NationStates Jolt Archive

So by saying that Communism is based on a good idea is, in effect, saying that you do not value your rights as an individual.
W00t. :D

I see that you've replied to my original reply to this, which I will get to later, but I've thought of a modification.

All right, how about in a case where the fence purchases the property and then dies? Someone inherits the property. Then the police come for the new owner (the inheritor). Both people have a legal right to the piece of property:

The original owner has a legal right to not have his property stolen,
the new owner has a legal right to inherit property.

How would you rectify this situation?Whenever a thing is stolen the right of ownership remains with the person it was stolen from. But the burden of proof of ownership remains with him also. Should he satisfy that burden, his property should be returned. If you're buying stolen property knowingly, you at least deserve to lose out on whatever you paid for it. If have no clue that you are buying something that was stolen, you are the victim of fraud. Your heirs have no right to that property.

You're assuming that a group of people would be able to raise that kind of capital. I suppose they might be able to if they set up a charity of some kind, or if they simply have a lot of extra money to spend, but, alas, things don't always work that way.

I do, however, acknowledge that since you believe in social capitalism, and therefore some type of welfare, that that means companies will have to pay their employees more than a subsistence wage, and that they might be able to eventually save up enough money. This, of course, wasn't true back in the 1800s (and won't be true soon if the capitalists have their way)

I'm a capitalist. I'm just more than that, as well.

I think what we need is to set up two systems.

1) Proof of survival. Everyone gets enough of the most basic resources. You might end up with an insanely boring life, but schooling is one of those resources, so you decide whether or not you want to eat more than bland staple foods. You want a bag of cheetos, you go and work for it. Any situation leading to a different state, except where entirely elect (someone wants to die, basically), is grounds for intervention. This also includes health requirements, et cetera.

2) Proof of Profit. Companies must show that their employees are not only producing enough money to buy the services desired from Proof of survival, but they must show an adequate profit. It might be relatively minor, such as fifty bucks extra a week, but that IS enough to start saving up, pooling resources, or, if you're a putz, get cable TV instead of use it towards education. This profit needs to be above and beyond basic services. Phone, et cetera. However, the government should not intervene if people are just too stupid to use that profit wisely. So long as Proof of Survival is maintained, not their problem. This prevents situations like company stores and people being forced to work two jobs, unless there's some special situation, wherein the two companies have to correspond to come up to a profit.

However, I think this requires beating the crap out of Credit.

Debt is a bitch.

Hunting is okay under communism, but you have to share with your millions of comrades.

Clearly, I should start hunting people, and say, "Hey, comrade, no wasting!"

This is to all of the people who voted for the "Nice idea" option.

It is not based on a good idea, whatsoever. It is based on the idea that the society is a valuable entity and is tantamount to the individual. It sets a precedent that the will of the individual is of lesser importance than the overriding will of the state, and therefore will always open up the door for suppression of the individual and oppression over dessenters. The results of communism are obvious, as over 100 million people have been killed by communist governments over the last century.

So by saying that Communism is based on a good idea is, in effect, saying that you do not value your rights as an individual.
Not necessarily true VO. That may be the view of SOME, authoritarian communists, but the way I (and other anarcho-communists (and I'm sure varied other commies)) see it is that it is the right of the individual that are sacrosanct... Basically the idea is that if everyone has complete freedom society would be better for it. And self-sacrifice wouldn't be necessary.

A.2.16 Does anarchism require "perfect" people to work?
No. Anarchy is not a utopia, a "perfect" society. It will be a human society, with all the problems, hopes, and fears associated with human beings. Anarchists do not think that human beings need to be "perfect" for anarchy to work. They only need to be free. Thus Christie and Meltzer:

"[A] common fallacy [is] that revolutionary socialism [i.e. anarchism] is an 'idealisation' of the workers and [so] the mere recital of their present faults is a refutation of the class struggle . . . it seems morally unreasonable that a free society . . . could exist without moral or ethical perfection. But so far as the overthrow of [existing] society is concerned, we may ignore the fact of people's shortcomings and prejudices, so long as they do not become institutionalised. One may view without concern the fact . . . that the workers might achieve control of their places of work long before they had acquired the social graces of the 'intellectual' or shed all the prejudices of the present society from family discipline to xenophobia. What does it matter, so long as they can run industry without masters? Prejudices wither in freedom and only flourish while the social climate is favourable to them . . . What we say is . . . that once life can continue without imposed authority from above, and imposed authority cannot survive the withdrawal of labour from its service, the prejudices of authoritarianism will disappear. There is no cure for them other than the free process of education." [The Floodgates of Anarchy, pp. 36-7]

Obviously, though, we think that a free society will produce people who are more in tune with both their own and others individuality and needs, thus reducing individual conflict. Remaining disputes would be solved by reasonable methods, for example, the use of juries, mutual third parties, or community and workplace assemblies (see section I.5.8 for a discussion of how could be done for anti-social activities as well as disputes).

