NationStates Jolt Archive

Most of the arguments that people make on these things against communism are in favor of capitalism. however communism in its final form shares many, many aspects with capitalism, tiny governement, everyone being free etc.

however communism also shares many aspects with a fascist dictatorship which is generaly regarded as the extreme right wing

so i was jsut wondering what people thought is the polar opposite of communism

Communism is not a unified movement. I swing between ultra-socialism and anarcho-communism regularly and they are quite different worldviews. Anarcho-communism relies on a 'gift' economy where people provide for each other with no actual 'trade' which makes it the antithesis of capitalism.

Anarcho-communism is pretty much the 'pure' communism that Marx espoused but various branches like Trotskyism, Leninism and Maoism have decided it better to have dictatorial government which brings them rather closer to capitalism than they would care to admit.

So communism has no polar opposite. Capitalism is close.

I am fairly sure that the opposite of Communism is Libertarianism.

It's the opposite of a government that works.

Isnt communism supposed to be where everyone is free

and i didnt state a particular branch of communism on purpose to see how diferent people would interpret it

Communism as an economic policy naturally lends itself to an autocratic bureaucracy, because it is a basic requirement to make it function. Therefore, communism on a national scale always leads to governments which are authoritarian on both economic and social scales, rendering it the polar opposite of libertarianism.

As I say, pure anarcho-communism would be free and libertarian. It would also work if people realised that they don't have to be capitalist to enjoy life.

Other branches will naturally find themselves unpopular and be forced to crack down on threats within the state, Juche, Stalinism and Maoism have all had this.

By definition, capitalism. You could make the debate more complicated by mentioning various communist factions (Marxism being against organized religion), but the self-evident answer is capitalism.

These days Communists rarely bother with religion. It isn't the power it was. Most attack the major entertainments/media instead.

I myself feel that religion, media and entertainment have their places in a good society but in this society they can be manipulated.

Argh, too much thinking.

Argh, too much thinking.

Heh. It doesn't really take that much, like I've said, unless you want to make it overly complicated.

so it sounds like in their perfect form, all political theories work out the same, with everyone happy, fed, housed, free, and skipping through green feilds

does this mean that political theories only disagree in methods? Are they al working to the same goal?

Communism like most ideologies blends with a variet of shared doctrines, i sur if argued it was the opposite of somthing you could always find arguments for and against. Its like askkin where does a circle start.

By definition, capitalism. You could make the debate more complicated by mentioning various communist factions (Marxism being against organized religion), but the self-evident answer is capitalism.

but in both communism and capitalism, people get up, work enough to provide for themselves and their families, have an amount of leisure time depending on how the economy is doing, and then go to sleep in their beds, which will all be the same except for a few lucky capitalists, sounds pretty similar

Communism like most ideologies blends with a variet of shared doctrines, i sur if argued it was the opposite of somthing you could always find arguments for and against. Its like askkin where does a circle start.

ya a circle, and everyones jsut trying to get to the middle where everyones happy right?

Well since that's a basi human NEED it's unsurprising. The difference is that under communism you do not need to work '9-5' you need only work as long as it needs to do a job.

Well since that's a basi human NEED it's unsurprising. The difference is that under communism you do not need to work '9-5' you need only work as long as it needs to do a job.

Which typically meant 17 hours for a 15 minute task.

Isnt communism supposed to be where everyone is free

and i didnt state a particular branch of communism on purpose to see how diferent people would interpret it

communism severely limits financial freedom... so in that sense, no, it isn't.

Both are an effort towards anarchy. They go about that goal in opposing ways.

Capitalism does it by adding more rights and responsibilities and allowing society to change, communism does it by revoking rights and responsibilities and forcing society to change.

That is why I fundamentally oppose communism, and why I don't understand people who uphold communistic views.

Well since that's a basi human NEED it's unsurprising. The difference is that under communism you do not need to work '9-5' you need only work as long as it needs to do a job.

i live in a capitalist country and both my parents work 8-6...... so what are you talking about. i dont know many people who can make a decent living with aa family working less than 8 hrs a day

Communism and capitalism are only two ends of the political spectrum. Economically speaking they are complete polar opposites. However, they are not always different on the authoritarian/libertarian line. Anarchists share many similar views on governments to libertarians, for example and both groups are the opposites economically. So to make this clear
The opposite of conservatism is anarcho-communism, trotskyism and left communism
The opposite of libertarianism is Stalinism, comunitarianism and national bolshevism

The opposite of libertarianism is ... national bolshevism

though i do think the libertarian party could do better than they do currently if they put up a page on their website with pictures of their 'combat girlfriends'.

though i do think the libertarian party could do better than they do currently if they put up a page on their website with pictures of their 'combat girlfriends'.

