

Their hands were tied with barbed wire, and then they were beaten to death with axe handles.

So, IMHO, Communism is a bad thing.
Eichen
25-04-2005, 23:53
Collectivism during the SCW is probably about as close as it ever got, or possibly the Makhnovists during the Russian Civil War.
How come nobody ever mentions Fidel here?
Bodies Without Organs
25-04-2005, 23:55
How come nobody ever mentions Fidel here?

Possibly something do with the fact that what he seems to have created is a society which is held together by one single individual - himself. He is able to inspire great loyalty and devotion to the communist cause in the Cubans, but when he pops his clogs there will probably just be an influx of capitalism and the loss of the few gains that Cuba has achieved.
Hallad
25-04-2005, 23:55
More argueing about Communism? Alright, I'll put in my two cents.

Communism is a good idea in theory, and will work at the right time in history. Communism is meant to occur after the transition into Socialism. Socialism is meant to occur once Capitalism has passed its peak, which it hasn't. The Russian Empire was a backwards, Quasi-feudalist aristocracy, not a Capitalist nation at the time of the Revolution. Infact this is true for more or less all Stalinist (State Capitalist) nations.

If anyone really wants to have a good Capitalism Vs Communism debate, feel free to IM me.

Oh, and I voted for the Statue of Lenin one. :D
Ruzzu
25-04-2005, 23:57
Communism is good or bad depending on your social class.
Andaluciae
25-04-2005, 23:57
wrong. in reality, it can work - but in the future. not because of advancements in technology but because of the malleability of that very same greedy human nature you describe. its one of the founding principles of all socialism; that our violent, self-centred, greedy and possesive nature can change to one of altruism and egalitarianism. when that happens, socialism/communism is the logical system of choice in the same way that capitalism is the logical system to make good use of our current nature. this change may not happen naturally (depends if you believe Marx's historical materialism i guess), and may require a "(inter-) national programme for the formation of character" (Owen). that is, educating people in this way

i'm too tired & its too late to explain any further - look it up on wiki or something for more...
I'm of the school that says human nature is not malleable, that there have not been changes to human nature, and that "reeducation" is undesirable and wrong. Where does this come from? First, I get the concept of the unchanging state of human nature from that fact that our behavior is about 50% influenced by genetics, or at least that's what's taught in psychology classes. What is this human nature?

It's a drive to survive. To be as well off now, and to ensure your best possible future position as possible. This greed that is so constantly derided is vital to survival, it is a survival tool.
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:57
More argueing about Communism? Alright, I'll put in my two cents.

Communism is a good idea in theory, and will work at the right time in history. Communism is meant to occur after the transition into Socialism. Socialism is meant to occur once Capitalism has passed its peak, which it hasn't. The Russian Empire was a backwards, Quasi-feudalist aristocracy, not a Capitalist nation at the time of the Revolution. Infact this is true for more or less all Stalinist (State Capitalist) nations.

If anyone really wants to have a good Capitalism Vs Communism debate, feel free to IM me.

Oh, and I voted for the Statue of Lenin one. :D
Heh Heh... thanks for your thoughts.
Eichen
25-04-2005, 23:58
Possibly something do with the fact that what he seems to have created is a society which is held together by one single individual - himself. He is able to inspire great loyalty and devotion to the communist cause in the Cubans, but when he pops his clogs there will probably just be an influx of capitalism and the loss of the few gains that Cuba has achieved.
Well, sounds like an awfully small government to me! :D (JK)

I'd say Cuba is probably the last "close thing" to communism left in the world... just wondered why all the lefties are afraid to speak his name.
Eichen
25-04-2005, 23:59
Communism is good or bad depending on your social class.
Wise words, indeed. ;)
Compulsorily Controled
25-04-2005, 23:59
Communism is good or bad depending on your social class.
Good point.
Andaluciae
25-04-2005, 23:59
More argueing about Communism? Alright, I'll put in my two cents.

Communism is a good idea in theory, and will work at the right time in history. Communism is meant to occur after the transition into Socialism. Socialism is meant to occur once Capitalism has passed its peak, which it hasn't. The Russian Empire was a backwards, Quasi-feudalist aristocracy, not a Capitalist nation at the time of the Revolution. Infact this is true for more or less all Stalinist (State Capitalist) nations.

If anyone really wants to have a good Capitalism Vs Communism debate, feel free to IM me.

Oh, and I voted for the Statue of Lenin one. :D
I don't believe in a "natural flow of history." This means nothing to me.
Compulsorily Controled
26-04-2005, 00:01
I'd say Cuba is probably the last "close thing" to communism left in the world... just wondered why all the lefties are afraid to speak his name.
:)
Bodies Without Organs
26-04-2005, 00:02
Communism is meant to occur after the transition into Socialism. Socialism is meant to occur once Capitalism has passed its peak, which it hasn't.

In order to believe that do you have to believe in dialectical materialism? You seem to be evoking the old spectre of the inevitable victory of the proletariat here, and applying such 'scientific' method to history doesn't work.
Compulsorily Controled
26-04-2005, 00:02
I'd say Cuba is probably the last "close thing" to communism left in the world... just wondered why all the lefties are afraid to speak his name.
:)
Hallad
26-04-2005, 00:06
Dudes, I'm just paraphrasing the Manifesto, and frankly I hate debating on forums (especially NS General).
Compulsorily Controled
26-04-2005, 00:07
It's beginning to seem a bit pointless to argue with people whom I simply disagree with in only a few ways. Also, I have to go anyways, so I'll check back on this board in a bit. Have a nice debate.
Eichen
26-04-2005, 00:07
Dudes, I'm just paraphrasing the Manifesto, and frankly I hate debating on forums (especially NS General).
Why bother then? :confused:
Compulsorily Controled
26-04-2005, 00:08
Dudes, I'm just paraphrasing the Manifesto, and frankly I hate debating on forums (especially NS General).
It gets old quickly on NS I've realized. Fare thee well.
Hallad
26-04-2005, 00:09
Why bother then? :confused:

I like to hear myself talk? :D

Well, I've got to say something. I can't let my comrades have all the fun.
Eichen
26-04-2005, 00:12
I like to hear myself talk? :D

Well, I've got to say something. I can't let my comrades have all the fun.
Fair 'nuff. Works for me. :fluffle:
Jesus-fanatic
26-04-2005, 00:12
Where has it actually been applied in order to draw this conclusion?

Because it gives people little incentive to work hard. No matter how hard you work, you get the same meager standards of living. To show for your hard work, you get no property rights, little spending money. The government gives quotas based on weight and so they added as much weight as possible. That's why anything Russian engineered weighed so much which is highly inefficient. That's why the Russians imploded
Bodies Without Organs
26-04-2005, 00:14
Because it gives people little incentive to work hard. No matter how hard you work, you get the same meager standards of living. To show for your hard work, you get no property rights, little spending money.

In the USSR all people were not paid the same wage. Poof! There goes your argument.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 00:15
Because it gives people little incentive to work hard. No matter how hard you work, you get the same meager standards of living. To show for your hard work, you get no property rights, little spending money. The government gives quotas based on weight and so they added as much weight as possible. That's why anything Russian engineered weighed so much which is highly inefficient. That's why the Russians imploded

The final incentive is that if you don't go along with the system you can be sent to a forced labor camp, or shot, or put in a psychiatric hospital, or starved to death on purpose by the government.
Hallad
26-04-2005, 00:18
Because it gives people little incentive to work hard. No matter how hard you work, you get the same meager standards of living. To show for your hard work, you get no property rights, little spending money. The government gives quotas based on weight and so they added as much weight as possible. That's why anything Russian engineered weighed so much which is highly inefficient. That's why the Russians imploded

I thought I was going to quit, but I had to say something about this...

If you work hard in a Communist society, you not only raise your own standard of living but those of the people around you. People, please understand that while in some ways Communism puts society above the individual, the individual is part of society. An individual is what makes society function, and what makes society advance.

You dont get property rights only in the sense that you might not "own" your house, or apartment, or whatever, but you still have the right to live on a certain piece of property. Also, there is a differance between personal items and property.

And, who says the government will use those types of quotas? That was just the Russian government. A Socialist (Or Communist) government would make a qouta based on quality and quantity.
Funktabia
26-04-2005, 00:18
I've put in my 2 cents already, but I'm a generous guy so here's a couple more.

Let's see if I can boil this all down. The anti-communist side of the debate point to totalitarian-communist regimes like Stalin and Castro (there, I mentioned him :D ) as examples of communism gone wrong. The pro-communism side then says that those do not count because they weren't true communist state. That leads me to ask a question...

Just how many times do we have to try communism, and how many times do we have to see it devolve into totalitarianism, before it can be said that communism is not a good idea?
Akka-Akka
26-04-2005, 00:18
Communism is a nice idea. Unfortunately that's as far as it goes. Although the current Chinese version of Communism is pretty cool - I'm digging it.
Andaluciae
26-04-2005, 00:19
Communism is a nice idea. Unfortunately that's as far as it goes. Although the current Chinese version of Communism is pretty cool - I'm digging it.
You mean nationalism by another name?
Pure Metal
26-04-2005, 00:19
I'm of the school that says human nature is not malleable, that there have not been changes to human nature, and that "reeducation" is undesirable and wrong. Where does this come from? First, I get the concept of the unchanging state of human nature from that fact that our behavior is about 50% influenced by genetics, or at least that's what's taught in psychology classes. What is this human nature?

It's a drive to survive. To be as well off now, and to ensure your best possible future position as possible. This greed that is so constantly derided is vital to survival, it is a survival tool.
fair enough. i believe we have the intelligence and mental capacity to see beyond our genetic 'programming' and these basic survival instincts and, in this post-industrial age, have the ability to go beyond this to new levels. its like a concious evolution, all made possible because we are no longer reduced to fighting one-another for necessities - we need no longer do that
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 00:19
Communism is a nice idea. Unfortunately that's as far as it goes. Although the current Chinese version of Communism is pretty cool - I'm digging it.
It's no longer very Communist. Maybe that's why you're digging it.
Narcassism
26-04-2005, 00:21
If people were not selfish, would be a perfect system. However, as people are selfish, the whole idea runs contrary to human nature and would simply not work without a leader to regulate it, which of course defeats the point of it. ;)
Pure Metal
26-04-2005, 00:22
If you work hard in a Communist society, you not only raise your own standard of living but those of the people around you. People, please understand that while in some ways Communism puts society above the individual, the individual is part of society. An individual is what makes society function, and what makes society advance.

yep. its altruism, people...
workers have an incentive to produce more, be more efficient, even just go to work because it benefits society. it may not directly benefit the individual but in the grand scale and the long term, its better for everybody
Hallad
26-04-2005, 00:23
If people were not selfish, would be a perfect system. However, as people are selfish, the whole idea runs contrary to human nature and would simply not work without a leader to regulate it, which of course defeats the point of it. ;)

Conditions Determine Conciousness.

IE, Capitalism creates greed and selfishness.
Akka-Akka
26-04-2005, 00:26
You mean nationalism by another name?

lol, yeah. I'd say more socialist nationalism. It's not really transferable anywhere else though, because a lot of what they do is affected by culture

It's no longer very Communist. Maybe that's why you're digging it.

It's still recognisable as Communism, and I dig the whole Chinese thing generally - apart from when Mao went a little loopy around the Cultural Revolution.
Andaluciae
26-04-2005, 00:27
Conditions Determine Conciousness.

IE, Capitalism creates greed and selfishness.
What is wrong with being mutually self interested? Please, enlighten me. These words you utter as epithets are what drive the capitalist system. They are what has driven the radical technological progress, the massive increase in the standard of living and the like.

And I think science has shown that conditions, whilst having an impact, are not the only factors that determine consciousness.
Narcassism
26-04-2005, 00:27
Conditions Determine Conciousness.

IE, Capitalism creates greed and selfishness.

I agree in a sense, but even thousands of years ago, when humans still lived in caves, selfishness was an inherent part of the survival process, due to scarcity of food etc. I believe that the notion is one that all humans feel to a certain extent.
Eichen
26-04-2005, 00:28
It's no longer very Communist. Maybe that's why you're digging it.
Ripped the words from my hands! :p
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 00:30
It's still recognisable as Communism, and I dig the whole Chinese thing generally - apart from when Mao went a little loopy around the Cultural Revolution.

Oh, that explains how one of my friends went to Shanghai, started a business, and inside of a year was a multimillionaire. Lots of private enterprise there, with no government strings attached. Lots of gambling, prostitution, drugs - you name it you've got it.

Wonder how that fits in with Communism.
Bodies Without Organs
26-04-2005, 00:32
I agree in a sense, but even thousands of years ago, when humans still lived in caves, selfishness was an inherent part of the survival process, due to scarcity of food etc. I believe that the notion is one that all humans feel to a certain extent.