Like the "anarchism-is-against-human-nature" argument (see section A.2.15), opponents of anarchism usually assume "perfect" people -- people who are not corrupted by power when placed in positions of authority, people who are strangely unaffected by the distorting effects of hierarchy, privilege, and so forth. However, anarchists make no such claims about human perfection. We simply recognise that vesting power in the hands of one person or an elite is never a good idea, as people are not perfect.

It should be noted that the idea that anarchism requires a "new" (perfect) man or woman is often raised by the opponents of anarchism to discredit it (and, usually, to justify the retention of hierarchical authority, particularly capitalist relations of production). After all, people are not perfect and are unlikely ever to be. As such, they pounce on every example of a government falling and the resulting chaos to dismiss anarchism as unrealistic. The media loves to proclaim a country to be falling into "anarchy" whenever there is a disruption in "law and order" and looting takes place.

Anarchists are not impressed by this argument. A moment's reflection shows why, for the detractors make the basic mistake of assuming an anarchist society without anarchists! (A variation of such claims is raised by the right-wing "anarcho"-capitalists to discredit real anarchism. However, their "objection" discredits their own claim to be anarchists for they implicitly assume an anarchist society without anarchists!). Needless to say, an "anarchy" made up of people who still saw the need for authority, property and statism would soon become authoritarian (i.e. non-anarchist) again. This is because even if the government disappeared tomorrow, the same system would soon grow up again, because "the strength of the government rests not with itself, but with the people. A great tyrant may be a fool, and not a superman. His strength lies not in himself, but in the superstition of the people who think that it is right to obey him. So long as that superstition exists it is useless for some liberator to cut off the head of tyranny; the people will create another, for they have grown accustomed to rely on something outside themselves." [George Barrett, Objections to Anarchism, p. 355]

Hence Alexander Berkman:

"Our social institutions are founded on certain ideas; as long as the latter are generally believed, the institutions built on them are safe. Government remains strong because people think political authority and legal compulsion necessary. Capitalism will continue as long as such an economic system is considered adequate and just. The weakening of the ideas which support the evil and oppressive present day conditions means the ultimate breakdown of government and capitalism." [What is Anarchism?, p. xii]

In other words, anarchy needs anarchists in order to be created and survive. But these anarchists need not be perfect, just people who have freed themselves, by their own efforts, of the superstition that command-and-obedience relations and capitalist property rights are necessary. The implicit assumption in the idea that anarchy needs "perfect" people is that freedom will be given, not taken; hence the obvious conclusion follows that an anarchy requiring "perfect" people will fail. But this argument ignores the need for self-activity and self-liberation in order to create a free society. For anarchists, "history is nothing but a struggle between the rulers and the ruled, the oppressors and the oppressed." [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 85] Ideas change through struggle and, consequently, in the struggle against oppression and exploitation, we not only change the world, we change ourselves at the same time. So it is the struggle for freedom which creates people capable of taking the responsibility for their own lives, communities and planet. People capable of living as equals in a free society, so making anarchy possible.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA2.html#seca216

Apologies for the length of that.

I'm a capitalist. I'm just more than that, as well.

I think what we need is to set up two systems.

1) Proof of survival. Everyone gets enough of the most basic resources. You might end up with an insanely boring life, but schooling is one of those resources, so you decide whether or not you want to eat more than bland staple foods. You want a bag of cheetos, you go and work for it. Any situation leading to a different state, except where entirely elect (someone wants to die, basically), is grounds for intervention. This also includes health requirements, et cetera.