Yeah, and they should start doing some direct action like occupying the.... Wait. What DO the middle classes occupy when they want to make a point? A wimbledon match?

Yeah, and they should start doing some direct action like occupying the.... Wait. What DO the middle classes occupy when they want to make a point? A wimbledon match?

the 'busses only' lanes?

Honestly, it's more the opposite of an anarchy, since it would require an omni-present government.

Honestly, it's more the opposite of an anarchy, since it would require an omni-present government.

communism = stateless and classless society. no leninist/stalinist country ever claimed to have achieved communism

Monopoly capitalism feels like communism. That I can tell you.

the 'busses only' lanes?
Mercedes 4 by 4's?

if by communism you mean a state run economy

if by capitalism you mean a free market economy

they might be opposites

if by communism you mean china

if by capitalism you mean the united states

not so much so.

i live in a capitalist country and both my parents work 8-6...... so what are you talking about. i dont know many people who can make a decent living with aa family working less than 8 hrs a day

*Sigh*

Do you need 8 (or ten if that's what your overlords make you do) hours a day to get enough food to eat? No, you don't, not in the real world, if you were a hunter you could have weeks-worth of food in a few hours hunting. I bet you could do as much as you do in your job in far less time if you weren't given a time limit to spin your job out into, I know that almost every job I get I would have been more productive without a time limit because I just slacked as much as I could in the time-frame.

Mercedes 4 by 4's?

"we demand the use of wider lanes for our imitation off-road vehicles! no convenience, no peace!"

communism = stateless and classless society. no leninist/stalinist country ever claimed to have achieved communism

One big giant global state is still a state.

If you can't become rich, there are laws.

If there are laws, there's a government.

If there's a government, there's a state.

And a government needed to keep everyone from becoming rich would have to be HUGE and pervasive as hell.

Thus, it's the opposite of an anarchy, which has no government.

Anarchy does not require a lack of 'class', however. Class would just be wholly based on wealth, rather than political power.

I bet you could do as much as you do in your job in far less time if you weren't given a time limit to spin your job out into, I know that almost every job I get I would have been more productive without a time limit because I just slacked as much as I could in the time-frame.

what's funny is that we know for an absolute fact that hourly wage labor is just about the least effective, most inefficient way to run things. i'm confused as to why anybody still uses it. of course, we also know that human beings just aren't productive as early in the morning as we make them show up to work either. makes me suspect that either the bosses are really dumb, or they have other motivations.

*Sigh*

Do you need 8 (or ten if that's what your overlords make you do) hours a day to get enough food to eat? No, you don't, not in the real world, if you were a hunter you could have weeks-worth of food in a few hours hunting. I bet you could do as much as you do in your job in far less time if you weren't given a time limit to spin your job out into, I know that almost every job I get I would have been more productive without a time limit because I just slacked as much as I could in the time-frame.

Hunters also had to follow herds across vast distances, and had no cable TV.

Hunters also don't bring home that many salads. Or do you think that humans are purely carnivores?

Beyond that... do you honestly think there's enough meat on this planet to wholly sustain 7 billion people without making things go extinct?

what's funny is that we know for an absolute fact that hourly wage labor is just about the least effective, most inefficient way to run things. i'm confused as to why anybody still uses it. of course, we also know that human beings just aren't productive as early in the morning as we make them show up to work either. makes me suspect that either the bosses are really dumb, or they have other motivations.

Hourly wages are so that workers aren't as readily screwed over. It allows for overtime and so forth, and takes away a degree of judgement calls.

Piece work, while very lucrative, is also prone to dangerous behavior. Piece work was extremely common in my dad's youth, on construction sites. It also led to the use of ...I think it was speed... by the workers, which helped them keep their work up like CRAZY, but also led to very dangerous situations.

Monopoly capitalism feels like communism. That I can tell you.

This has always made me wonder what the hell some people are thinking.

Most leftists (in the general sense, take that as you may) will go into ideological bloodlust at the first whisper of a capitalistic monopoly but will casually support the government monopolizing everything without a second thought. For instance, the United States Postal Service is a government monopoly and no one gives a flying fuck, if a corporation was doing it instead they would be an "evil empire" robbing people of freedom.

My father is a retired Postal Worker so I have heard my share of the bullshit that they run. Want to know the only difference? Due to the min/maxing nature of Capitalism companies like UPS and FedEx run extremely efficiently and with little or no corruption. The USPS? One building has six managers, all of them getting paid more and more, two of them sit on there asses after midnight to "manage" the single custodian, both of them managed to fuck something up on the day time shift and got moved, not fired.

If you can't become rich, there are laws.

If there are laws, there's a government.

If there's a government, there's a state.