..however, seeing as how small societies larger than just the extended family unit came into being, we can see that either there was a recognition that greater numbers meant greater security (either economic or defensive) or there was some kind of social/altruistic drive in operation
Pure Metal
26-04-2005, 00:32
They are what has driven the radical technological progress, the massive increase in the standard of living and the like.

just think. is this necessarily 'progress'? technological progress benefits us how? really? i mean some answers are obvious, but do these things make us truly happy? the side-effects of such progress (not just technological) can be devastating for a start.
ref: regressionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressionism)
Akka-Akka
26-04-2005, 00:37
Oh, that explains how one of my friends went to Shanghai, started a business, and inside of a year was a multimillionaire. Lots of private enterprise there, with no government strings attached. Lots of gambling, prostitution, drugs - you name it you've got it.

Wonder how that fits in with Communism.

Prostitution and drugs are prevalent in every society - does their use in Britain and America make us non-democratic?

And as to your friend...China has gone through economic reforms from 1979, moving it towards a socialist market economy - not a capitalist market economy. True, many of the principles of the two are the same, but a socialist market economy ensures strong state control in critical areas (gambling not being one of them), which is a key principle of socialism and Communism.

So prostitution & drugs don't fit in, but where do they?
And making money does fit in.
Chellis
26-04-2005, 00:38
A world-wide evolution into communism with a marxist/trotskyist ideal leading the way would be good. The failure of communism can be prescribed to inner-corruption, which is not inevitable, and by outer pressure against communist(which has always existed), which is not inevitable. Give communism a fair chance, and then you can judge it.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 00:39
Prostitution and drugs are prevalent in every society - does their use in Britain and America make us non-democratic?

And as to your friend...China has gone through economic reforms from 1979, moving it towards a socialist market economy - not a capitalist market economy. True, many of the principles of the two are the same, but a socialist market economy ensures strong state control in critical areas (gambling not being one of them), which is a key principle of socialism and Communism.

So prostitution & drugs don't fit in, but where do they?
And making money does fit in.

Communism mandates the state ownership of all of the means of production.

It means you can't have private companies - of which there are many.

It's not even a socialist market economy. It's more freewheeling capitalist than the United States is at this point.
Hammerstad
26-04-2005, 00:45
I have an experiment for those who think Communism is good. Since Capitalism=greed you are to do without those things that you do not need. No car-take the bus. No TV-you can listen to the radio. No computer until everyone has one. No house-you can live in an apartment, but you can only have 1 bedroom for every 2 people that live there. If you live alone you are wasting resources, get a roommate and share the bedroom. You only need 2 meals a day no more are necessary. Any money you make that is in excess of what is needed to provide you with the above MUST be donated.

If you are not willing to put up with these simple restrictions then you truly do not believe that communism is a good thing, and you are nothing but hypocrites.
:rolleyes:
Hammerstad
26-04-2005, 00:53
communism can work, under certain conditions. those conditions are not yet met, so any communist who wishes for a change of reigime sooner than, say, the 22nd century is a bit misguided, imho. communism could indeed produce a utopian paradise society, depending on the type and these conditions being met.
anybody who associates communism and totalitarianism is wrong.

God I love this kind of thinking because it makes anything possible.
Faster then light travel can work under certain conditions. Those conditions are not yet met.
Telepathy can work under certain conditions. Those conditions are not yet met.
Anti-gravity can work under certain conditions. Those conditions are not yet met.
Invisibility can work under certain conditions. Those conditions are not yet met.
Etc., etc., etc.
Akka-Akka
26-04-2005, 00:55
Communism mandates the state ownership of all of the means of production.

It means you can't have private companies - of which there are many.

It's not even a socialist market economy. It's more freewheeling capitalist than the United States is at this point.

nah, but I wasn't saying it was 100% Communist, I was saying that there were significant remains of Communism there - i.e. strong state sector, huge Party influence (there is still no institutional alternative to the CCP) and vast welfare support (mostly informal).

It is a socialist market economy - state control of GDP output is incredibly high - around 70% - more so than in nearly all nations. The economy is in essence still centrally planned - private industry must be formally allowed (mostly in special zones), or bribe their way.

You can't say this is more capitalist than America - income equality is greater in China, and welfare provision is far greater!
Eichen
26-04-2005, 00:57
God I love this kind of thinking because it makes anything possible.
Faster then light travel can work under certain conditions. Those conditions are not yet met.
Telepathy can work under certain conditions. Those conditions are not yet met.
Anti-gravity can work under certain conditions. Those conditions are not yet met.
Invisibility can work under certain conditions. Those conditions are not yet met.
Etc., etc., etc.
I think we share ears. That's what I hear. v :D
Hammerstad
26-04-2005, 00:58
The whole point of communism is to return power to the people: the ultimate aim in even the most statist/authoritarian communist doctrines is for the government to eventually whither away completely.

I’m sure the million or so Ukrainian farmers that were staved to death in the 20’s appreciate the power that they were given as a result of the communist victory.
Constitutionals
26-04-2005, 01:02
Just want to see what people think.

Communism looks good on paper, but fails in reality.
Equipolis
26-04-2005, 01:03
I have an experiment for those who think Communism is good. Since Capitalism=greed you are to do without those things that you do not need. No car-take the bus. No TV-you can listen to the radio. No computer until everyone has one. No house-you can live in an apartment, but you can only have 1 bedroom for every 2 people that live there. If you live alone you are wasting resources, get a roommate and share the bedroom. You only need 2 meals a day no more are necessary. Any money you make that is in excess of what is needed to provide you with the above MUST be donated.

If you are not willing to put up with these simple restrictions then you truly do not believe that communism is a good thing, and you are nothing but hypocrites.
:rolleyes:

ever been in URSS? Let's make the situation more like: Yes a small car, no a classy lamborghini and a bmw together.. yes tv, no private cinema... yes apartment 1 bedroom for person.. no 20 room palace... yes enough food, medicine, education... no right to screw up others lives for your own money...

URSS like most of wannabee-communist countries (real communism is yet to be done somewhere) had it's deal of crimes and idiocy...but so had all of non-communist states... yet those done in urss china etc are considered crimes of communism while those done in usa and co are well..collateral effects..

I don't know why so many people have a problem with an idea which has never really been done and consists mainly in noone dying because of hunger or easily curable illneses..suppose it's because of it's bad side.. no bill gates-alikes neither...
Great Beer and Food
26-04-2005, 01:03
Just want to see what people think.

Communist, like capitalism, is an interesting and totally successful....as an idea. The problem comes when both are put into practice. The problem is not communism or capitalism per say, but the people who live within those systems and run them. Before humans can even pretend to run perfect governmental systems, they must learn to purge the evils within themselves; greed, avarice, and the rest of the 7 sins that end up turning good ideas bad by exploiting any and all weaknesses found within said systems for their own gain.
General of general
26-04-2005, 01:23
I really don't think I would count those in my mind, maybe on small scale, the beginning process mimicked communist ideas, but as for calling the failing communism, I disagree, because Stalin corrupted it to such a point that it no longer lived up to the definition. That was capitalist propaganda to turn people to DeStalinization and trying to ward off China from being a great country through communism.

Are there any examples of when it has worked? We've seen what happens, there is too much trust on too few people. Social-democracy is the way to go :)
Hooliganland
26-04-2005, 01:26
Are there any examples of when it has worked? We've seen what happens, there is too much trust on too few people. Social-democracy is the way to go :)

Israeli Kibbutz? But nowhere else.

True, in practice it doesn't work, but in theory it is perfect. Too bad human nature cant make it work.
Hammerstad
26-04-2005, 01:27
I don't know why so many people have a problem with an idea which has never really been done and consists mainly in noone dying because of hunger or easily curable illneses..suppose it's because of it's bad side.. no bill gates-alikes neither...

I’m sure the million or so Ukrainian farmers that were starved to death in the 20’s would say that people died of hunger. Ooops they can’t say anything. THEY’RE DIED.

If communism works so well WHY did the old Soviet Union have to buy food from the West year after year. The Ukraine was the bread basket of Europe until Lenin et-al. got into power. After that they couldn’t even feed their own people let-alone export food as was done under the “inefficient” Czar.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 01:30
I’m sure the million or so Ukrainian farmers that were starved to death in the 20’s would say that people died of hunger. Ooops they can’t say anything. THEY’RE DIED.

If communism works so well WHY did the old Soviet Union have to buy food from the West year after year. The Ukraine was the bread basket of Europe until Lenin et-al. got into power. After that they couldn’t even feed their own people let-alone export food as was done under the “inefficient” Czar.

When you kill off all the farmers that live in the Ukraine, and then replace them with people from the city, you can expect to ruin vast tracts of farmland and reduce or eliminate production until the people learn by accident how to farm.

It's still the concept of equitable distribution. The risk of death for anyone but a party member is radically but uniformly raised. Those who live through the years of starvation will share the empty dishes. Of course, one might say that the original farmers who are initially and intentionally starved to death in the first few months were getting more than their fair share of death, but they didn't have to work for it.
Jaghur
26-04-2005, 01:31
I don't mind the concept of pure communism, but RL communism never works
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 01:32
I don't mind the concept of pure communism, but RL communism never works
Orwell was a prophet.
Kervoskia
26-04-2005, 01:37
You really have my nuts in a grinder...
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 01:39
You really have my nuts in a grinder...
???
Dadave
26-04-2005, 01:40
fair enough. i believe we have the intelligence and mental capacity to see beyond our genetic 'programming' and these basic survival instincts and, in this post-industrial age, have the ability to go beyond this to new levels. its like a concious evolution, all made possible because we are no longer reduced to fighting one-another for necessities - we need no longer do that
and if i am unable to move beyond my survival instincts,and genetic predispositions?do you send me for reeducation,forced labor camp,or just take me out back and shoot me?i would prefer to be shot, in place of walking lockstep to what someone percieves as utopia.
again,it always goes back to central planning,and me sitting out in the farm or whereever,have zero interest in having someone tell me what is good for me!it smacks of the religous zealots,and i have nothing against religion,believe what you will.but if i don't believe your version of the truth..i am an antisocial,or an infadel?bill maher said it best,why do u believe the religous guy that says he knows best?(cause i have a pointy hat)the klan thinks they are right,i don't ,and i don't want any cental gov. pushing there beliefs down my throat..cause they are right or they know better.no thank's,i'll take some frredom over security anyday.
i think franklin?said,those who would trade rights for security will get neither.that is what communism is...boiled down,utopian rhetoric aside,the false belief that the state will provide all,unca in the killing fields,stalin,all who want centalized power.maybe several hundred years from now it may work,but then again,this aint star track we live in..lol
communism has failed miserbly,for a reason.you can say all day it has never been tried in it's pure sense.and it never will be tried in it's pure sense...it is manifestly impossible.people are too varied,some are good,some are bad..always was..always will be.that is an un arguable fact of human nature.just like the animal kingdom,some want to dominate,and do...i have no taste in having dominion over anyone or thing(i don't have pets for that reason..might be a good thread topic)but i will resist being enslaved.if i want to be a fat lazy..sob...then i go nowhere in life,in this current world.but if i was a lazy sob..maybe communism would be appealing..lol,if anyone ever got ahead in communist regimes..it was more due to family connections and towing the party line like a good little sheep,then hardwork.
p.s.just an aside.millions have died fighting the people who would rule over us..why is that,not to mention the millions who have died resisting those that ruled over them(the kindly likes of stalin,pol pot..the list is endless)why is that?it seems to me the most fundamental human need,aside from food/shelter/sex..is freedom! that is why the u.s won the cold war(with help from europe and many other's)not because the soviets spent there money on weapons,we would not have attacked them,we would block it's spread..yea..attack ,no.they spent moneies on armaments to spread...by force,their beliefs on everyone else(bring's things to mind..like religous fanatics,the kkk) :headbang: ,.and to keep there own population at heel.
the soviets citazens seemed kinda happy when the wall came down..why is that?building a wall to keep people in is the most appropriate example of how fundamentally flawed the system is. :headbang:oh,sorry for the rant,just it is unbelievable that people still think like this,i grant you u can not agree with me,np,but a millenium of history?must be nice to be in an ivory tower.or want to be coddled for life by unca.me,i'll live free,thank you very much.stay outta my pocket and my hardwork and we will get along just swimmingly..lol
Kervoskia
26-04-2005, 01:40
???
Did he mean the ideaoof Communism or "Communism" in its current form?
Kwangistar
26-04-2005, 01:42
Communism dosen't appeal to me in theory, let alone practice.
General of general
26-04-2005, 01:43
Israeli Kibbutz? But nowhere else.

True, in practice it doesn't work, but in theory it is perfect. Too bad human nature cant make it work.

My point exactly. There is too much trust in too few people.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 01:46
Did he mean the ideaoof Communism or "Communism" in its current form?
I don't know.

But I can't see what difference it makes. If it's the idea, then we've obviously screwed up every implementation, usually at great cost in human life. That might lead anyone to think that the idea, while nice, is completely unworkable or unattainable. If it's the current form, we know for a fact it's screwy.