2) Proof of Profit. Companies must show that their employees are not only producing enough money to buy the services desired from Proof of survival, but they must show an adequate profit. It might be relatively minor, such as fifty bucks extra a week, but that IS enough to start saving up, pooling resources, or, if you're a putz, get cable TV instead of use it towards education. This profit needs to be above and beyond basic services. Phone, et cetera. However, the government should not intervene if people are just too stupid to use that profit wisely. So long as Proof of Survival is maintained, not their problem. This prevents situations like company stores and people being forced to work two jobs, unless there's some special situation, wherein the two companies have to correspond to come up to a profit.

However, I think this requires beating the crap out of Credit.

Debt is a bitch.While that system isn't perfect (IMHO), it is light years ahead of what we have now.

Communism is an inefficient system, yet people seem to think they'll be able to produce technology at a better rate than we currently do?
While capitalism has been great at producing new technology, a good portion of it has been pretty useless. Which brings us to:

Where is this technology? You think if they haven't created the technology to clean people's toilets and collect the garbage by now, that they can just suddenly make it appear?
Maybe if scientists weren't spending so much time creating useless technology, they'd have invented it already.

Most quantum physicists aren't real good at hard labour [so I assume from their puny pencil-neck geek appearences] so why make them do it and give half their work to a guy who didn't finish high school?I won't go into a quantum physicist, because it's a bit harder to explain, so let's substitute doctor for quantum physicist. Any doctor worth his salt would be able to convince the commune that he's just too busy to do his share of the sewer work. (Provided there's a high enough demand for his services.) Then the commune would divide his share of the sewer work up among the rest of them. However, it's unlikely that this type of thing would happen often.

I'm an unorthodox anarcho-syndicalist so... I voted that normal communism is a bad idea. I belive that anarcho-communism could work better then anarcho-collectivism.
It can be strange but I'm a Christian <I belive in Christ's teachings>.

Che Guevara is a hero to people all around the world. How dare you call Che a murderer! If anything the Americans are murderers for getting bolivians to kill him! VIVE ERNESTO CHE GUEVARA!!!

Grow up. Guevara and Castro sent thousands of innocent cubans to their graves and enslaved thousands more.

America isn't blameless, but mass genocide against their own people is something which American governments have always managed to avoid.

Marxism is more than the political exerpt people like Lenin and Mao made of it. It is not as much a ideal or a political dream as a way of looking at reality. In political science marxism has made a serious contribution over the last decades and should be given the credit it deserves as such and it should not be judged purely on the paranoia of people like Stalin. The problem is that especially political marxism (communism) is basically the most rational and logical form of government you can think of, but it collided with human emotions like fear and laziness, which are not rational and therefore very disruptive for communism. On the other hand there is Nazism which basically is the direct opposite of communism and based on emotions, but went so far with its emotions it developed an entire kind of logic on its own, which derailed.

Che Guevara is a hero to people all around the world.
I've seen those people- and I'm so not impressed.

Communism: Heart in the right place but simply does not work. A few points.

1. USSR etc, failed. China, moving toward capitalist markets.

2. Far less productive. Almost every peice of emperical evidence suggests publicly run services cost more than it would in the private sector. Dont' under estimate the human need to make a buck, ie free markets provide incentives (ie profits) for more efficient production.

3. Central control. Supply is governed by central planners. Who tend to get it wrong due to the vast amoung of data and intelect needed to get it right :confused: . Free markets demand drives supply. Effectively, suppliers supply only enough that is needed. Another example is EU farm subsidy, government intervention has distorted the market, over production has caused falling prices (thus sudsidies have little effect) and grain mountains. Also rationing in communist states. Ie central planners, decide how much rice you need then multiply by population, when everyone is different. small errors in avg. rice needs get multiplied millions of times over when getting total production (thats if their not using the trial and error approach :gundge: )

4. Communism relies on firm control of all aspects of the ecomony etc to enable central planners to put plans into effect. As such policy is dominated by few individuals (at all levels). So if you don't like the direction of policy, then tough. Corruption is rife. :mp5:


There are many good points to communism and its ideals. But it is just too difficult to get right. (BTW I was born in Vietnam, and my parents have first hand experience of living in and Fleeing from a communist state)

Communism relies on the fact that people are essentially good. . .
Anyone spot the problem there?

To be honest, most political philosophies have fundamentally good intentions behind them. Essentially all philosophies are trying to make the world a better place, it's just definitions of "a better place" radically differ.

I think it is probably possible that we will slowly become stable communist countries in the future. For example, we in the UK don't really have capitalism any more, we have a type of capitalist/socailist hybrid system. As time goes by full blown socailism is not out of the question, and so on and so on.
Also, in the future, with declining resources and growing populations it might be nessicary to become radically more utilitarian in order to survive.