1. only if every set of social rules can be called 'laws'.
2. only if every rule creating body is 'government'.
3. only if every rule creating body fits the definition of the state - a hierarchical system of elite rule that claims a monopoly on 'legitimate' violence in a given territory.

for this to work, there has to be equivocation in it somewhere. because a huge number of societies have existed without being organized into a state.

^

Actually, the opposite of communism is corporationism. The opposite of capitalism is socialism.

I believe Communism is the opposite of both capitalism and a dictatorship. It is the opposite of capitalism as it aims to smash all forms of exploitation and to transfer the economy into the democratic control of the population instead of the present dictatorial control a few corporations have ans use in the interests of their profits. It is the opposite of any dictatorial style of government as it aims to abolish the state and all forms of hierarchy and to give the people direct control over all the matters that affect their lives.

Most leftists (in the general sense, take that as you may) will go into ideological bloodlust at the first whisper of a capitalistic monopoly but will casually support the government monopolizing everything without a second thought.

But of course. A company is supposed to look after its own interests first. A government is supposed to look after the interests of all its citizens, including yourself. Though this is often not true in reality, it is an important difference.

Communism is just as much motivated by greed as capitalism is. It's just that communism doesn't contribute to evolution in any way, it simply takes away freedom.

Actually, the opposite of communism is corporationism. The opposite of capitalism is socialism.

Capitalism is an economic system based on property rights, communism is an economic system based on the lack of property rights. So communism, as a system is the opposite of capitalism. Socialism is kind of a mix between the two, with most property rights maintained, but with a significant level of taxation for wealth redistribution.

1. only if every set of social rules can be called 'laws'.

- If a "social rule" is set that must be followed by all members of a society, it is a law.

2. only if every rule creating body is 'government'.

That is a key rple of a government, to create laws governing the social and economic interaction of people. What other entities do you propose would set laws?

3. only if every rule creating body fits the definition of the state - a hierarchical system of elite rule that claims a monopoly on 'legitimate' violence in a given territory.

Laws require violence or fines to enforce. Since there is no possible way that your communist government could fine people, it would have to resort to force.

Society sets social rules by which to govern the interaction of its people, these social rules are laws. The maintenance and enforcement of laws are constantly necessary, and so the society sets up a system that performs this, this system is government. Government must have the ability to punish wrongdoers to enforce the law, punishment can be either financial or violent.

The mistake most posters are making are thinking capitalism=western democracy and communism equals=stalinism/maoism.

That isn't true. There is a clear and obvious difference between capitalism and communism which are different types of economies and democracy and stalisnism/masoism which are types of government. The western nations haven't always had free markets, until the late 40's the wealthy nations of the world all had strong governmental control of their market economies through quotas, national public industries, bureaucracy and strong corporate contol laws. It was not until the recession of the 70's that most of the last of these were ended by leaders like Reagan and Thatcher eventually bringing about the kind of ultra free market that we know today.

While I agree that we have yet to see an incarnation on a national scale of anything that calls itself communism that works, I would also remind us all that no Capitalist nation works perfectly. Capitalism suggests, at least to the bottom of it's ladder, that hard work will bring success to anyone, but I think we all know that some people, regardless of how hard they work may never succeed. Capitalism as we know it not only requires hard work, but also a win of the cosmic lottery.

While I agree that we have yet to see an incarnation on a national scale of anything that calls itself communism that works, I would also remind us all that no Capitalist nation works perfectly. Capitalism suggests, at least to the bottom of it's ladder, that hard work will bring success to anyone, but I think we all know that some people, regardless of how hard they work may never succeed. Capitalism as we know it not only requires hard work, but also a win of the cosmic lottery.

In my arguments with communists, I hear the "That wasn't true Communism" line non-stop. They explain away the troubles of failed communisms (they started out as communisms) by arguing that they weren't communisms.

Well I am here to say that this massive sprawl of corporatism that we see in the western world today is not true capitalism. Government, in all of its infinite wisdom, has played to special interest groups for so long that they are supporting corporations and lower class workers. What this has done has put a major strain on the middle class and limited class mobility for them. It is hard for someone to make the jump from working class to corporate class, but it is not capitalism's fault, it is government's.

So to the communists, make a decision, either accept the inherent faults of communism or argue for the "true" communism, but whatever you choose, hold capitalism to the same standard when you compare them.

Most of the arguments that people make on these things against communism are in favor of capitalism. however communism in its final form shares many, many aspects with capitalism, tiny governement, everyone being free etc.

however communism also shares many aspects with a fascist dictatorship which is generaly regarded as the extreme right wing

so i was jsut wondering what people thought is the polar opposite of communism
Communism is the exact opposite of Capitalism. You see, under Capitalism, one man exploits another, and under Communism, the reverse is true ;)

So to the communists, make a decision, either accept the inherent faults of communism or argue for the "true" communism, but whatever you choose, hold capitalism to the same standard when you compare them.