If you had a world of unlimited power production, that had mechanical servants to do all labor, people could live equal lives of completely gratified want and need - only a technology like that could attain Communism. And it would do so by seducing the people into a world of complete captalist-style hedonism - they would be completely unaware that they were members of a completely Communist society - where the party (the machine) would care for the proletariat (who are dumb humans who just want to party like rich people). Ok, it's really Leninism, and who's to say that Lenin wasn't a robot. I mean, come on, who really has a chin like that.
Bloodthirsty squirrels
26-04-2005, 01:47
For some time, communist ideas worked quite well in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. See here for example (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3043cdebg2484?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Economy+of+SFRY&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02a) Those were the most prosperous times in yugoslavian history.
Free Soviets
26-04-2005, 02:03
I always find it strange that this point always comes around-- "Communism hasn't really been tried."

By those same standards, I'd say neither has Capitalism.

the difference being that the name 'capitalism' was created to retroactively describe an existing system, while the name 'communism' was invented to denote a system that did not yet exist.
General of general
26-04-2005, 02:14
For some time, communist ideas worked quite well in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. See here for example (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3043cdebg2484?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Economy+of+SFRY&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02a) Those were the most prosperous times in yugoslavian history.

:rolleyes: Yes, they really loved Tito, didn't they
Bloodthirsty squirrels
26-04-2005, 02:23
:rolleyes: Yes, they really loved Tito, didn't they

As a matter of fact, many did. Civil rights & co matters aside, the economy was good.
Lokiaa
26-04-2005, 02:34
:rolleyes: Yes, they really loved Tito, didn't they
Yes! The civil wars that broke out after he died were an expression of how much they loved their dear leader! They did not at all reflect policies of forcing people to live in the same nation under a cruel dictatorship.
Silly capitalist! :)


As for the Communism question...
People are interested in themselves. It is simply a matter of reality that cannot be overridden, and, no matter how hard I try to get them to see the altruistice side of life, they simply cannot bring themselves beyond simple words.
Even on the simplest issues, they cannot understand the notion of altruistic government:
Me: "Why are you in school?"
Friend: "To study and get a job:
Me: "No. You are here because the government wants you here. If we let you outside to play all day, you would grow up to be stupid. If let an entire generation do this, civilization would be destroyed. You are here to become a functional part of civilization."
Friend: :confused: "No, I'm here to study and get a job"
Hammerstad
26-04-2005, 02:59
I think we share ears. That's what I hear. v :D

I think we share the ability to reason.
Hammerstad
26-04-2005, 03:17
ever been in URSS? Let's make the situation more like: Yes a small car, no a classy lamborghini and a bmw together..

Unless you’re at the top.
yes tv, no private cinema... yes apartment 1 bedroom for person.. no 20 room palace...

Unless you’re at the top.
no right to screw up others lives for your own money...

Unless you’re at the top.

URSS like most of wannabee-communist countries (real communism is yet to be done somewhere) had it's deal of crimes and idiocy...but so had all of non-communist states... yet those done in urss china etc are considered crimes of communism while those done in usa and co are well..collateral effects..

The U.S. etc. didn’t find it necessary to murder 10’s of millions of its people to get the rest to conform to the dictates of the central government.

I don't know why so many people have a problem with an idea which has never really been done and consists mainly in noone dying because of hunger or easily curable illneses..suppose it's because of it's bad side.. no bill gates-alikes neither...

Unless you’re at the top.

Seriously the reason I have a problem is that it will never work. People have ambition. If I was told that all I could ever have is the same amount as the person living next to me, I wouldn’t work 50-60 hours a week to make a better life for myself and my family if the idiot next door only worked 10.

Communism is based on the flawed believe that the human race will be satisfied with what they have. But that also assumes that it will not be interested in progress. Since progress requires a desire for something else. Advancement requires ambition. Ambition is anathema to communism. There fore either you are asking us to stagnate as a race or you are against communism. It is as simple as that.
Chellis
26-04-2005, 03:29
Unless you’re at the top.


Unless you’re at the top.


Unless you’re at the top.



The U.S. etc. didn’t find it necessary to murder 10’s of millions of its people to get the rest to conform to the dictates of the central government.



Unless you’re at the top.

Seriously the reason I have a problem is that it will never work. People have ambition. If I was told that all I could ever have is the same amount as the person living next to me, I wouldn’t work 50-60 hours a week to make a better life for myself and my family if the idiot next door only worked 10.

Communism is based on the flawed believe that the human race will be satisfied with what they have. But that also assumes that it will not be interested in progress. Since progress requires a desire for something else. Advancement requires ambition. Ambition is anathema to communism. There fore either you are asking us to stagnate as a race or you are against communism. It is as simple as that.

Stalin was crazy. Not a problem with communism.

Other nations put pressure against communist nations such as the USSR. Not a problem with communism.

The USSR had a corrupt government. Not a problem with communism.

Everyone who talks about human greed, incidentally, is in a capitalist nation(Including socialist nations in europe, etc). None of the large communist societies were collapsed because of human ambition or greed. They were collapsed by outer pressure and inner corruption. Take these out, with whatever means nessecary, and communism can truely be allowed to grow.

Those who dont want to be a part of the system can leave, or should be allowed to at least. Though it might require a world revolution for it to work, in which case the minority who are discontent are just screwed(And there are plenty of cases where there have been mass majorities who supported communism, so its not unbelievable).
Free Soviets
26-04-2005, 03:35
Communism is based on the flawed believe that the human race will be satisfied with what they have. But that also assumes that it will not be interested in progress. Since progress requires a desire for something else. Advancement requires ambition. Ambition is anathema to communism. There fore either you are asking us to stagnate as a race or you are against communism. It is as simple as that.

is it now? none of those things seem to be particularly vital to any communism i know of.
Chellis
26-04-2005, 03:40
A communist society must be educated. Those in capitalist nations are educated that the only way to advance is by self-improvement, they have no concept of altruism. A society of communists is a completely democratic society where the goods are evenly redistributed to the people. There is possibility for advance; Work hard, and everyone else works hard, and you all advance. Those who dont work very hard will(or should) be delegated to lower-essential jobs. Those who dont want to work get to be janitors, and cafeteria workers. If you want to advance, you become a doctor, or whatnot, and in conjunction with everyone else, you further yourself and everyone else.
Hammerstad
26-04-2005, 03:40
is it now? none of those things seem to be particularly vital to any communism i know of.

Communism is defined at its most basic level as:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Ergo being satisfied with what you have.
Chellis
26-04-2005, 03:43
Communism is defined at its most basic level as:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Ergo being satisfied with what you have.

Don't define it at its most basic level. Capitalism, at its most basic level, is "Fuck over everyone else you possibly can to do better". If a government followed this, you would quickly watch everyone shooting everyone that held a position they wanted, as well as all competition, so they could advance. Obviously not true.
Bodies Without Organs
26-04-2005, 03:45
Communism is defined at its most basic level as:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Ergo being satisfied with what you have.

Nah; that is just a system of distributive justice. To claim that this is equatable with just being satisfied with what you have is to miss the whole point of the communist idea: to do away for ever with division of labour and government in any form whatsoever. You might want to check what Marx said about the actual communist society once the state had withered away* -

. . . as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.

Exactly how does that square with "being satisfied with what you have"?



* he actually said very little about the post-state society, realising that the actual nature of such a society was up to those who lived in it to decide, and this is about as explicit as he ever got in describing it.
Funktabia
26-04-2005, 03:46
Stalin was crazy. Not a problem with communism.

Other nations put pressure against communist nations such as the USSR. Not a problem with communism.

The USSR had a corrupt government. Not a problem with communism.

Everyone who talks about human greed, incidentally, is in a capitalist nation(Including socialist nations in europe, etc). None of the large communist societies were collapsed because of human ambition or greed. They were collapsed by outer pressure and inner corruption. Take these out, with whatever means nessecary, and communism can truely be allowed to grow.

Those who dont want to be a part of the system can leave, or should be allowed to at least. Though it might require a world revolution for it to work, in which case the minority who are discontent are just screwed(And there are plenty of cases where there have been mass majorities who supported communism, so its not unbelievable).
I would think that that "inner corruption" is cause by human ambition and greed.
ReefMania
26-04-2005, 03:47
Communism is such a tricky subject.

Sure we could look at example of the USSR, China, Vietnam, and all the other so called "communist" states that are really nothing more than totalitarian dictatorships. Calling them communist is just insulting the actual founders of communism who created the theory for a better life for the working class, who bluntly, had it real rough in that era.

Communism, as it is defined, has never been PROPERLY practiced in society. It's a political theory that has very little practical application because it relies on humans being "good" by nature.

As i'm sure most of us know, this is incorrect. Most humans (especially politicians) are not "good" by nature. They are as suceptible to greed and power as everyone else is.

Communism wasn't the USSR, isn't China, Vietnam, North Korea. The closest "true" communist state is Cuba. Although that country is marred with corruption and poverty (mostly caused by the embargo). This has twisted communism into again a quasi-dictatorship.

I'm not much in favour of communism, but it does have certain elements i agree with.
Compulsorily Controled
26-04-2005, 03:50
OMG! This is still going?!?!?!?!?!?! :eek: WOW! I want to join back in but I probably missed something big, I posted a lot in the first 6 pages, but I had to go. Drat. If I repeat something, I'm sorry.
Chellis
26-04-2005, 03:50
I would think that that "inner corruption" is cause by human ambition and greed.

Corruption of the minority. If you can get enough of the leaders to not be corrupt, you can make it work. Though, this is an argument of whether power corrupts, I suppose. I personally disbelieve in that,
Incenjucarania
26-04-2005, 03:51
Communism's biggest issue is that it assumes your kids will be EXACTLY like you.
Chellis
26-04-2005, 03:53
Communism's biggest issue is that it assumes your kids will be EXACTLY like you.

Capitalism's biggest issue is that is assumes your kids will exactly share your belief in capitalism. Socialism...you get the idea.
Bodies Without Organs
26-04-2005, 03:54
Communism's biggest issue is that it assumes your kids will be EXACTLY like you.

If anything this accusation could probably be better aimed at the class systems with capitalist society, the conflict of which create the drive to achieve communism, rather than communism, no?
Incenjucarania
26-04-2005, 03:59
If anything this accusation could probably be better aimed at the class systems with capitalist society, the conflict of which create the drive to achieve communism, rather than communism, no?

That makes absolutely no sense.

Most capitalist countries assume your kids will try to be better than you, not the same, building on inheritence for better education, et cetera.

Care to clarify your statement so that it actually makes some sense?
Chellis
26-04-2005, 04:02
That makes absolutely no sense.

Most capitalist countries assume your kids will try to be better than you, not the same, building on inheritence for better education, et cetera.

Care to clarify your statement so that it actually makes some sense?

You really dont understand communism, do you?

Communism doesn't except everything to stay solid for eternity. Communism, as much as Capitalism, expects the newer generations to have a better quality of life. It simply attempts to achieve the same thing in a different manner, by using group progression instead of individual progression.
Derapates
26-04-2005, 04:03
communisim isnt that bad...just here in america its portrayd badly mainly because old propaganda and the way it gos hand in hand with the former soviet union. its sorta like the socialist party....ppl look back at the nazi's and think they were socialists they must be bad.(for those who dont know the full term is national socialist german workers party)
Incenjucarania
26-04-2005, 04:04
Sorry... misread the idea...
Anyways, to respond to this, well, if like you is perfectly fine to live, et cetera, what's wrong with them being like you?

Because it's utterly unrealistic to assume every child of every human being will be a clone of that human being in properly proportionate numbers to attain the communistic state in a perpetual, everlasting cycle?

This is where that robots issue comes in.
Compulsorily Controled
26-04-2005, 04:07
Because it's utterly unrealistic to assume every child of every human being will be a clone of that human being in properly proportionate numbers to attain the communistic state in a perpetual, everlasting cycle?

This is where that robots issue comes in.
But Communism does build upon itself. It evolves, just fairly shared between the people.
Bodies Without Organs
26-04-2005, 04:09
That makes absolutely no sense.

Most capitalist countries assume your kids will try to be better than you, not the same, building on inheritence for better education, et cetera.

Care to clarify your statement so that it actually makes some sense?


Despite the social mobility which has arisen in the western world in the last 40 years or so, most people will remain in the class they are born into. You can draw the divisions whatever way you want: working/middle/ruling class or proletariat/petit-bourgeoisie/bourgeoisie - the fact remains.

Rigid class structures were much more of a feature prior to this recent liberalisation, and for Marx, it was the conflict between the different classes - "The history of hitherto existing society, is a history of class struggle" that would lead to the crisis in capitalism and the eventual coming of communism. Marx saw the economic as the driving force of history, rather than the ideological (to gloss over Hegel, for the moment). It is the struggle between the working class and the ruling class which has driven history as each seeks to look out for its own interests and improve its own lot by whatever means are at its disposal.

Marxist communism sees the very origin of this struggle in the division of labour: some people work in factories, and it is most likely that their children will do the same, while others own factories, and it is most likely that their children will do the same.

Communism seeks to sweep away the assumption you accused it of - "that it assumes your kids will be EXACTLY like you", and instead replace it with a society where it is possible to " to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic."