It depends on how you mean it. Communism is a vague term, really. It is used to refer to a number of things. Communism in its original sense, to mean a society where social classes and government have dissappeared, is a good thing, but the totalitarian societies mistakenly refered to as communist aren't.

I think it is probably possible that we will slowly become stable communist countries in the future. For example, we in the UK don't really have capitalism any more, we have a type of capitalist/socailist hybrid system. As time goes by full blown socailism is not out of the question, and so on and so on.
Also, in the future, with declining resources and growing populations it might be nessicary to become radically more utilitarian in order to survive.

In the UK capitalism is alive and well. We're quite heavily regulated, but the vast majority of the economy is still private.

As for declining resources, I'd muse that in this situation people will become less, not more, organized and ordered. Shortages would drive people to grab what they could while they could, eventually resulting in the plundering, pillaging variation of anarchy (as oppose to the happy one).

Communism can be a good idea, but the way Staline and Lenie and the Bolcheviks imposed it wasn't ... say... sweet ...

I didn't read alll 35 pages, but since communism is sort of an idealogy that we all work to better everything around us because we own nothing, if a few gets lazy, then it crumbles.

So regular communism is a bad idea.

This is because the end stage in Marx's political theory is an impossible dream. The reason communism has only ever been implemented in its most basic preliminary forms is that these forms utterly destroy the nation on which communism is being attempted, long before the worker's paradise scenario has a chance to kick in.

Exactly!

While that system isn't perfect (IMHO), it is light years ahead of what we have now.


Imperfect, certainly. Considering it took me a few seconds to devise.

But, eh. I think its the direction we should head.

I think it is probably possible that we will slowly become stable communist countries in the future. For example, we in the UK don't really have capitalism any more, we have a type of capitalist/socailist hybrid system. As time goes by full blown socailism is not out of the question, and so on and so on.
Also, in the future, with declining resources and growing populations it might be nessicary to become radically more utilitarian in order to survive.Communism is more utilitarian?

Communism relies on the fact that people are essentially good. . .
Anyone spot the problem there?Perhaps if you happen to elect someone and give them a lot of power, you would be relying on them being essentially good. However, Preebles' anarchism post deals with this, and well, I might add.

I agree that the UK does have a hybrid system, look at the NHS for instance. However, it is highly unlikely that the will move toward a socialist system let alone get there.

Labour has dropped socialism (by giving much more weight to liberial economics in there transformation to New Labour). Tories are by definition are not socialists. Libdems although may appear to be the party furthest to the left, currently they are are far left as they are going to be, there also appears to be a redressing of the balance between social liberalism and econimic liberalism (move back to dead center) for the LimDems. (see the "Orange book" authored by infulential up andcoming LimDem MPs)

communism is like religions: a lot of generous ideas, but in practice a lot of atrocities. Moreover the belief that humans must grow worlwide and exlpoit everything possible, shared by communists and capitalists, is a huge mistake in my opinion. :rolleyes:

The ideals of communism: equality, solidarity with the working class are nice, but its a fucked-up system. Its Totalitarian and uses terror to enforce its own people. It is an enemy of Democracy and therefor it is my job as a citizen and patriot of the United States to fight Communism wherever it is (aka China)

The ideals of communism: equality, solidarity with the working class are nice, but its a fucked-up system. Its [sic] Totalitarian [sic] and uses terror to enforce its own people. It is an enemy of Democracy and therefor[sic] it is my job as a citizen and patriot of the United States to fight Communism wherever it is (aka China)

As opposed to the scare tactics Bush is applying on us? What is the difference between your supposed "terror" used in Communist countries and the supposed "terror" and "eminent" terror threats to control the American public. If you look at the Republican tactics used by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and others to control us? And it is not your job as a citizen and your questionable use of the word patriot of teh United States to fight Communism. We tried and we kind of lost two out of three wars fighting the so-called "red stain." Why aren't we fighting the "red stain" in our own country? Go on, McCarthy, I support your every move.

Ignorance is Strength

The thing about America.

You can leave.

Not so in world-wide communism, which most seem to claim is required.

The thing about America.

You can leave.

Not so in world-wide communism, which most seem to claim is required.
Bit hard to avoid capitalism though, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Even in "red China" or apparently Communist Cuba.