I actually was trying to hold both to the same standard. I was not attempting to defend communism, nor was I trying to vilify capitalism. My entire point is that while yes we have never seen a "communist" state that was truely that in the marxist sense, nor have we ever seen a truely capitalist state. I defend niether nor do I propose either. You are correct, each has inherrent flaws. The inherent flaws of communism prevent its success on a large scale, while the flaws of capitalism prevent it from providing the kind of equality and fairness that democracy supposedly upholds.

Even with today's freer than ever markets, no western country has pure capitalism which essentially excludes Government distribution of social services. All western nations practice some sort of socialism, with an economic basis of capitalism but with taxation on the flow of capital so that government can provide some social safety net to catch those individuals that fall through the cracks in capitalism's floor.

I actually was trying to hold both to the same standard. I was not attempting to defend communism, nor was I trying to vilify capitalism. My entire point is that while yes we have never seen a "communist" state that was truely that in the marxist sense, nor have we ever seen a truely capitalist state. I defend niether nor do I propose either. You are correct, each has inherrent flaws. The inherent flaws of communism prevent its success on a large scale, while the flaws of capitalism prevent it from providing the kind of equality and fairness that democracy supposedly upholds.

Even with today's freer than ever markets, no western country has pure capitalism which essentially excludes Government distribution of social services. All western nations practice some sort of socialism, with an economic basis of capitalism but with taxation on the flow of capital so that government can provide some social safety net to catch those individuals that fall through the cracks in capitalism's floor.

You were fair in your estimates of both. I was more or less building on your post rather than opposing it.

ya a circle, and everyones jsut trying to get to the middle where everyones happy right?

yes, I agree, but not everyone can get inside only the white -collard class may enter.In time the working class would be able to enter.

In my arguments with communists, I hear the "That wasn't true Communism" line non-stop. They explain away the troubles of failed communisms (they started out as communisms) by arguing that they weren't communisms.

Well I am here to say that this massive sprawl of corporatism that we see in the western world today is not true capitalism.

who argues that leninist russia started out as communist? certainly not lenin himself. no 'communist' country ever claimed that descriptor for itself. they called themselves socialist (and china calls its system 'socialism with chinese characteristics'), because that's the stage they were at according to their interpretation of marxist theory.

communism is a term invented to describe a future possible social and economic system. if a society doesn't even come close to that description, then it cannot have communism.

capitalism is a term invented to describe an actually existing set of social and economic systems. the massive sprawl of corporatism is capitalism. always has been.

'pure capitalism' is a made up term refering to a possible social and economic system. it is a special subset of capitalism proper - a particular variant that takes a couple parts of actual capitalism and runs with them.

if you want to argue about the problems of 'actual communism' (by which you mean marxist-leninist socialism), then we can do that. but bear in mind that
1) this wouldn't be about communism,
and
2) it was communists that pointed out the inherent problems with a dictatorship of the party elite leading to a classless and state-less society. back in the 1860s, no less. and again in the years after 1919.

Communism is not a unified movement. I swing between ultra-socialism and anarcho-communism regularly and they are quite different worldviews. Anarcho-communism relies on a 'gift' economy where people provide for each other with no actual 'trade' which makes it the antithesis of capitalism.

Anarcho-communism is pretty much the 'pure' communism that Marx espoused but various branches like Trotskyism, Leninism and Maoism have decided it better to have dictatorial government which brings them rather closer to capitalism than they would care to admit.

So communism has no polar opposite. Capitalism is close.
A gift economy is compatible with capitalism. A free market is one with secure property rights. If people chose to give their property away rather than trade it that is still a free market. A free market could even consist purely of socialist communes, if that is how people chose to use their property. Dictatorships, on the other hand, in fact all government, is inconsistent with a free market since they live on taxation which is a violation of property rights.

Most of the arguments that people make on these things against communism are in favor of capitalism. however communism in its final form shares many, many aspects with capitalism, tiny governement, everyone being free etc.

however communism also shares many aspects with a fascist dictatorship which is generaly regarded as the extreme right wing

so i was jsut wondering what people thought is the polar opposite of communism

Depends on what exactly is meant by "Communism".

First of all "Communism" in theory, is the meshing of a political ideology with an economic ideology (Capitalism is merely an economic ideology)... So in the core of it, Communism is not diametrically opposed to "Capitalism", because you're only taking a single-facet aspect of Communism, and comparing it to the full facet of capitalist economic theory.

In it's "Core", Communism is a combination of Pure Democratic Governmental Theory with Socialist Economics (Public Ownership + Public Government)...