Once the division of labour is removed, then the assumption that ones children are best suited to follow either the same work as their parents or similar work is done away with.
Compulsorily Controled
26-04-2005, 04:13
-snip-
Couldn't have said it better myself. I commend you.
Dantevia
26-04-2005, 04:28
It would be nice to see an actual prctical communism rather than a political system forcing people to be equals. What few folks understand is that the terms "Communism" and "Democracy" are not mutually exclusive. Communism should refer to a system of economics while Democracy is a system of government. A Democratic Communism (Close to that of ancient Greece, with voting rights extended to women and those who do not own land) would be ideal. Currently, every communism that has come into existence has been a rather roughshod communism that is not actually run "by the people" in the sense that most communist theories are expressed. This is the difference between Stalinism (iron fist) and Marxism (for the people).
Funktabia
26-04-2005, 04:29
. . . as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.
Woah, wait just a minute. In this fairly capitalist system I do pretty well for myself with only one job. But under communism, I'd have to work four jobs? No thanks.

Seriously though, if people suddenly became as altruistic as some here say we need to be for communism to work, then why would we need communism in the first place? Wouldn't any system of government work? We could all be living in a benevolent dictatorship under the rule of King Nathan the Nice. I could run a little workshop making solid oak furniture, charging a fair price for my time and effort and the materials needed. And, since I'm so altruistic now, if I see someone whose tired from being on his feet all day, I can whittle him up a stool so he'd have a place to rest. In return, he could do something nice for me. But I'm not expecting anything like that from him as payment, I was just being nice.

Now in reality, I'd more likely cut one of my fingers off trying to saw a 2x4, but I think you get the picture.
Free Soviets
26-04-2005, 04:31
Communism is defined at its most basic level as:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Ergo being satisfied with what you have.

see bwo's post #138

i don't see how this implies being satisfied with what you have. or a necessary rejection of material and technological progress. or the supression of ambition per se. unless you take it to mean that everyone can only have what they minimally need to survive. but that is silly, and i don't think i've ever encountered any communists putting forward such a position.
Bodies Without Organs
26-04-2005, 04:40
Seriously though, if people suddenly became as altruistic as some here say we need to be for communism to work, then why would we need communism in the first place? Wouldn't any system of government work? We could all be living in a benevolent dictatorship under the rule of King Nathan the Nice. I could run a little workshop making solid oak furniture, charging a fair price for my time and effort and the materials needed. And, since I'm so altruistic now, if I see someone whose tired from being on his feet all day, I can whittle him up a stool so he'd have a place to rest. In return, he could do something nice for me. But I'm not expecting anything like that from him as payment, I was just being nice.


Most communist theories are based on a fluid idea of human nature: there are some givens, but much is the result of nurture, or more specifically within Marxism, of economic conditions - you for example have some similarities to an ancient galley slave, but also a great deal of differences as a result of the economic factors which have created the political system you live under and were brough up in.

Communism doesn't expect people to suddenly change overnight into fully altruistic beings, instead statist communists advocate a dictatorship which will steer the society towards a condition where such an altruism will arise. King Nathan the Nice could be such a dictatorship, if he acts so as to encourage such a development, but King Nathan the nice is unlikely to look about him one day and think to himself "'Ods bodkins! The people care for each other and work to the best of their abilities to supply the needs of others - they no longer need me to watch over them. I shall renounce my political power and go amongst my people as an equal". The dictatorship which statist communists advocate is intended to eventually whither away and dissolve once communism appears to be a self sustaining social system.


___________

Of course, the fact that statist communists have been shown to be untrustworthy bastards that would stab you in the back as soon as shake your hand does complicate this rosy picture somewhat....
Incenjucarania
26-04-2005, 04:56
You'll forgive me if I see your writing to be absolutely dripping with propogandized language.

Not every fricking rich person is an aristocrat. Many of them are, many of them are just lazy kids who inherited who just guzzle grandpa's money.

Despite the social mobility which has arisen in the western world in the last 40 years or so, most people will remain in the class they are born into. You can draw the divisions whatever way you want: working/middle/ruling class or proletariat/petit-bourgeoisie/bourgeoisie - the fact remains.


My family has been on the rise fairly well.

Two generations ago, my family worked in logging camps.

My dad hunted as a kid for subsitance. Recently, he bought a largish boat for cruising around on the lake in, just on a whim, brand new. At one point, before my mom had her little stress attack and quit her better job, they were making -six figures-.

My dad had two years of college.

I'm about to finish my fourth. My sister will probably go even further, because she has much more drive than I do.

Moooovin' on up.

My family has moved from lower class to upper middle class rather quickly (and in many branches of the family. Some are still lower class, because, frankly, they're lazy bastards).


Rigid class structures were much more of a feature prior to this recent liberalisation, and for Marx, it was the conflict between the different classes - "The history of hitherto existing society, is a history of class struggle" that would lead to the crisis in capitalism and the eventual coming of communism. Marx saw the economic as the driving force of history, rather than the ideological (to gloss over Hegel, for the moment). It is the struggle between the working class and the ruling class which has driven history as each seeks to look out for its own interests and improve its own lot by whatever means are at its disposal.


Good thing that things aren't as clear cut anymore. Rulership and money don't directly equate. Bush isn't as wealthy as Bill Gates, he just has a more evil group of people around him.


Marxist communism sees the very origin of this struggle in the division of labour: some people work in factories, and it is most likely that their children will do the same, while others own factories, and it is most likely that their children will do the same.


Dude. The industrial revolution has been over in the West for decades.

Information age.

I've never even been IN a factory.

Seriously, did Marx even know about researchers and franklin farmers and so on and so forth?

What the hell is an accountant, even? Is he owning a factory?


Communism seeks to sweep away the assumption you accused it of - "that it assumes your kids will be EXACTLY like you", and instead replace it with a society where it is possible to " to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic."


Oh bull. All it says is "Now we own the factories.. so get back to work!"

You're talking about being a generalist, which, hey, guess what, my family is full of!

And, by the by... have you ever tried hunting, fishing, rearing cattle, and debating all in one day, for a living? You'd fricking kill yourself.


Once the division of labour is removed, then the assumption that ones children are best suited to follow either the same work as their parents or similar work is done away with.

Um. My dad is a carpenter. My mother is a bookkeeper. I'm training to be a writer/editor.

And I think you're on something.
Wilhelmgrad
26-04-2005, 05:10
The problem is dictators Communism does not work wit these dictators it is hipocritical! But Communism is a great great thing if a leader can eventually get it to work without giving up its principals.
Bodies Without Organs
26-04-2005, 05:11
You'll forgive me if I see your writing to be absolutely dripping with propogandized language.

I'm not myuself a communist, but what I am doing here is trying to represent the actual theories that they espouse, so you'll have to make allowances for that.

Dude. The industrial revolution has been over in the West for decades.

Information age.

I've never even been IN a factory.

Indeed, but as the west has moved into a somewhat post-industrial stage, the industrial has spread to the developing countries. If anything there are probably more people working in factories now than when marx was alive.

Seriously, did Marx even know about researchers and franklin farmers and so on and so forth?

What the hell is an accountant, even? Is he owning a factory?

Personally I don't know what a franklin farmer is , and a quick google doesn't illuminate me.

As far as an accountant: they would be classed as petit-bourgeoisie: they may own their own small business, but they are still trapped in the unfair distribution of walth which concentrates power and wealth in the hands of the few.
Dadave
26-04-2005, 05:13
:) A communist society must be educated. Those in capitalist nations are educated that the only way to advance is by self-improvement, they have no concept of altruism. A society of communists is a completely democratic society where the goods are evenly redistributed to the people. There is possibility for advance; Work hard, and everyone else works hard, and you all advance. Those who dont work very hard will(or should) be delegated to lower-essential jobs. Those who dont want to work get to be janitors, and cafeteria workers. If you want to advance, you become a doctor, or whatnot, and in conjunction with everyone else, you further yourself and everyone else.
wrong,but you are prolly being schooled for free and your dad is paying the bills,if i am wrong i apologise now.....again,what do you do with those who don't want the low echelon jobs?re educate them at gun point..like all the great altruistic men that have gone before?just kill them?
say i don't want to work for the greater good,i am a malcontent,or i just like being bossed around and told ..hey..ur not educated..here's a broom...and i don't take your stinkin broom...what will u do with me?it always will be how u treat the lowest in society that determines how u are judged,in all the communist countries i know of,,,,,they were shot or reeducated,do u advocate that,cause i don't want to lean on a broom...cause i couldn't go to the university?and if i remember correctly,most educated in communist countries,were from the so called(we don't have one)ruling class.unless they snatched you away when they saw you had potential...again..could i resist the all powerfull gov taking my kid away because he was advantageous to the state?give it up...your gonna have to make it on your own,but you should have no problem,u seem to be from aristocracy.maybe i am wrong,u could be the oppisite,either way,if u are from the gifted few liberals,that knows what is best for me....i bow to your superiour intellect..lol...just don't hand me a broom.it could get ugly..lol...just kidding.
i wish i was of superiour intellect,but alas,i am just a poor mud farmer,and that's exactly were u want me...following your logic.or you can shoot me like the millenium of your predeccessors.
sorry,did't mean to get personal,but if i am thinking straight,u r misguided,have a crush on your history teacher..lol...again my bad..what do i know,oh,u wouldn't,u presume to know me..like i do with you,but then i heard this rhetoric for 20 years.
in 10 years u will laugh about this,that's why i am crying...so many died to protect your right to talk shit...try that in commie land.....i will share my boot soup with you.cause if u talk against them u r squashed...rule #1,and if u fight them,like i would,i'd be dead or we would be cooking our shoelaces together....and i would give you my share cause i am nice..lol,
study some more please..i cant say enough...millions upon millions died for us to live free.....not under a heel...and that's what history has taught communism will get you.....every time.
sorry if i sound harsh,not my intent,but i lost people/family...to fight that abhorent philoshophy,forgive my spelling.
nothing is going to over write thousands of years of human nature,not in the near future.so as an excersise in a class(ivory tower snide comment..sorry)it may work...but i have seen the cost in human suffering...it is not worth the price of the experiment.
it is applaudable that u want everyone to be happy and content....i myself wish that too...the real world does not point that out though,shit,we cant get the biggest whore in the world out of office(bush)yes,it would be better with an authoritarian government..which socialism dictates by it's centrally planned nature.that was a joke by the way.
that's another pet peave of mine...i hate bush,,,i think he is the devil incarnate,but everyone thinks that by putting centrally plaaned power it would be different..no,it would be worse.ask your proffessors if they wanted bush as their new lenin/stalin/englr/mao..i doubt it.
it is a fun example of what could be..if u live in an ivory tower...but life aint that way...ask dith pran....fuckin educated people were slaughtered by the millions...so they could have a ..better society..i love how we have to kill in order to make life civilized..lol..or to consolidate power?
that is all a centrally planned government does...but maybe i am brainwashed by the founding father's!
i believe in my ability to face life on my own,do i think it doesnt take a village to raise a child?yes i do...but please...there is no utopia....it is a mask for people to make you feel all warm and fuzzy,as long as you agree with them.god forbid you don't.i will fight till my last breath for you to say communism is good for us,ur wrong..lol,but iwill believe in your rite to feel that way...communist's dont..
u will need to be reeducated...
guess i need it to,cause like you said,i am not educated,damn i am a high school drop out,so were is my broom.wish i was one of the elite.i'll take the bullet behind the ear,i hate sweeping.
Incenjucarania
26-04-2005, 05:15
I'm not myuself a communist, but what I am doing here is trying to represent the actual theories that they espouse, so you'll have to make allowances for that.



Eh. Bad arguments no matter who makes them.



Indeed, but as the west has moved into a somewhat post-industrial stage, the industrial has spread to the developing countries. If anything there are probably more people working in factories now than when marx was alive.



Yes. It's basically how America was during the time period the book "The Jungle", by Upton Sinclair was made. Horrific stuff. Industrial revolutions suck.



Personally I don't know what a franklin farmer is , and a quick google doesn't illuminate me.


Franklin=Free Man. As in, non-serf.


As far as an accountant: they would be classed as petit-bourgeoisie: they may own their own small business, but they are still trapped in the unfair distribution of walth which concentrates power and wealth in the hands of the few.

...So. An accountant. Working on his own...

Right.

Small businesses are the devil?
Hammerstad
26-04-2005, 05:22
. . . as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.

By this definition I already live in a communist state. My grandfather was a farmer, my mother a librarian, I have studied nuclear physics, electronics, photography, plumbing, and private investigation. I could do just about anything, but I chose to work in the computer field because I earn more and can get the things I want. Even if it does mean someone else gets less. I worked hard to get it and I deserve it. That is why communism will always fail because someone will always want more. Whether that more is money, belongs, jewelry, houses, cars, or power.
Bodies Without Organs
26-04-2005, 05:23
Eh. Bad arguments no matter who makes them.

I'd be able to make a better show of them if it wasn't 5am where I am, but that is by the by.



Franklin=Free Man. As in, non-serf.

Okay, someone who sells the produce of his labour in order to buy the things he cannot make himself then, yes? Although he may own his own means of production, he is still not free from the disparities of privilege and wealth that capitalism creates as he is forced to indirectly sell his labour to the highest bidder if he wishes to improve his lot.