Bit hard to avoid capitalism though, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Even in "red China" or apparently Communist Cuba.

It is not hard to avoid capitalism if you really want to.

Bit hard to avoid capitalism though, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Even in "red China" or apparently Communist Cuba.

That's their choice though. No-one is making them be capitalist. (Well, Cuba maybe, but not China).

Bit hard to avoid capitalism though, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Even in "red China" or apparently Communist Cuba.

If the Amish can avoid it INSIDE of America, why the hell can't people do it on their own?

Is communism that weak?

It is not hard to avoid capitalism if you really want to.
Yeah, by going to live like a recluse in the mountains. Real practical.

And of course economic (and political) pressure has noooo bearing on why China and Cuba have become more capitalistic. None whatso-bloody-ever. :rolleyes:

Yeah, by going to live like a recluse in the mountains. Real practical.

And of course economic (and political) pressure has noooo bearing on why China and Cuba have become more capitalistic. None whatso-bloody-ever. :rolleyes:

If you want to be seperate from society, you have to be seperate from society.

Why is this an issue?

You can ONLY be happy if you take someone else's land?

If you want to be seperate from society, you have to be seperate from society.

Why is this an issue?

You can ONLY be happy if you take someone else's land?
That logic negates your first point though; since if people wanted to exist capitalistically in a communist (anarchist) world, they would have to exist separately from society.

Same shit.

well to "comun" is more long the idea of the bater system, i make friut, you make shoes, i will trade fruit for shoes, or an apple maker and a orange maker trading fruit to gain.

The Idea of it is a great one, where nothing is fought over, and people resepect eachother. The problem with that, is that its all based on trust. That you won't be screwed.

About the only way you can pull it off is have a tax type thing where, you have everyone contribute. Like everyone in a village giving some food to cook in a pot.

While the idea is nice, the logisics behind it does not work for large scale use. Villages pre-modern are about the only true communist socity. At least in the way I view what it is.

That logic negates your first point though; since if people wanted to exist capitalistically in a communist (anarchist) world, they would have to exist separately from society.

Same shit.

Nope.

The difference is, most people on here say that communism requires that there be no exceptions.

Capitalism has no such demand.

And of course economic (and political) pressure has noooo bearing on why China and Cuba have become more capitalistic. None whatso-bloody-ever. :rolleyes:

Nobody, since 1949, has been able to make China do anything. Plus, they will go to war with their neighbors at a drop of a hat. Christ, they even fought a war with the USSR over a sand-bank. Stop revising history to suit your ideology. No one is "making" them capitalist, and they could stop anytime they - well actually their leadership since the people don't get much of a say in anything - want.

And before anyone can touts communism, they should at least explain how a barter economy can produce an MRI machine, or a laptop.

And before anyone can touts communism, they should at least explain how a barter economy can produce an MRI machine, or a laptop.
Step 1) Someone in the society says "Boy, we really need a computer that's smaller."

Step 2) Someone else says "I agree." The society votes on it and decides to allocate resources to inventing a computer that's smaller.

Step N) Voila! A Laptop computer!

Yes, of course, I skipped a bunch of steps, and if you want them to be explained I'll be happy to. But it's absurd to think that no one will think to invent something just because they can't personally make a profit on it. How many inventions were invented simply because someone wanted to make their own life easier? Quite a few.

Whilst I agree whith Jello that communist systems does not mean there will be no inovation there will be far fewer steps

eg.

Step 1) We can make alot of money by making smaller computers.

Step 2) We take a loan (or use existing fund in your corporation) and pend money on researching smaller computers.

Step 3) Make smaller computers.


So capitailism is much more efficient, meaning more funds for other innovations. Also one last point, (on a national basis) do communist countries hold referendums on resource allocation???

Yeah, by going to live like a recluse in the mountains. Real practical.

And of course economic (and political) pressure has noooo bearing on why China and Cuba have become more capitalistic. None whatso-bloody-ever. :rolleyes:

There is nothing stopping a group of farmers from pooling all of their resources and revenues and living communally.

Step 1) Someone in the society says "Boy, we really need a computer that's smaller."

Step 2) Someone else says "I agree." The society votes on it and decides to allocate resources to inventing a computer that's smaller.

Step N) Voila! A Laptop computer!

There is no way the economy can afford to give laptop computers to everyone. But laptop computers are a bad example I guess, as they are more of a convenience good, than utility good, and there is no way a communistic economy would produce convenience goods.