So in reality, and as can be seen within the realm of Marx's own writtings, Communism is the diametric opposite of Feudalism (Private Ownership + Private Government)... As generally Feudalism is Capitalistic Economics combined with Monarchial or Oligarchial (Aristocratic) forms of Governmental authority.

who argues that leninist russia started out as communist? certainly not lenin himself. no 'communist' country ever claimed that descriptor for itself. they called themselves socialist (and china calls its system 'socialism with chinese characteristics'), because that's the stage they were at according to their interpretation of marxist theory.

In 1918 the Bolsheviks named themselves the All-Russian Communist Party.

I will touch on the rest when I return from lunch.

capitalism is a term invented to describe an actually existing set of social and economic systems. the massive sprawl of corporatism is capitalism. always has been.

Capitalism is a term invented to confuse people into believing that the current corrupt system is the same as free markets so free markets must be bad. Seems to be working, too. It's deceitful propaganda.

A gift economy is compatible with capitalism. A free market is one with secure property rights. If people chose to give their property away rather than trade it that is still a free market. A free market could even consist purely of socialist communes, if that is how people chose to use their property. Dictatorships, on the other hand, in fact all government, is inconsistent with a free market since they live on taxation which is a violation of property rights.

I tried to make this argument when I was showing why communism is obsolete. Didn't make anywhere, they tended to ignore me, but I will see what they do with your argument.

Being a Fascist myself I would like to say that Communism is in NO WAY AT ALL even close to Fascism. (Also Fascism is NOT Nazism either!!!)

One of the biggest things is Fascism is much like Capitalism with the leader having more power then the current president. It is, like you said, extreme right-wing so religion would play a bigger role then it currently does (damn liberal capitalism)

Communism is (obviously) the opposite of Capitalism but the again religion plays a big role. Whereas Fascism would embrace religion, Communism is openly against religion, especially Christianity. It is also PROVEN that Communism doesnt work! It literally crumbles under its own weight. Whereas Fascism is no longer around because of the Mussolini siding with the damn Nazis.

Fascism is NOT bad if used right. Just look at General Franco when he lead Fascist Spain. He was against the Nazis and was backed by the United States. When Franco was asked why he refused to join the Axis powers he said and I quote "I would rather have all my teeth pulled then talk to that man" (refering to Hitler)

So I voted that Communism is the opposite of Good. Because its nothing but an atheistic leftist dictatorship that doesnt work.

"Communism has only killed 100 million people. Lets give it another chance!"

I tried to make this argument when I was showing why communism is obsolete. Didn't make anywhere, they tended to ignore me, but I will see what they do with your argument.
If they weren't able to ignore the contradictions in their beliefs they'd have burned their 50 dollar Che Guevarra T-shirts years ago.

But of course. A company is supposed to look after its own interests first. A government is supposed to look after the interests of all its citizens, including yourself. Though this is often not true in reality, it is an important difference.

BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAAAA Ahahahahahahahahahaahahhahahaah hehehehehehehe Bwuahahahhhaahahah eehhahahhehehehhahahahhah AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *cough* *cough* bwuahahahaahahahahahahahahhahaahhaahahah..........

This is my website for my nationstates region. But I have a page dedicated to Fascism/Capitalism/Socialism.

I suggest reading the whole thing. The first article is about Fascism. A short writing of why its not bad and not related to Nazism.

The second article (the first of the socialism) is a brief writing of why socialism is a failure.

The third article (the second of the socialism) is a MUCH better reading but is also really long. But it goes into a large amount of detail to why socialism mis a failure. Enjoy!

http://www.freewebs.com/globalright/capitalismfascismsocialism.htm

This is for the uneducated people who don't know what Communism is really.
Communism is equality for all people. This mainly focuses on the diffference between the rich and poor.

If they weren't able to ignore the contradictions in their beliefs they'd have burned their 50 dollar Che Guevarra T-shirts years ago.
...which would be an anti-capitalist action as they would be destroying a unique and profitable market niche. Those guys are also playing the capitalist game, in their own way- after all, who other than the Commies and the anarchists would buy those T-shirts? Think of the manufacturers! :D

In 1918 the Bolsheviks named themselves the All-Russian Communist Party.

yes, and? they were a communist party, meaning that they at least were claiming that they intended to bring about communism. in order to do so, they had to lead the country through a socialist stage of cultural evolution, headed by the dictatorship of the proletariat. thus you had the union of soviet socialist republics, not the union of communist soviets.

come on, surely you know at least the rough outline of marxist-leninist theory on this point

This is for the uneducated people who don't know what Communism is really.
Communism is equality for all people. This mainly focuses on the diffference between the rich and poor.


Wow, I bow to your superior intellect! I feel so motherfucking enlightened. :rolleyes:

This is for the uneducated people who don't know what Communism is really.
Communism is equality for all people. This mainly focuses on the diffference between the rich and poor.