...So. An accountant. Working on his own...

Right.

Small businesses are the devil?

I don't follow the first part here, and I can't really see where the second part came from either.
Andaluciae
26-04-2005, 05:29
People do not revolt because of alienation, people do rarely revolt because of oppression, people revolt because of hunger.

There's more than just classes dividing people. Languages, religion, cultural aspects, education, specialization, geographic location, sports team preferences, cola preferences, alcoholic beverage preferences, there are thousands upon thousands of things that divide us. These things are constantly in a state of dynamic flux, just as classes are.

Doing the same job as my parents? Whazat? My dad graduated from college as a physics major, after turning down an offer to attend law school, he took a job as an applied math guy (who dealt with computers) at general tire, after which point he transfered to the Hoover Company, where he gradually evolved from computers and applied math, to shipping and distribution technologies. As time wore on he switched to a middle-management spot, where he oversaw several different IT specialists. Since then, he took a new job at a Sterling jewelers, one of the key diamond and jewelry distributors in the US, doing what, I don't totally know.

My mother graduated college as an industrial design major. Since then she has done things ranging from being a stay-at-home mom, to a substitute teacher, to a youth pastor at a Methodist church.

Me? What are my plans, well currently I am a political science and international studies major, who intends on going to graduate school, and then working for some big bad government agency, like the DoD, the DoS, the NSA, or *gasp* the root of all evil CIA. After which point I'd like to get a job as an analyst at think tank or something.

I have a sister who is interested in engineering, and another who is interested in law school.

I see no rigidity in specialization, or family trends. Besides being middle class, that is.

And this is not just my family, almost everyone I know (who isn't involved in a family business) is planning on doing something virtually totally different.

Another thought, the marxist gripe about specialization seems relatively invalid in my personal opinion. Why? Because the fact is, the more advanced a field you enter, the more training you require. One cannot just up and become a dentist, or a physicist, or a doctor, or an aircraft engineer. A person must go through years of rigourous training to accomplish that. The world is no longer so simple as hunting, fishing and being a critic.

Mindless jobs are increasingly performed by machines, leaving people to spread out into their own fields. Fields where they can use their minds, where they can explore new ideas. This is the coming post-industrial society. A post-industrial society fueled by capitalism.
Free Soviets
26-04-2005, 05:32
...So. An accountant. Working on his own...

Right.

Small businesses are the devil?

whiskey tango foxtrot? where did that come from and how does it relate to anything?
Incenjucarania
26-04-2005, 05:34
I'd be able to make a better show of them if it wasn't 5am where I am, but that is by the by.



Marx never made any better arguments, so no worries.



Okay, someone who sells the produce of his labour in order to buy the things he cannot make himself then, yes? Although he may own his own means of production, he is still not free from the disparities of privilege and wealth that capitalism creates as he is forced to indirectly sell his labour to the highest bidder if he wishes to improve his lot.



He's not forced in to anything. A farmer can be wholly self-reliant. Ever heard of hermits?

Come on, if you're going to argue, argue based on reality, not strawmanville.



I don't follow the first part here, and I can't really see where the second part came from either.

You suggested that people who are self-employed are subject to 'owners'.

Which means that Marxism is impossible, because then EVERYONE owns you, and visa versa.
Dadave
26-04-2005, 05:34
Stalin was crazy. Not a problem with communism.

Other nations put pressure against communist nations such as the USSR. Not a problem with communism.

The USSR had a corrupt government. Not a problem with communism.

Everyone who talks about human greed, incidentally, is in a capitalist nation(Including socialist nations in europe, etc). None of the large communist societies were collapsed because of human ambition or greed. They were collapsed by outer pressure and inner corruption. Take these out, with whatever means nessecary, and communism can truely be allowed to grow.

Those who dont want to be a part of the system can leave, or should be allowed to at least. Though it might require a world revolution for it to work, in which case the minority who are discontent are just screwed(And there are plenty of cases where there have been mass majorities who supported communism, so its not unbelievable).
what about pol pot...i know..they were all crazy,what does that tell you about power,which is the decisive tenet of socialism..central power...no one gets that i guess.
just wasting my time...power corrupts,people in central positions of power are corrupt,argue that...bush...et all...i prefer to have a recoarse..not..ur a anti social...a visit to the camp will change you...which is there modus operandi
:sniper:
Andaluciae
26-04-2005, 05:36
.Okay, someone who sells the produce of his labour in order to buy the things he cannot make himself then, yes? Although he may own his own means of production, he is still not free from the disparities of privilege and wealth that capitalism creates as he is forced to indirectly sell his labour to the highest bidder if he wishes to improve his lot.
He is free to do as he will with his labor. He is forced by no one to do anything. "But if he doesn't work he'll starve" That's a law of nature, not of man. That's like saying "but if he doesn't work, he cannot buy a plane ticket to fly." Once again, he is oppressed by nature (in this case, gravity), not by mankind.

He owns more than just his labor anyways. He owns his intellect. If he truly desires to better his lot, he will strike out on a new and bold path, one not yet taken, and provide the markets with some new, desirable commodity. Of course he assumes risks, if his commodity is not desirable, he'll have to reevaluate.




I don't follow the first part here, and I can't really see where the second part came from either.
The accountant does not provide as unique and desirable a service to the markets as other fields. There are plenty of accountants. He is not oppressed. He can change his profession, if he is willing to undertake the risks.
Andaluciae
26-04-2005, 05:37
whiskey tango foxtrot? where did that come from and how does it relate to anything?
prolly tiredness...and misunderstanding.

speaking of tiredness, I've got some sleep to get. I've got work tomorrow, and class, and all sorts of shit like that.
Preebles
26-04-2005, 05:41
Anarcho-Communist here. We aren't all Marxists ya know.
Bodies Without Organs
26-04-2005, 05:44
Anarcho-Communist here. We aren't all Marxists ya know.

Anarcha-communist in your case, surely?
Preebles
26-04-2005, 05:59
Anarcha-communist in your case, surely?
Eh? What's the difference? I like it spelt with the o.
Free Soviets
26-04-2005, 06:02
Anarcha-communist in your case, surely?

i'm bored with romance language gendering. we should use !kung or something.
Preebles
26-04-2005, 06:05
i'm bored with romance language gendering. we should use !kung or something.
Ohhhh, it's gendering... Well I don't care! I like anarcho! :p
Potaria
26-04-2005, 06:06
Ohhhh, it's gendering... Well I don't care! I like anarcho! :p

Same! I've hardly ever seen it spelled (or spelt... whatever) "Anarcha".
Incenjucarania
26-04-2005, 06:08
Anarcha, because politics are better with boobs.

*coughs*
Free Soviets
26-04-2005, 06:16
Ohhhh, it's gendering... Well I don't care! I like anarcho! :p

yeah, the use comes from anarcha-feminists.

and you are required to care. this is even more important than the anarchist dress code and dietary laws combined.
Dadave
26-04-2005, 06:16
:sniper: People do not revolt because of alienation, people do rarely revolt because of oppression, people revolt because of hunger.

There's more than just classes dividing people. Languages, religion, cultural aspects, education, specialization, geographic location, sports team preferences, cola preferences, alcoholic beverage preferences, there are thousands upon thousands of things that divide us. These things are constantly in a state of dynamic flux, just as classes are.

Doing the same job as my parents? Whazat? My dad graduated from college as a physics major, after turning down an offer to attend law school, he took a job as an applied math guy (who dealt with computers) at general tire, after which point he transfered to the Hoover Company, where he gradually evolved from computers and applied math, to shipping and distribution technologies. As time wore on he switched to a middle-management spot, where he oversaw several different IT specialists. Since then, he took a new job at a Sterling jewelers, one of the key diamond and jewelry distributors in the US, doing what, I don't totally know.

My mother graduated college as an industrial design major. Since then she has done things ranging from being a stay-at-home mom, to a substitute teacher, to a youth pastor at a Methodist church.

Me? What are my plans, well currently I am a political science and international studies major, who intends on going to graduate school, and then working for some big bad government agency, like the DoD, the DoS, the NSA, or *gasp* the root of all evil CIA. After which point I'd like to get a job as an analyst at think tank or something.

I have a sister who is interested in engineering, and another who is interested in law school.

I see no rigidity in specialization, or family trends. Besides being middle class, that is.

And this is not just my family, almost everyone I know (who isn't involved in a family business) is planning on doing something virtually totally different.

Another thought, the marxist gripe about specialization seems relatively invalid in my personal opinion. Why? Because the fact is, the more advanced a field you enter, the more training you require. One cannot just up and become a dentist, or a physicist, or a doctor, or an aircraft engineer. A person must go through years of rigourous training to accomplish that. The world is no longer so simple as hunting, fishing and being a critic.

Mindless jobs are increasingly performed by machines, leaving people to spread out into their own fields. Fields where they can use their minds, where they can explore new ideas. This is the coming post-industrial society. A post-industrial society fueled by capitalism.
god bless you,i wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.keep towing the party line and you will do just fine...lol
just don't go against the grain,i'm a farmer,my kid wants to be a cia person...hope you all happy,that's the difference from us and the socialists..since i'm a farmer....go milk the cows bitch..how dare you have dreams of something better
Preebles
26-04-2005, 06:19
anarchist dress code
Colours denoting what type of anarchist you are? Black is mandatory, red and black for anarcho-communists and purple for feminists. and dietary laws combined.
Um... vegan? :p

NB:I am NOT a vegan...
Chellis
26-04-2005, 07:18
:)
wrong,but you are prolly being schooled for free and your dad is paying the bills,if i am wrong i apologise now.....again,what do you do with those who don't want the low echelon jobs?re educate them at gun point..like all the great altruistic men that have gone before?just kill them?
say i don't want to work for the greater good,i am a malcontent,or i just like being bossed around and told ..hey..ur not educated..here's a broom...and i don't take your stinkin broom...what will u do with me?it always will be how u treat the lowest in society that determines how u are judged,in all the communist countries i know of,,,,,they were shot or reeducated,do u advocate that,cause i don't want to lean on a broom...cause i couldn't go to the university?and if i remember correctly,most educated in communist countries,were from the so called(we don't have one)ruling class.unless they snatched you away when they saw you had potential...again..could i resist the all powerfull gov taking my kid away because he was advantageous to the state?give it up...your gonna have to make it on your own,but you should have no problem,u seem to be from aristocracy.maybe i am wrong,u could be the oppisite,either way,if u are from the gifted few liberals,that knows what is best for me....i bow to your superiour intellect..lol...just don't hand me a broom.it could get ugly..lol...just kidding.
i wish i was of superiour intellect,but alas,i am just a poor mud farmer,and that's exactly were u want me...following your logic.or you can shoot me like the millenium of your predeccessors.
sorry,did't mean to get personal,but if i am thinking straight,u r misguided,have a crush on your history teacher..lol...again my bad..what do i know,oh,u wouldn't,u presume to know me..like i do with you,but then i heard this rhetoric for 20 years.
in 10 years u will laugh about this,that's why i am crying...so many died to protect your right to talk shit...try that in commie land.....i will share my boot soup with you.cause if u talk against them u r squashed...rule #1,and if u fight them,like i would,i'd be dead or we would be cooking our shoelaces together....and i would give you my share cause i am nice..lol,
study some more please..i cant say enough...millions upon millions died for us to live free.....not under a heel...and that's what history has taught communism will get you.....every time.
sorry if i sound harsh,not my intent,but i lost people/family...to fight that abhorent philoshophy,forgive my spelling.
nothing is going to over write thousands of years of human nature,not in the near future.so as an excersise in a class(ivory tower snide comment..sorry)it may work...but i have seen the cost in human suffering...it is not worth the price of the experiment.
it is applaudable that u want everyone to be happy and content....i myself wish that too...the real world does not point that out though,shit,we cant get the biggest whore in the world out of office(bush)yes,it would be better with an authoritarian government..which socialism dictates by it's centrally planned nature.that was a joke by the way.
that's another pet peave of mine...i hate bush,,,i think he is the devil incarnate,but everyone thinks that by putting centrally plaaned power it would be different..no,it would be worse.ask your proffessors if they wanted bush as their new lenin/stalin/englr/mao..i doubt it.
it is a fun example of what could be..if u live in an ivory tower...but life aint that way...ask dith pran....fuckin educated people were slaughtered by the millions...so they could have a ..better society..i love how we have to kill in order to make life civilized..lol..or to consolidate power?
that is all a centrally planned government does...but maybe i am brainwashed by the founding father's!
i believe in my ability to face life on my own,do i think it doesnt take a village to raise a child?yes i do...but please...there is no utopia....it is a mask for people to make you feel all warm and fuzzy,as long as you agree with them.god forbid you don't.i will fight till my last breath for you to say communism is good for us,ur wrong..lol,but iwill believe in your rite to feel that way...communist's dont..
u will need to be reeducated...
guess i need it to,cause like you said,i am not educated,damn i am a high school drop out,so were is my broom.wish i was one of the elite.i'll take the bullet behind the ear,i hate sweeping.

Sober up, retype, and I will read it.