Yes, of course, I skipped a bunch of steps, and if you want them to be explained I'll be happy to. But it's absurd to think that no one will think to invent something just because they can't personally make a profit on it. How many inventions were invented simply because someone wanted to make their own life easier? Quite a few.

I'm sure you realize the amount of technical R & D that goes into new inventions and innovations in the technological field. It is not just that one guy thinks, "Man, I should go out and make my computer faster." It takes millions of manhours and millions of dollars. Now if you can show that society will be forward looking enough to vote to spend these millions of dollars on something like faster computers then maybe you can be right about technological innovation.

There is nothing stopping a group of farmers from pooling all of their resources and revenues and living communally.
Um, taxes? Oh, and they'd form a rather backward community, since they'd start with nothing, and wouldn't have the means, resources or skills to produce things...
They would not be a... fully fledged community of 2005 is what I'm getting at.

Um, taxes?

Oh come on. You can't possibly blame capitalists for taxation, we're constantly trying to reduce it. Socialists and communists are always pushing for higher taxation.


Oh, and they'd form a rather backward community, since they'd start with nothing, and wouldn't have the means, resources or skills to produce things...
They would not be a... fully fledged community of 2005 is what I'm getting at.


Why would they be backward in the way you describe? Unless they were all totally destitute when they started out their pooling program, they'd have access to all the wealth and goods which they already owned, and access to the technical knowledge of the present day. (Also, if they're farmers, as they were in Vittos's suggestion, I'd assume that they'd already have a fair amount of farming-related knowledge under their belts, so they would have the means, resources and skills to produce things)

Hello,

I opted for Communism is a nice idea. I's a nice idea in many ways but Communist States simply dont work.

100 Million people dead. I dont need to say any more than that.

And dont start with this 'oh but REAL Communism has never been applied before' crap. How many countries have tried this great experiement? 17 or so? Surely at least one of those 17 countries would have got it right?

How come Cuba has had over 2 Million exiles and people wanted to escape Cuba ever year? I dont see any Cubans returning to Cuba once they have escaped? None.

Communism has failed and thats the hard truth. Countries like China have adopted capitalism and are becoming more Fascist because Communism failed them.

[QUOTE=Dogburg]Oh come on. You can't possibly blame capitalists for taxation, we're constantly trying to reduce it. Socialists and communists are always pushing for higher taxation.[QUOTE]Thats right as Communist Countries constantly bankrupt themselves becuase they cant get needed Cash that they need from anywhere else!

Communism: A one-party government. Not to be confused with socialism, where all people are paid the same, prices for certain objects are set at a universal standerd, and where evryone is equal in economic power...which is usually none.

Hello,

I opted for Communism is a nice idea. I's a nice idea in many ways but Communist States simply dont work.

100 Million people dead. I dont need to say any more than that.

And dont start with this 'oh but REAL Communism has never been applied before' crap. How many countries have tried this great experiement? 17 or so? Surely at least one of those 17 countries would have got it right?

How come Cuba has had over 2 Million exiles and people wanted to escape Cuba ever year? I dont see any Cubans returning to Cuba once they have escaped? None.

Communism has failed and thats the hard truth. Countries like China have adopted capitalism and are becoming more Fascist because Communism failed them.

100 million people dead isn't a failure, it's a success!

EDIT: i don't mean the starved people, or any ofthem, only the ones killed in war or killed by the government because of wronge beliefs or they didn't support the government.

100 million people dead isn't a failure, it's a success!

EDIT: i don't mean the starved people, or any ofthem, only the ones killed in war or killed by the government because of wronge beliefs or they didn't support the government.Even if those people all 100 Million of them, are say for example(and they arent) all power hungry Rich-Capitalist snobs.

It still wouldnt make it right. No matter how noble or well intended Communism is.

Even if those people all 100 Million of them, are say for example(and they arent) all power hungry Rich-Capitalist snobs.

It still wouldnt make it right. No matter how noble or well intended Communism is.

I trust you know nothing of socialism.

If the USSR hadnt gotten all caught up in the arms race and focused on the issues they had at home, IF they really wanted to have true communism, they could have done it, but the US got them in the arms race so the public payed the price for the governments attempt to keep up and seem equal. Communism works but the rulers have the be able to put up with the fact they wont be first in the world while moving toward true communism. Only after would the be the best in the world.