If you read the two articles in which I linked a few posts earlier you will find out why it doesnt work. It is a good idea yes. But in the REAL world it fails. It only breeds laziness.

Capitalism is a term invented to confuse people into believing that the current corrupt system is the same as free markets so free markets must be bad. Seems to be working, too. It's deceitful propaganda.

nah, that blurring comes from the capitalists themselves. they wouldn't have much ideological appeal if they talked about the wonders of state-backed oligopolies, and ridiculously lopsided trade agreements, and corporate welfare, and the use of state or state sanctioned violence to kick peasants off their land and prevent workers from organizing, etc. but if you call capitalism 'freedom', and downplay all the unfree bullshit that makes it run, then you might have something.

if you don't want people thinking free markets are bad, stop the corporations and their cronies in the state from using the term to describe the blatantly elitist system that they are imposing on the world.

nah, that blurring comes from the capitalists themselves. they wouldn't have much ideological appeal if they talked about the wonders of state-backed oligopolies, and ridiculously lopsided trade agreements, and corporate welfare, and the use of state or state sanctioned violence to kick peasants off their land and prevent workers from organizing, etc. but if you call capitalism 'freedom', and downplay all the unfree bullshit that makes it run, then you might have something.

if you don't want people thinking free markets are bad, stop the corporations and their cronies in the state from using the term to describe the blatantly elitist system that they are imposing on the world.

Again, click the link and you'll be surprised to find out that Capitalism is just about the only way to truly run things right. Communism is a PROVEN failure.


http://www.freewebs.com/globalright/capitalismfascismsocialism.htm

As I say, pure anarcho-communism would be free and libertarian. It would also work if people realised that they don't have to be capitalist to enjoy life.

No gaming consoles like XBOX i bet.

Again, click the link and you'll be surprised to find out that Capitalism is just about the only way to truly run things right. Communism is a PROVEN failure.

http://www.freewebs.com/globalright/capitalismfascismsocialism.htm

haha fascism. you poor sorry bastards, can't organize for shit.

One of the biggest things is Fascism is much like Capitalism with the leader having more power then the current president.



Hahaa! Finally somebody said it! While capitalists try to deny it the fascists seem to think it's a positive! That's fucking brilliant

No gaming consoles like XBOX i bet.

why not?

No gaming consoles like XBOX i bet.

Lemme guess, you're one of the lot who thinks everything would be controlled, and nobody could make anything they wanted without first asking the government if they could do so?

What is it with you people...?

This is for the uneducated people who don't know what Communism is really.
Communism is equality for all people. This mainly focuses on the diffference between the rich and poor.

Yep. It gets rid of the rich/poor divide by making everybody poor. :rolleyes:

Hahaa! Finally somebody said it! While capitalists try to deny it the fascists seem to think it's a positive! That's fucking brilliant


LMAO. Fascism is Capitalism but instead of liberal capitalism (Todays America) Fascism is more conservative capitalism (Franco's Spain and pre-WWII Mussolini's Italy)

Fascism would be just as strong as capitalism is today if that damn Benito hadnt ruined it all for us!

Yep. It gets rid of the rich/poor divide by making everybody poor. :rolleyes:


100% CORRECT! You either know the truth or you must have read the articles on my website!

Yep. It gets rid of the rich/poor divide by making everybody poor. :rolleyes:

You're obviously thinking of the false type of Communism, a.k.a. Totalitarianism or Stalinism.

100% CORRECT! You either know the truth or you must have read the articles on my website!

I've been to four Communist nations. (Czechoslovakia 1983, Hungary 1983, Poland 1984, & East Germany 1984.) I've revisited Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland several times from 1993 to present. The further they get from Communism, the better it's been getting. :)

Don't know if any of you guys are following German politics right now but
a dude called Franz Muenterfering (President of the ruling SPD political party)has launched a debate focussing on the absence of a social conscience in the pure Capitalist system. If this movement, which according to opinion polls is finding a strong echo in German society, spreads to the rest of Europe we are in for an interesting ride :0|

Hahaa! Finally somebody said it! While capitalists try to deny it the fascists seem to think it's a positive! That's fucking brilliant

That post has made my day. :D

I've been to four Communist nations. (Czechoslovakia 1983, Hungary 1983, Poland 1984, & East Germany 1984.) I've revisited Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland several times from 1993 to present. The further they get from Communism, the better it's been getting. :)

Ahem... Those were under the Soviet regime, which wasn't even close to Communism.

Ahem... Those were under the Soviet regime, which wasn't even close to Communism.

Oh, gods, no. Not this debate again.

1) If you don't count those as Communist nations, then Communism as written in the Manifesto is a total, abject failure: it's NEVER and WILL NEVER be implemented.

2) Further, by that logic, there is no true Democracy, Republics, Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, or Ice Cream manufacture. In short, it is a spurious arguement. ;)

Oh, gods, no. Not this debate again.