Though from the first sentence I was able to read, my "daddy" doesnt pay for my bills for school. The government does. I am in high school, public education. The national guard will be paying for my college education.
Xenophobialand
26-04-2005, 07:33
He is free to do as he will with his labor. He is forced by no one to do anything. "But if he doesn't work he'll starve" That's a law of nature, not of man. That's like saying "but if he doesn't work, he cannot buy a plane ticket to fly." Once again, he is oppressed by nature (in this case, gravity), not by mankind.


. . .And yet, he is still compelled by nature to seek work, no? And people often use the fact that isn't an alternative to eating to exploit their workers, no?

You're making a distinction without a difference here. Whether food is a requirement made by nature or by man, man still has to meet it in order to survive. It is also true that in a perfectly just system, everyone would have enough to eat, and no one would be exploited in order to meet that requirement. It is an empirical fact that some people, including people who do work long hours and put much labor into the system, are nevertheless not able to get enough to eat or avoid having their labor exploited by capitalism. The only possible inference you can get from that is that capitalism in practice is simply not a just system.

Making the system more just doesn't necessarily require communism, but it does seem to require much more government intervention than you seem to want. Why you would prefer profitable suffering over slightly-less profitable non-suffering is beyond me.
Incenjucarania
26-04-2005, 07:45
Your statement requires you to show that what you say is just, and that justice matters.
Khudros
26-04-2005, 07:57
This may be completely off topic, but I was wondering what the ideology of the consumers' paradise would be. Capitalism is the tool used by the super-wealthy to control the supply side of markets, while Communism is the tool by which the working class imposes union-based control. So what then is the ideological tool with which consumer cultures seek control of the demand side of markets? It's got to be some other one of those _isms. ;)
The Kids Next Door
26-04-2005, 08:13
I voted "NO", I REALY don't see how communism would be good at all, :confused:
Battery Charger
26-04-2005, 08:37
Communism, in theory, absolutely rocks. In reality, it would never work. Humans are greedy creatures. They always want more. And many of them will do anything to get what they want. I actually think the Soviet Union would have worked well for a while, but Lenin went crazy.
I'm so tired of people saying this. Look, if something works great in theory, but always fails in practice, the theory is most likely flawed. You just don't know how. In the case of communism, the main flaw is that there is no accurate mechanism to determine prices.
Incenjucarania
26-04-2005, 08:40
...Communism is a crappy theory.

Only its INTENTION is at all decent, to make people not get kicked around, but the theory is BS.
Battery Charger
26-04-2005, 08:43
wrong. in reality, it can work - but in the future. not because of advancements in technology but because of the malleability of that very same greedy human nature you describe. its one of the founding principles of all socialism; that our violent, self-centred, greedy and possesive nature can change to one of altruism and egalitarianism.And here's the other flaw. In order for communism to actually work, the communist man must be created. There's no reason to believe this could ever be accomplished.
Gwazwomp
26-04-2005, 08:48
honestly... i dont think communism CAN work... at least not pleasantly
Battery Charger
26-04-2005, 08:50
Just how many times do we have to try communism, and how many times do we have to see it devolve into totalitarianism, before it can be said that communism is not a good idea?
Battery Charger
26-04-2005, 08:58
just think. is this necessarily 'progress'? technological progress benefits us how? really? i mean some answers are obvious, but do these things make us truly happy? the side-effects of such progress (not just technological) can be devastating for a start.
ref: regressionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressionism)It's up to the individual to decide what makes them happy. Humans generally try to act in ways that keep themselves alive and happy. The more freedom they have, the more they can do to achieve those ends.
Battery Charger
26-04-2005, 09:10
A communist society must be educated. Those in capitalist nations are educated that the only way to advance is by self-improvement, they have no concept of altruism. A society of communists is a completely democratic society where the goods are evenly redistributed to the people.So jews and muslims get their fair share of bacon, while nuns and monks get their monthly allotment of condoms and men are issued lipstick and pantyhose?
Battery Charger
26-04-2005, 09:12
Communism is defined at its most basic level as:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Ergo being satisfied with what you have.How do you figure? If everyone is satisfied with what they have, then nobody needs anything. I think you mean "being satisfied with what you get."
Battery Charger
26-04-2005, 09:16
Corruption of the minority. If you can get enough of the leaders to not be corrupt, you can make it work. Though, this is an argument of whether power corrupts, I suppose. I personally disbelieve in that,Then I would beg you to study history. Perhaps you'll find some insteresting things if you google "hypocracy" with names of US Presidents.
Khudros
26-04-2005, 09:26
It's up to the individual to decide what makes them happy. Humans generally try to act in ways that keep themselves alive and happy. The more freedom they have, the more they can do to achieve those ends.

I don't think so. I have witnessed VERY few people in my time who were truly comfortable with themselves. In fact, I would argue that consumer-based industries rely heavily on customers being dissatisfied with who they are, how they look, how old they are, etc, buying products to make up for their perceived shortcomings.

It really doesn't matter how much 'freedom' you give a person if that person isn't a free thinker. Freedom of the mind is the important prerequisite. Without it people will fall prey to all the rampant manipulation that's out there, and that's not fun at all.
Optunia
26-04-2005, 09:36
I think communism would have worked better if only the people who wanted to be communists were living under the system. I think if people were true communists, then it would have worked fine in practical terms, but if people are corrupt and power hungry, then it is a disaster.
McAuslan
26-04-2005, 09:39
In all the above responses i've heard no-one has touched upon the fact that mankind as is the case with a lot of species on the planet will when left alone without ideological and theological arguments will revert to some form of communist self government

take early man he would form into small social groups, each member of the group would have a specific role to play within the society and as we have managed to survive and evolve there is an example of communism working, true there were leaders as there will always have to be but irrelevant of the system if the people at the top are corrupt then you can not blame the system for their personal flaws

next take the ant and its society every member of the group has a role to play and works for the greater good (the survival of the species) this may be because ants are not power greedy megolomaniacs but in a sense it is TRUE communism and works beautifully

In summation then no particular system can possibly work without the consent and industry of the whole group so communism is workable but only if people are willing and eager for it to work not if they are forced to and with mankind there will always be lazy, incompetent and workshy people who refuse to contribute and those who think they deserve more the flaw is not the sytem the flaw is us!!!! humans!!!!!!!!
Jalula
26-04-2005, 10:11
I have 2 complaints about 'Communism - The Theory' without discussing practicalities.
First of all, it keeps getting posted that Communism would work if people were better - more altruistic, less self involved. But way back when in this thread, I remember a Communist proponent mentioning that Communism required us to live for the good of society, rather than the individual. I think that is ENORMOUSLY funny; that's not altruism, that's a hive mind. It is especially ironic on the NationStates message board; in Jennifer Government, the same thought is law, just with 'society' replaced by 'corporation.'
Thus the major, major flaw in the Communist ideology, as far as I'm concerned: The group is more important than the individual. IMHO, bullhookey. People are more important than societies; and Capitalism recognizes this. That's what the Founding Fathers in the US were all about - you have the right to your own life, and the Government cannot mandate you do anything for your own good, or even for the good of society. Granted, that isn't exactly the situation in any Capitalist nation today, but in general Capitalist nations come nearer to the elevation of the individual than any other system yet tried.
Second, I will reiterate what other folks have posted - Communism violates causality. For any system to work, economic, physical, societal, cause and effect must be visibly linked: punch your sister, and you get grounded; steal and you go to jail; work hard and you get paid more. When the actions of an individual have no effect, how can you expect people to know what is right & wrong & altruistic?
Potaria
26-04-2005, 10:21
-snip-

Capitalism? Seriously, please... Capitalism makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, and has ruined the livelihoods of millions of Americans (as well as other nationalities). Read up on the crash of the Steel industry and Pittsburgh, and I think you'll get the picture.

Hard-line Communism isn't pretty, and Capitalism is just as bad, if not worse.
Mekonia
26-04-2005, 10:25
It worked for Lenin, It works for Vietnam, it can work for you too!
Hallad
26-04-2005, 10:51
Orwell was a prophet.

Orwell was a Communist, too, and believed Communism could work.

I'd say more, but it'd too early and I have a hangover.
Jalula
26-04-2005, 10:56
[QUOTE=TotalandPeople are more important that companies; and our present capitalist system doesn't recognize this. I also believe people have the right to their own life and that's why I protest against capitalist explotation of people. Human beings are not 'human recources' considered less than slaves.[/QUOTE]

I have had a few jobs, and though I have had some doozies, I have never been considered 'less than a slave.' And why protest 'capitalist exploitation' of people - why not just protest exploitation?
I'm not tryng to be cute, but that kind of rhetoric is what inflames these discussions. There are issues with how some corporations treat people, but it isn't really a problem with the principles of our system - the folks at Enron committed criminal acts - but a problem with the human execution of those policies. Anyone who tries to sell all CEOs as Patron Saints of the Working Class is probably filling you full of hooey, but the converse isn't true either; they aren't all (or even mostly) demonic human overlords. Further the faults in our system are the dirty bathwater - not the baby.
Incenjucarania
26-04-2005, 10:58
Capitalism? Seriously, please... Capitalism makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, and has ruined the livelihoods of millions of Americans (as well as other nationalities). Read up on the crash of the Steel industry and Pittsburgh, and I think you'll get the picture.

Hard-line Communism isn't pretty, and Capitalism is just as bad, if not worse.

Capitalism has allowed my family to go from hunting deer for food, to owning boats that cost more than some cars, in a single generation.

Oops.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 12:26
Orwell was a Communist, too, and believed Communism could work.

I'd say more, but it'd too early and I have a hangover.

He had already given up on the idea that people as we know them could implement it.
Jalula
26-04-2005, 13:18
Therefor I'm against all exploitation, whether capitalist or communist. We should create an economy that is beneficial to all.

I guess I _don't_ think we should come up with an economy beneficial to all. I don't have a problem with safety-net socialism - enough government support to keep people from starving and to provide or guaruntee essential services; but an economy should only benefit those who benefit the economy. Capitalism isn't the best system because of our flawed human natures; it is the best system because it is the most inherently fair system.
Not to say there isn't a place for charity and mercy; but charity and mercy don't mean anything and don't help anyone when they are enforced by the powers-that-be; they should be distributed by individuals for individuals.

As far as making the rich richer and the poor poorer, that can't be a result of capitalism since it is not even a constant in the good ol' US of A. According to a 2001 study by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, the income earned by the fortunate 1000th - the top .1% of the richest people in america, has fluctuated from 10% during the age of the Robber Barons, down to 3% in the 50s, 2% in the seventies, and has risen up to 6% in 2000. While it is higher than it had been, we aren't exactly back in the Gilded Age, and it is clear that this percentage, even in a mostly capitalistic society, fluctuates - therefore the rich don't always get richer.
Likewise, while the poorest 10% have seen a declining percentage of the national take, the inflation adjusted income of the poor has actually risen since the 1970s - in other words, the rich are getting richer, but the poor aren't getting poorer.
Even in the Regan years, the infamous 1980s, while the percentage of the national income for the top 10% rose, the increase is largely attributed to the movement of many middle class families to the upper class - while the poorest 10% stayed constant.
Rich getting richer? Yeah. Poor getting poorer? Not so much. Isn't that better than everyone stagnating together?
Saxnot
26-04-2005, 14:32
When I say Communism I mean the original Marxist principles. It is in this context I answer the question; I think it's a good idea, but it would never last, as it requires the goodwill of everyone in the system to work.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 14:35
When I say Communism I mean the original Marxist principles. It is in this context I answer the question; I think it's a good idea, but it would never last, as it requires the goodwill of everyone in the system to work.

Most of the historical implementations got that "goodwill" by killing off all the intellectuals and all the bourgeois, and then threatening anyone else with death by hard labor. Speaking as someone who has lost relatives in that manner (death by being beaten to death for the crime of being a teacher, or the child of a teacher), I find the whole idea of Communism repugnant.
Jello Biafra
26-04-2005, 15:35
Likewise, while the poorest 10% have seen a declining percentage of the national take, the inflation adjusted income of the poor has actually risen since the 1970s - in other words, the rich are getting richer, but the poor aren't getting poorer.
Even in the Regan years, the infamous 1980s, while the percentage of the national income for the top 10% rose, the increase is largely attributed to the movement of many middle class families to the upper class - while the poorest 10% stayed constant.
Someone already addressed the first part of your post, I'll address this part. Inflation has risen higher than average wages since 1970. The reason that the poor are making more now is because they're working more hours. The eight hour day is disappearing as a result of this.
Jello Biafra
26-04-2005, 15:39
I have had a few jobs, and though I have had some doozies, I have never been considered 'less than a slave.' And why protest 'capitalist exploitation' of people - why not just protest exploitation?
I'm not tryng to be cute, but that kind of rhetoric is what inflames these discussions. There are issues with how some corporations treat people, but it isn't really a problem with the principles of our system - the folks at Enron committed criminal acts - but a problem with the human execution of those policies. Anyone who tries to sell all CEOs as Patron Saints of the Working Class is probably filling you full of hooey, but the converse isn't true either; they aren't all (or even mostly) demonic human overlords. Further the faults in our system are the dirty bathwater - not the baby.
But the problem is that the capitalist system has the least amount of accountability, and therefore has the potential for the most corruption.
Jello Biafra
26-04-2005, 15:43
I think communism would have worked better if only the people who wanted to be communists were living under the system. I think if people were true communists, then it would have worked fine in practical terms, but if people are corrupt and power hungry, then it is a disaster.I think that this is the ideal situation. The people who want socialism can have it, the people who don't can have whatever they want. Then, of course, without massive amount of propaganda, what would likely happen is the socialist area would become larger and larger, as people would see that it's better than what they currently have. (I inserted socialism in place of communism as it is unnecessary to have a communist state if people are voluntarily becoming socialist, as the mechanism for equalizing wealth would already be in place.)
Ecopoeia
26-04-2005, 15:44
Communism: good or bad? I'd say that, as with capitalism, it depends on the nature of those participating. And, as with capitalism, there aren't enough decet people for it to work properly.
Greedy Pig
26-04-2005, 15:51
I think that this is the ideal situation. The people who want socialism can have it, the people who don't can have whatever they want. Then, of course, without massive amount of propaganda, what would likely happen is the socialist area would become larger and larger, as people would see that it's better than what they currently have. (I inserted socialism in place of communism as it is unnecessary to have a communist state if people are voluntarily becoming socialist, as the mechanism for equalizing wealth would already be in place.)