Marxism, in theory, works. The Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, the leaders all abused their powers. But Vietnam is doing a bang-up job of not having a dictator for a leader.

Marxism, in theory, works.

That is a totally unsubstantiated comment.

Oh come on. You can't possibly blame capitalists for taxation, we're constantly trying to reduce it. Socialists and communists are always pushing for higher taxation.

His point was that if farmers in a capitalist society decided to live communally they would have to pay taxes to the state without getting anything in return. Communist and sociallist governments (obviously) tax higher than capitalist ones. However they also give the people of their country everything they need where capitalists give very, very few necesaties.

For farmers living communally in a capitalist society, taxes would act as a drain to their community (much like the army did for the USSR) whereas in a society where the government provides for the farmers, the farmers lose nothing through paying taxes because they get back everything they give in whatever form they need it (be it equipment they cannot manufacture, truck drivers to take their goods elsewhere, foods that they do not grow themselves or national defense)

What do you believe communism is?

Once a form of pure Communism is used in a real life nation, then we can get a real answear. Until then, it's really just speculation and opinon. In almost every case an oppresive leader has been in charge ex U.S.S.R. under Stalin and sometimes, it just hasn't worked, ex Great Leap Forward in China.

Communism is a kind of militant political organization advocated in Karl Marx's writings from the 19th century. However, that's not what we're discussing. This thread brings in history, philosophy and 100 years of media spin by all parts of the political spectrum. No one's on the same wavelength because everyone has preconceived notions of it from a wide array of different sources. Moreover, communism is dead. The only major power that is alledgedly "communist" is China, which in no one can argue is Marxist in spirit or in law. Let's just say Rest in Peace, comrade.

Marxism, in theory, works.
Nothing works "in theory". For something to work it would have to be in reality. :p

Once a form of pure Communism is used in a real life nation, then we can get a real answear.
...and until then we can simply deny that any failed attempt of practically implementing Marxist ideas was "pure" enough :rolleyes:

His point was that if farmers in a capitalist society decided to live communally they would have to pay taxes to the state without getting anything in return. Communist and sociallist governments (obviously) tax higher than capitalist ones. However they also give the people of their country everything they need where capitalists give very, very few necesaties.

For farmers living communally in a capitalist society, taxes would act as a drain to their community (much like the army did for the USSR) whereas in a society where the government provides for the farmers, the farmers lose nothing through paying taxes because they get back everything they give in whatever form they need it (be it equipment they cannot manufacture, truck drivers to take their goods elsewhere, foods that they do not grow themselves or national defense)

They get a REDUCED use, this is true. But they still certainly get a benefit of being surrounded by hundreds of mile of barrier and military, having the safety cushion of the capitalist nation if they fail, and being able to make use of that capitalist nation in a pinch. You can also use the same school system and so forth, and everything else, while maintaining your communal existance as far as work is concerned. And if you're focusing on farming, you can even get subsidies and such until your commune is entirely on its own feet.

You get to grab from the best of both systems, and if the new one fails, you're not entirely screwed.

Again, Amish manage pretty well.

Communism made the former Soviet Union the economic powerhouse it is today.

Communism made the former Soviet Union the economic powerhouse it is today.

It brought down capitalism in the west.

Communism made the former Soviet Union the economic powerhouse it is today.
LOL! :D

There is no way the economy can afford to give laptop computers to everyone. But laptop computers are a bad example I guess, as they are more of a convenience good, than utility good, and there is no way a communistic economy would produce convenience goods.
Yes, it is unlikely that a communistic economy would produce convenience goods, however I think that if one lasts long enough and has a steady surplus that it would be possible. But most likely everyone wouldn't have their own laptop, they'd be in cybercafes or something and people would use them at set times of the day.

I'm sure you realize the amount of technical R & D that goes into new inventions and innovations in the technological field. It is not just that one guy thinks, "Man, I should go out and make my computer faster." It takes millions of manhours and millions of dollars. Now if you can show that society will be forward looking enough to vote to spend these millions of dollars on something like faster computers then maybe you can be right about technological innovation.Hm. Well, as you said, faster computers are more of a convenience, however I do think a communistic society might spend millions of dollars on making hydroelectric generators smaller and able to get power from rainwater, or perhaps the SewerBot that FreeSoviets mentioned. The only examples I can give are from psuedo-communistic countries like the Soviet Union spending all that money on the space race. But of course, that was the government's, and not the people's decision.