1) If you don't count those as Communist nations, then Communism as written in the Manifesto is a total, abject failure: it's NEVER and WILL NEVER be implemented.

2) Further, by that logic, there is no true Democracy, Republics, Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, or Ice Cream manufacture. In short, it is a spurious arguement. ;)

Tell me, is pulling things out of your ass at random fun?

Communism in its truest sense HAS NOT been tried yet. Honestly nothing has even come very close, Cuba is the best thing right now, and all of you that denunce communism are the ones that don't know anything abut it.

Tell me, is pulling things out of your ass at random fun?

If you call speaking from personal experience as "pulling things out of my ass", then yes. :p

This "true Communist" argument is sophistry: if you refuse that the Warsaw Pact nations were Communist, then there has never been a Communist state. (Note that this carries over to China, Cuba, et all, since all their revolutions were aided by Moscow.)

Ipso facto, since that was humankind ATTEMPTING to build such a state (and failing), then the "true Communist" state as layed out by Marx and Engles is impossible, and therefore the theory is a failure.

Communism in its truest sense HAS NOT been tried yet. Honestly nothing has even come very close, Cuba is the best thing right now, and all of you that denunce communism are the ones that don't know anything abut it.

*hands you a cookie*

Communism in its truest sense HAS NOT been tried yet. Honestly nothing has even come very close, Cuba is the best thing right now, and all of you that denunce communism are the ones that don't know anything abut it.

*bows to the wisdom of the 8 post guy* :rolleyes:

If you call speaking from personal experience as "pulling things out of my ass", then yes. :p

This "true Communist" argument is sophistry: if you refuse that the Warsaw Pact nations were Communist, then there has never been a Communist state. (Note that this carries over to China, Cuba, et all, since all their revolutions were aided by Moscow.)

Ipso facto, since that was humankind ATTEMPTING to build such a state (and failing), then the "true Communist" state as layed out by Marx and Engles is impossible, and therefore the theory is a failure.

Having everybody kept in poverty with a small percentage of government officials living lavish lives is *not* Communism. No nation, to this day, has ever been a true Communism.

Having everybody kept in poverty with a small percentage of government officials living lavish lives is *not* Communism. No nation, to this day, has ever been a true Communism.

So there's never been a Communism because you say so. Sorry, if you want to debate, you're going to have to do better than that. :)

So there's never been a Communism because you say so. Sorry, if you want to debate, you're going to have to do better than that. :)

Backing out, are we?

1) If you don't count those as Communist nations, then Communism as written in the Manifesto is a total, abject failure: it's NEVER and WILL NEVER be implemented.

Correct. Though I do hope that the "will never" is too pessimistic... ah, who am I kidding. You're right. It's just a nice fantasy.

2) Further, by that logic, there is no true Democracy, Republics, Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, or Ice Cream manufacture.

So ? It just means that people do not know under what political system they live.

Tell me, is pulling things out of your ass at random fun?

Is pulling your head from your ass so fucking difficult?

Once you cut away all the extra bullshit you have two positions.

Authoritarian Communism - Stalinism
and
Anarcho Communism - Marxism

Marxism is not the all--end all of Communism and better yet, it has never existed. It was, is, and will always be nothing more then a nice dream, a delusion, in the minds of naive Socialists (as apposed to realistic Socialists that realize that Socialism has merits beyond being a stepping stone to a figment of a German's imagination.) Stalinism is no more or less Communism then the shit spewed from that asshole who had the audacity to publish THE Communist Manifesto as if the unachievable was the all--end all.

You may choose to cling to a delusion while you milk a capitalist society for your own self interest but I would advise you STRONGLY to at least try to pull your head from your ass and stop swallowing your own shit for once in your life! Maybe then you won't come here hogtied in a dark room of idiotic ideology contained in your shit saturated mind and spit out that smug drivel you like whenever someone links your precious delusion to a travesty.

Have a nice fucking day. :upyours:

Backing out, are we?

Nope, just trying to get you to say something that is more than mere opinion.

-snip-

Hahaha. Have a nice day...

Hahaha. Have a nice day...

Smug fucker. :D

Nope, just trying to get you to say something that is more than mere opinion.

So, the fact that no nation has ever been a true Communism is an "opinion" now?

Oh, gods, no. Not this debate again.

1) If you don't count those as Communist nations, then Communism as written in the Manifesto is a total, abject failure: it's NEVER and WILL NEVER be implemented.

this debate keeps coming up because you guys are wrong in every possible respect. if a country never claimed itself to be communist, how can it be anything but tangential to an argument about communism - except if we are discussing possible roads to communism?

and in other news, something very much like communism existed for much of human history in most societies all over the planet. in fact, the social and economic system of of these societies has been called 'primitive communism' (when not being dressed up as 'immediate-return egalitarian societies with generalized reciprocity and collective control of and access to resources').