Good luck if a country like so ever does exist. Though I doubt it can mantain it's level of 'prosperity' to keep everyone happy and well fed.
Jello Biafra
26-04-2005, 15:59
Good luck if a country like so ever does exist. Though I doubt it can mantain it's level of 'prosperity' to keep everyone happy and well fed.
I suppose if it happened in an area with few natural resources, that might be a problem (See: Russia.) However, most of the world has some amount of natural resources, so it's unlikely that if it happened it wouldn't work.
Andaluciae
26-04-2005, 16:44
. . .And yet, he is still compelled by nature to seek work, no? And people often use the fact that isn't an alternative to eating to exploit their workers, no?

You're making a distinction without a difference here. Whether food is a requirement made by nature or by man, man still has to meet it in order to survive. It is also true that in a perfectly just system, everyone would have enough to eat, and no one would be exploited in order to meet that requirement. It is an empirical fact that some people, including people who do work long hours and put much labor into the system, are nevertheless not able to get enough to eat or avoid having their labor exploited by capitalism. The only possible inference you can get from that is that capitalism in practice is simply not a just system.

Making the system more just doesn't necessarily require communism, but it does seem to require much more government intervention than you seem to want. Why you would prefer profitable suffering over slightly-less profitable non-suffering is beyond me.

So, in a communist society, I can sit around all day and do nothing and still get food, shelter and clothing?

You cannot be exploited unless you are forced by other people to do something! Exploitation only occurs when someone puts a gun to your head and says "work." If you freely (of human coercion) agree to work for someone, no matter what the price, you are not being exploited!

Capitalism is a just system. It is a group of free individuals freely making choices as per their economic well being. They make tradeoffs. They suffer the consequences or reap the rewards.

You don't want to "waste" four years in college in capitalism? Well, let it be known that you probably won't make a lot of money, ever. It's a tradeoff.
Andy Hintzman
26-04-2005, 17:07
You see there is a differance between Communism and Socialism, Socialism being the economy of Communism. Now Socialism actually is a great economy, it destroys the greed of the capitalist fat cats and makes everyone equal. Everyone is working for the commongood of the nation, now you may think that if you are working for nothing, some lazy people would be lazy. Well it is true that some lazy people would feed off of the people who work hard, but can easily be minimized with awards for working hard, such as the Soviet Union had the"Hero of Communism" for those who went beyond what they needed to do. One other thing, I hate how americans critisize communism and socialism so much, mainly i blame this on how totalaristic the Soviet Union was and how much propeganda the US passed on to its citizens, and this just makes me sick, A perfectly good form of life destroyed because someone got greedy, which is thanks to Capitalism, so in the end what it the bigger threat to our way of life, someone 5000 miles away with a handgun or what is corrupting our way of life possibly less than 20 feet from where your standing?
Andaluciae
26-04-2005, 17:10
You see there is a differance between Communism and Socialism, Socialism being the economy of Communism. Now Socialism actually is a great economy, it destroys the greed of the capitalist fat cats and makes everyone equal. Everyone is working for the commongood of the nation, now you may think that if you are working for nothing, some lazy people would be lazy. Well it is true that some lazy people would feed off of the people who work hard, but can easily be minimized with awards for working hard, such as the Soviet Union had the"Hero of Communism" for those who went beyond what they needed to do. One other thing, I hate how americans critisize communism and socialism so much, mainly i blame this on how totalaristic the Soviet Union was and how much propeganda the US passed on to its citizens, and this just makes me sick, A perfectly good form of life destroyed because someone got greedy, which is thanks to Capitalism, so in the end what it the bigger threat to our way of life, someone 5000 miles away with a handgun or what is corrupting our way of life possibly less than 20 feet from where your standing?

Spewing so much propaganda...It makes me sick. You make me ashamed to share the name Andy.
Dogburg
26-04-2005, 17:54
Well, I haven't been very active on NS recently. I'm glad to see that plenty of pro-capitalists are still holding the fort here though.

I won't go in to all the basic "communism bad" arguments, I daresay they've been discussed at great length already in the last 15 pages of posting.

Instead, I'm going to put forth what I hope is some new food for thought - on why communists have no reason to complain about the dominance of capitalism, because it still permits them to live as they would like.

Consider that the overall political goal of capitalists like myself is to reduce government regulation in the economy and society as much as is reasonably possible.

In a properly capitalist society, nothing - not a single thing - is stopping communists or socialists from pooling their resources and living together in a style which they feel is proper. If you want, you can write contracts which stipulate that nobody can join your commune unless they denounce the evil capitalist pigs and never buy anything from outside the commune, or whatever terms you want to impose in order to match your philosophy.

As a capitalist, my political views compel me to permit you to do whatever you want, as long as you don't steal from, harm, or commit fraud against anybody without their consent. Capitalism doesn't require you to do anything except refrain from those three activites.

Now, in a western pseudo-capitalist democracy like the USA or the United Kingdom, you would still have to pay tax and adhere to a lot of external regulation, but don't blame the capitalists for this - socialists are the ones who want higher taxes and more responsibility to the rest of society.

I, as a supporter of capitalism however, would have a far harder time in a communist state than a communist would under a capitalist system. I would be prevented from doing one of the only things I wanted to do - privately exchanging the products of my labour, time and property with other consenting individuals for other commodities which I needed.

Capitalism and Communism can peacefully coexist in an area where the prevailing philosophy of government is minimal intervention and very little regulation (the capitalist goal). They cannot do so in a communist system, where the prevailing government philosophy is one in which every citizen is expected to surrender all of their property and produce without argument and live according to other people's beliefs.

Communists - why can you not live and let live? The government style I propose permits you to live your life as you want and permits me to live mine as I want. The style you propose outlaws my way of life and forces yours onto everyone, myself included.

This isn't even going into the logical reasons that communism is a bad idea, it's simply a question of morality.
Pyromanstahn
26-04-2005, 18:35
In a properly capitalist society, nothing - not a single thing - is stopping communists or socialists from pooling their resources and living together in a style which they feel is proper. If you want, you can write contracts which stipulate that nobody can join your commune unless they denounce the evil capitalist pigs and never buy anything from outside the commune, or whatever terms you want to impose in order to match your philosophy.

As a capitalist, my political views compel me to permit you to do whatever you want, as long as you don't steal from, harm, or commit fraud against anybody without their consent. Capitalism doesn't require you to do anything except refrain from those three activites.

Now, in a western pseudo-capitalist democracy like the USA or the United Kingdom, you would still have to pay tax and adhere to a lot of external regulation, but don't blame the capitalists for this - socialists are the ones who want higher taxes and more responsibility to the rest of society.

I, as a supporter of capitalism however, would have a far harder time in a communist state than a communist would under a capitalist system. I would be prevented from doing one of the only things I wanted to do - privately exchanging the products of my labour, time and property with other consenting individuals for other commodities which I needed.

Capitalism and Communism can peacefully coexist in an area where the prevailing philosophy of government is minimal intervention and very little regulation (the capitalist goal). They cannot do so in a communist system, where the prevailing government philosophy is one in which every citizen is expected to surrender all of their property and produce without argument and live according to other people's beliefs.

Communists - why can you not live and let live? The government style I propose permits you to live your life as you want and permits me to live mine as I want. The style you propose outlaws my way of life and forces yours onto everyone, myself included.



The idea you present; of a smaller communist society living within a larger capitalist society, is fundamentally flawed. It can be argued about which system provides greater increase in wealth across the whole of the population, and you will agree that efficient communism can be more productive overall than inefficient capitalism, and vice versa.

However, it is certain that individuals can always gain more faster in a capitalist society than in a communist society. The fact that the gap between the rich and poor will always widen is inevitable in capitalism. Now, it is true that the communists within their own society could survive, but they would be progressing as a society far less than certain parts of the capitalist society around them, namely the richest parts of that society.

Now you may find that many communists disagree with the idea of them turning more and more primitive by the standards of the highest capitalists. The result of this is that you will end up with a group of people living in a set of conditions that are considered poor in the extreme by the other group.

This is not an attemt to persaude any pure capitalist supporters to change to communism, but simply to show why the scenario presented of a communist society within a capitalist society is not one that any communists will want.
Jalula
26-04-2005, 19:04
The figures you gave about the top 0.1 percent of the richest people in America seem to underwrite my point that if our system is left unchecked it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. The top 0.1 percent earned less in the fifties and seventies than a century ago because of the Great Depression and as a consequence the introduction of social welfare. There was a 'New Deal' of money.

By the 50s even the residuals of the New Deal had faded. The Rich earned less in the 50's and 70's because there was more corporate responsibility - something we could use more of today. My main point remains, though, that this is a FLUCTUATING STATISTC, not a continually growing statistic, so there is no correlation between capitalism and "The rich getting richer."

As for the poorest in society you say that their national take is declining. There you have it. The rich have more and the poor less. That the poorest 10% have more than they had a few decades ago is inconsequential to the argument. Productivity has grown, but the profits of that growth has gone for the greater part to the rich. Surely, the working man benefits the economy? Than he has been robbed of his fair share as his wages haven't increased as much as overall productivity.

Yeah, the percentage take of the poorest declined, but NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE GETTING LESS, rather because everybody else was experiencing strong growth. As for why the poorest didn't experience the same strong growth, see below.

Someone already addressed the first part of your post, I'll address this part. Inflation has risen higher than average wages since 1970. The reason that the poor are making more now is because they're working more hours. The eight hour day is disappearing as a result of this.
The Employment Policy Foundation, a respected nonpartisan thinktank often cited by both the left and the right debunked this a few years ago. The only way average growth falls below inflation is using the classical CPI calculations -- which overestimated inflation an average of 1.3% between 1970 and 1999. After correcting for this, not only did median income rise, it grew steadily. Also, the income statistics calculate RATE, not total income, so the number of hours worked don't matter. It is true that the poorest income classes have had stagnant income growth over the same 30 year period, but often the lowest income classes are unemployed or part-time employed, and growth in income can't help those who aren't earning in the first place.
Which isn't saying the poor are lazy, or worthless, or we shouldn't do more to enable their success - just that the poor aren't getting worse off, and the rest of the country, rich and middle class alike are getting better off.

But the problem is that the capitalist system has the least amount of accountability, and therefore has the potential for the most corruption.

Capitalism and Socialism have nothing to do with the accountability (or even honesty) of individuals - they are Macro Economic Systems, not rules for corporate responsibilities to the public. Communism, however, with a goal of eventual removal of the government, would have NO ACCOUNTABILITY.
On a tangent, I don't think many folks would argue that after the explosive growth of the 90s we don't need a crackdown on corporate ethics, and perhaps even new legislation to make corporations more accountable. But increased accountability would be a function of democratic rule, not the economic system.
Jalula
26-04-2005, 19:13
Now, it is true that the communists within their own society could survive, but they would be progressing as a society far less than certain parts of the capitalist society around them, namely the richest parts of that society.


But we don't judge societies by the richest, but rather by the average. Since everyone in the commune should be at the average for the commune (definition of communism) then if the commune is lagging behind the national average isn't it a good indicator that they would do better - or at least would be more efficient - as capitalists?
Jalula
26-04-2005, 19:18
After bashing communism, I have decided I can't knock it untill I try it. Since I am a student, I am unemployed & borrowing heavily - around $10K a year (heavy for me, anyway.) Therefore, to convince me of the benifits, bounty, and beauty of the communist system, please take your gross salary, add $10K, divide by two, multiply by your original net divided by your original gross, and send me a check for that amount. Then we'll be equal! Won't that be grand, comrade?
Pyromanstahn
26-04-2005, 19:29
But we don't judge societies by the richest, but rather by the average. Since everyone in the commune should be at the average for the commune (definition of communism) then if the commune is lagging behind the national average isn't it a good indicator that they would do better - or at least would be more efficient - as capitalists?