Like I said in that other thread about Communism, the fundamental flaws of Marxism is the inadequacy of the class system view and Marx's ridiculous deifnition of work.

1)Class system problem:

The Communist Manifesto contains the following footnote:

By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labor.

By proletariat, the class of modern wage laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live. [Note by Engels - 1888 English edition]

In other words, whoever owns the means of production, is bourgeosie, and any worker on salary is proletariat.

Where is the problem? Well, it's quite obvious. Which category does George Bush fall into? He sure doesn't own his means of production- but does he look like proletariat to you? Same with lawyers, surgeons, TV hosts, scientists, computer experts and virtually any high income wage earner- they are NOT "proletariat" and their class interests clearly coincide with those of the "bourgeosie" rather than with those of the factory workers. Marxist class system, simply put, describes nothing, it is an artificial, oversimplified and totally inadequate theory.

2)What is work?

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx says literally the following:

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those who acquire anything, do not work.

So, the bourgeosie "does not work". That is, being a banker, a publisher, a factory owner or a stock broker does not constitute work, even though these people have not a minute of free time and spend countless sleepless nights analysing the market, planning production, making deals, examining legal aspects of trade, etc. In other words, for Marx only manual labor is labor, while intellectual labor is not. This is why his class system is so inadequate and this is why his whole economic theory is a fraud.

Like I said in that other thread about Communism, the fundamental flaws of Marxism is the inadequacy of the class system view and Marx's ridiculous deifnition of work.
Agreed, it is oversimplified. Maybe he explained it in more detail in Das Kapital or another book?

Agreed, it is oversimplified. Maybe he explained it in more detail in Das Kapital or another book?
Yes he did, but the basics remain the same. Marx has since been criticized for these flaws by many a researcher. Moreover, a whole philosophical school was born out of desperate attempts to explain away Marx's biggest failure- the fact that the revolution as predicted by Marx did not happen, and the social dynamics turned out to be different from his description. They were known as the neo-Marxists, the Critical Theorists or the Frankfurters, most prominent of them being Adorno and Walter Benjamin. However, even they were forced to admit that their theories have no practical application whatsoever.

Communism is a perfectly good example of theory being imposed upon reality, with rather pathetic results.

The need for a redefinition of all human relations throughout history by Communist historians shows the inadequecy of the movement. Entire chapters of history had to be ignored because they didn't support communist idealology. The whole theory is flawed to the core, failing to take into account numerous realities that call its precepts into question.

Furthermore its failed at every opportunity already. Certainly a century of failure is enough to convince people? If the theory is so flawed it cannot even be produced correctly in the first place after a solid century to work with, its a flawed concept.

Yes he did, but the basics remain the same. Marx has since been criticized for these flaws by many a researcher. Moreover, a whole philosophical school was born out of desperate attempts to explain away Marx's biggest failure- the fact that the revolution as predicted by Marx did not happen, and the social dynamics turned out to be different from his description. They were known as the neo-Marxists, the Critical Theorists or the Frankfurters, most prominent of them being Adorno and Walter Benjamin. However, even they were forced to admit that their theories have no practical application whatsoever.I've heard many people claim that the revolution would have happened in the US in the '30s had FDR not implemented the New Deal. I don't know if that's true or not, but I doubt that Marx thought of the idea of government intervention.
Which brings me to the point that Marxist theory needs to be revised and updated for the 21st century...with practical applications.

If the USSR hadnt gotten all caught up in the arms race and focused on the issues they had at home, IF they really wanted to have true communism, they could have done it, but the US got them in the arms race so the public payed the price for the governments attempt to keep up and seem equal. Communism works but the rulers have the be able to put up with the fact they wont be first in the world while moving toward true communism. Only after would the be the best in the world.
Right. The arms race.

It's sad. The Reaganites think they're responsible for killing communism and so do the communists.


"We are fifty to one hundred years behind the leading countries. We must make up this distance in ten years . Either we do it, or we shall perish." - Josef Stalin
And Perish they did.

That is a totally unsubstantiated comment.
Anything can work "in theory" as long as the theory's somehow inaccurate or incomplete.

Basically, communism assumes that the entire planet works in a factory run by ten lazy bastards who never get out of bed, but still somehow control them. :D

Communism works, it's just human nature that makes fail.