I never said that the commune would neccesarily lag behind the average of the rest of society, merely that it would lag behind the richest, just as the rest of society that were not the richest would also lag behind them. That is the reason why it is not an ideal situation for communists to be in a commune within a communist society. If you assume that it is wrong in principle for one person to live in conditions far superior to another person, then it is wrong regardless of whether you have a group of people who are the same. It's a start, but it is not a scenario that satisfies the aims of communism.
Pyromanstahn
26-04-2005, 19:33
After bashing communism, I have decided I can't knock it untill I try it. Since I am a student, I am unemployed & borrowing heavily - around $10K a year (heavy for me, anyway.) Therefore, to convince me of the benifits, bounty, and beauty of the communist system, please take your gross salary, add $10K, divide by two, multiply by your original net divided by your original gross, and send me a check for that amount. Then we'll be equal! Won't that be grand, comrade?

That would be practising a principle designed for a communist society in a capitalist society.
Menari
26-04-2005, 19:42
Not only does it not work (unless of course by work you mean being propped up by vicious authoritarian dictatorships) the idea that you only exist at the good grace of the state, who hand you your life on a silver platter, simply disgusts me. I'll take freedom anyday, even if it means that my life has high and low economic points, rather than unflinching mediocrity at best.
Freudotopia
26-04-2005, 19:49
Hey, guess what's a flawed system of government that is based on impossible principles and therefore has no chance of working in the real world:


COMMUNISM

You can all go home now, the argument's over.
Menari
26-04-2005, 19:49
I suppose if it happened in an area with few natural resources, that might be a problem (See: Russia.) However, most of the world has some amount of natural resources, so it's unlikely that if it happened it wouldn't work.

Russia has a lack of natural resources? Have you ever seen a map?

They have caspian see oil reserves, some of the largest pockets of natural gass up north, more diamonds than south africa in the urals and parts of Siberia, etc.

The problem is that communism/socialism doesn't promote productivity, because the only incentive in a system with no material rewards is some kind of nationalist propoganda sense of goodwill and pride. Plus, since the peasants and miners who extract natural resources aren't even a part of the proletariat, they want no part in any revolution (except to steal the landlords property). Hence why collectivization is a constant theme in communist countries, and also the most bitterly opposed.
Hallad
26-04-2005, 20:18
He had already given up on the idea that people as we know them could implement it.

What are you talking about? And if your refering to Animal Farm and 1984, I'm going to shoot you. They weren't criticisms of Communism, they were criticisms of the USSR.
Vittos Ordination
26-04-2005, 20:29
Communism is a horrible idea.

Using revolution as a means to spread wealth is a cyclical idea that only leads to more revolution. Free market labor and capital trading as a means of wealth sharing is a constant.
Yahweh Sabbaoth
26-04-2005, 20:31
Some people say that religion and communism are incompatible. Opinions, anyone?

If you look at the descriptions in the Christian bible, it seems to say that they should sell land, etc., as the group had need, so no one would go without. The only person who was to truly be in control of this were men appointed by Christ, who is God. Therefore:

Communism (true communism) under the direction of a perfect God, and only by a perfect God, is the best method of government.

Problem: Humans suck, sin like crazy, and try to seize power... therefore - no system of communism (or of any government) will ever work until God himself comes down and lays the smackdown.
Incenjucarania
26-04-2005, 20:40
I never said that the commune would neccesarily lag behind the average of the rest of society, merely that it would lag behind the richest, just as the rest of society that were not the richest would also lag behind them. That is the reason why it is not an ideal situation for communists to be in a commune within a communist society. If you assume that it is wrong in principle for one person to live in conditions far superior to another person, then it is wrong regardless of whether you have a group of people who are the same. It's a start, but it is not a scenario that satisfies the aims of communism.

..Dude....

What you're saying is your way of life can't work so long as someone in the world is happier than you are, and has a bigger TV.

You're also showing why communism sucks. It's all about screwing someone else over so you feel better about yourself.
Pyromanstahn
26-04-2005, 20:47
..Dude....

What you're saying is your way of life can't work so long as someone in the world is happier than you are, and has a bigger TV.

You're also showing why communism sucks. It's all about screwing someone else over so you feel better about yourself.

No, capitalism is about screwing someone over. How can anyone be screwed over when we're all the same? And to clarify, while I don't want anyone to have a bigger tv than me, I also do not want to have a bigger tv than anyone else.
Vittos Ordination
26-04-2005, 20:53
No, capitalism is about screwing someone over. How can anyone be screwed over when we're all the same? And to clarify, while I don't want anyone to have a bigger tv than me, I also do not want to have a bigger tv than anyone else.

No, capitalism is defined by responsibility. If you do not recieve a fair wage, or you pay to much for a good, then you got yourself screwed over. You make your own decisions in a capitalistic system, so it is your own fault if you get screwed over. In communism you get screwed over by government and are forced to accept it.

In capitalism those who are of lesser ability harm themselves, while in a communism those of greater ability are harmed by government. Which is more fair?
Pyromanstahn
26-04-2005, 20:54
The problem is that communism/socialism doesn't promote productivity, because the only incentive in a system with no material rewards is some kind of nationalist propoganda sense of goodwill and pride. Plus, since the peasants and miners who extract natural resources aren't even a part of the proletariat, they want no part in any revolution (except to steal the landlords property). Hence why collectivization is a constant theme in communist countries, and also the most bitterly opposed.

You say that goodwill and pride is impossible without nationalism? It is not impossible for people to work other than for personal gain. Therefore, it is not always inevitable that it will not work.
Pyromanstahn
26-04-2005, 20:58
No, capitalism is defined by responsibility. If you do not recieve a fair wage, or you pay to much for a good, then you got yourself screwed over. You make your own decisions in a capitalistic system, so it is your own fault if you get screwed over. In communism you get screwed over by government and are forced to accept it.

In capitalism those who are of lesser ability harm themselves, while in a communism those of greater ability are harmed by government. Which is more fair?

In capitalism. you do not need the government to screw you over. Everyone else in perfectly capable of doing it on their own. Not being as adept at business as someone else does not mean it is your fault if they make a huge profit at your expense.
Pyromanstahn
26-04-2005, 20:59
Hey, guess what's a flawed system of government that is based on impossible principles and therefore has no chance of working in the real world:


COMMUNISM

You can all go home now, the argument's over.

Yeah, who needs justification and evidence when you can capitalise a word?
Pyromanstahn
26-04-2005, 21:00
Communism is a horrible idea.

Using revolution as a means to spread wealth is a cyclical idea that only leads to more revolution. Free market labor and capital trading as a means of wealth sharing is a constant.

Not all forms of communism rely on revolution. Democratic Communism is not a contradiction in terms.
Vittos Ordination
26-04-2005, 21:03
In capitalism. you do not need the government to screw you over. Everyone else in perfectly capable of doing it on their own. Not being as adept at business as someone else does not mean it is your fault if they make a huge profit at your expense.

Not everyone needs to be good at business in a capitalism, but everyone has the responsibility to educate themselves for the decisions they are making. One does not need to understand finance to know what the going rate for a particular model of car is. One doesn't have to understand accounting to know what the usual wage rate is for the job they are pursuing is. If you do start a business and lose your ass because of being unaware of how to run a business, that is your fault.
Pyromanstahn
26-04-2005, 21:05
Not everyone needs to be good at business in a capitalism, but everyone has the responsibility to educate themselves for the decisions they are making. One does not need to understand finance to know what the going rate for a particular model of car is. One doesn't have to understand accounting to know what the usual wage rate is for the job they are pursuing is. If you do start a business and lose your ass because of being unaware of how to run a business, that is your fault.

Yes, I accept that some people lose out in capitalism due to their own fault, but just as many if not more lose out due to no fault of their own.
Vittos Ordination
26-04-2005, 21:06
Not all forms of communism rely on revolution. Democratic Communism is not a contradiction in terms.

Explain to me your definition of democratic communism, and why it is better than capitalism. I need to know this before I can offer an opposing view.
Vittos Ordination
26-04-2005, 21:08
Yes, I accept that some people lose out in capitalism due to their own fault, but just as many if not more lose out due to no fault of their own.

If someone loses capital or labor through force or coersion, it is theft and not allowed in a capitalistic system. In fact, Adam Smith argued that theft is the worst crime you could commit in a capitalistic system.
Jello Biafra
26-04-2005, 21:09
Russia has a lack of natural resources? Have you ever seen a map?

They have caspian see oil reserves, some of the largest pockets of natural gass up north, more diamonds than south africa in the urals and parts of Siberia, etc.

The problem is that communism/socialism doesn't promote productivity, because the only incentive in a system with no material rewards is some kind of nationalist propoganda sense of goodwill and pride. Plus, since the peasants and miners who extract natural resources aren't even a part of the proletariat, they want no part in any revolution (except to steal the landlords property). Hence why collectivization is a constant theme in communist countries, and also the most bitterly opposed.Russia has very little shoreline on the Caspian Sea compared to the total shoreline of the Sea. This partially explains their land grabs. However, I should have been more careful and said that Russia has little arable farmland and left it at that.

Who said there are no material rewards in communism?
Republics of People
26-04-2005, 21:14
*first post*
Personally I think that communism is a great idea. Supposedly it's only perfect in theory, but I think that dicatatorship isn't a good compliment to communism. Communism would be perfect, except for dictators messing it up. A Communist Democracy would be best, and i mean a true democracy, not a democratic republic like the United States. Once I become a millioinaire and buy my own personal island in the Pacific, it will be a Communist Democracy.
Vittos Ordination
26-04-2005, 21:16
*first post*
Personally I think that communism is a great idea. Supposedly it's only perfect in theory, but I think that dicatatorship isn't a good compliment to communism. Communism would be perfect, except for dictators messing it up. A Communist Democracy would be best, and i mean a true democracy, not a democratic republic like the United States. Once I become a millioinaire and buy my own personal island in the Pacific, it will be a Communist Democracy.

When the largest distinguishable group votes to take all of your money for themselves and to boot you off of the island your views on democratic communism might change.
Jello Biafra
26-04-2005, 21:16
Capitalism and Socialism have nothing to do with the accountability (or even honesty) of individuals - they are Macro Economic Systems, not rules for corporate responsibilities to the public. Communism, however, with a goal of eventual removal of the government, would have NO ACCOUNTABILITY.
On a tangent, I don't think many folks would argue that after the explosive growth of the 90s we don't need a crackdown on corporate ethics, and perhaps even new legislation to make corporations more accountable. But increased accountability would be a function of democratic rule, not the economic system.
But economic systems and governments go hand in hand, especially if you replace one with the other. Mercantilism is a perfect example of an economic system mixed in with a government type.
Furthermore, if you eliminate the government, that maximizes accountability, as decisions would be made in a direct democratic manner (or perhaps some other manner, but I have yet to hear of what that would be).
Pyromanstahn
26-04-2005, 21:18
Explain to me your definition of democratic communism, and why it is better than capitalism. I need to know this before I can offer an opposing view.

A party gets voted into power, stating its intentions to do away with capitalism and form a communist state. It then gradually turns society from capitalism to communism.
Pyromanstahn
26-04-2005, 21:20
If someone loses capital or labor through force or coersion, it is theft and not allowed in a capitalistic system. In fact, Adam Smith argued that theft is the worst crime you could commit in a capitalistic system.

So if someone uses good business techniques to cripple someone else's business, is it the fault of the second person that they lost out?
Vittos Ordination
26-04-2005, 21:22
A party gets voted into power, stating its intentions to do away with capitalism and form a communist state. It then gradually turns society from capitalism to communism.

But how would communism be maintained under a democratic system? What stops the majority from claiming most of government resources through the democratic process?
Pyromanstahn
26-04-2005, 21:24
When the largest distinguishable group votes to take all of your money for themselves and to boot you off of the island your views on democratic communism might change.

They would not be being communists. A group of communists would take all of your money, then share it out so you get the same as everyone else (assuming they still want to use money). And if you were booted off the island, what would that have to do with communism?
Pyromanstahn
26-04-2005, 21:26
But how would communism be maintained under a democratic system? What stops the majority from claiming most of government resources through the democratic process?

I assume that the majority are communists.
Vittos Ordination
26-04-2005, 21:27
So if someone uses good business techniques to cripple someone else's business, is it the fault of the second person that they lost out?

Yes it is. If the person loses the labor and equity he has put into a business, it is through his own actions.

That scenario is also essential to the advancement of the economy and the society in general.

Also, how does communism rectify that situation? By not giving either a chance to have a successful business?
Vittos Ordination
26-04-2005, 21:32
They would not be being communists. A group of communists would take all of your money, then share it out so you get the same as everyone else (assuming they still want to use money). And if you were booted off the island, what would that have to do with communism?

Getting booted off the island would have nothing to do with communism and everything to do with democracy. Losing all of your possessions unfairly would be the communistic part of it.

I assume that the majority are communists.

Do you realize how unreasonable that assumption is? How many people in the US or your nation of residence espouse or even understand the various economic systems?