Most of the arguments that people make on these things against communism are in favor of capitalism. however communism in its final form shares many, many aspects with capitalism, tiny governement, everyone being free etc.

however communism also shares many aspects with a fascist dictatorship which is generaly regarded as the extreme right wing

so i was jsut wondering what people thought is the polar opposite of communism

I laughed so hard when I first read this.

Andrew you are extremely confused. Capitalism is not a tiny government with every one being free. And communism is regarded as the opposite of extreme right wing, and dictatorships. :headbang:

That being said, it is hard to find a polar opposite of communism because there are so many different variations of it (Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Stalinism ect.).

Oh, gods, no. Not this debate again.

1) If you don't count those as Communist nations, then Communism as written in the Manifesto is a total, abject failure: it's NEVER and WILL NEVER be implemented.

2) Further, by that logic, there is no true Democracy, Republics, Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, or Ice Cream manufacture. In short, it is a spurious arguement. ;)

He means that Marxism (true communism) has never been implemented. Stalinism has been, but the only thing Stalinism has in common with communism is the name.

And by his logic true Democracy, Republics, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and even Ice Cream manufactures have all been implemented (sometimes countries who say they are Democracies are not, but there are true Democracies in the world)

:rolleyes:

-snip-

*gives you and Free Soviets a giant box of cookies*

It's much better when intelligent people join in the debate. Really, it is.

So there's never been a Communism because you say so. Sorry, if you want to debate, you're going to have to do better than that. :)

Communism is defined by the manifesto; as such, it's a theory.... The argument here is what constituted the diametric opposite of "Communistic Theory of Economics and Government.

As such, it is a true, and factual statement that none of the "Warsaw Pact" nations were "Communistic" according to the theoretical model of communism, as espoused by the textual definition of Communism supplied in its foundational theories by Marx in the Manifesto.

At this point, I would like to suspend my argument, to mention two facts:

First, I am not Communist.
Second, I do not believe Communism is the "proper" way to go.

Now, back to my argument.

Communists appeal to the Manifesto (which defines the theory of Communism, and it's forms and functions). And their claims as to what constitutes Communism is valid by the form and text of the Manifesto.

As such, their proof lays in the document which defines the theory.

As such, also, claims of the Warsaw Pact nations as "Communist" fails the test towards the Manifestos description, and definition of a "Communist" system.

Their claims are correct. The Warsaw Pact nations never implimented Communism (as described in the Manifesto). Thus it is ruled that these states are not Communist States.

If you wish to provide proof, other than claims by the states in question, then do so. Otherwise your argument is moot. The Communists have the valid claim and proof evident that the Soviet Block states were not "true" communist states.

This isn't a sophistry.

As such, Communism is described in the Manifesto as an anarchialistic democratic form of (public) government, combined with public ownership of economic infrastructure.

As such, to find its inverse, that is the model which most fits the opposite of the Communistic Model, is that which has a archtype government and economy.... The archtype is easy.... FEUDALISM.... Mon/Olig-archial (artistocratic) government, combined with private ownership by the Aristocracy. (which isn't on the list.... unfortuneately).

That is of no surprise, since it is exactly that form which Marx pits Communism against, as its archtype himself.

haha fascism. you poor sorry bastards, can't organize for shit.

How is that pro-fascismo? Could just be anti-communist.

*gives you and Free Soviets a giant box of cookies*

It's much better when intelligent people join in the debate. Really, it is.

If you only consider people you agree with as intelligent, then your world is very poor indeed.

<<Marxism is not the all--end all of Communism and better yet, it has never existed. It was, is, and will always be nothing more then a nice dream, a delusion, in the minds of naive Socialists>>

Do me a favour. Take a short course in the sociology of primitive tribes in Africa and the Americas. It's not a complex subject and wikpedia can probably give you most of it but it is interesting and will prove you wrong.

Oh, gods, no. Not this debate again.

1) If you don't count those as Communist nations, then Communism as written in the Manifesto is a total, abject failure: it's NEVER and WILL NEVER be implemented.

2) Further, by that logic, there is no true Democracy, Republics, Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, or Ice Cream manufacture. In short, it is a spurious arguement.

He means that Marxism (true communism) has never been implemented. Stalinism has been, but the only thing Stalinism has in common with communism is the name.

And by his logic true Democracy, Republics, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and even Ice Cream manufactures have all been implemented (sometimes countries who say they are Democracies are not, but there are true Democracies in the world)

:rolleyes:

So... Lenin was ruling a Stalinst nation, eh? Sorry, that doesn't work. Nevermind the wholesale "de-Stalinization" by Khruchev & co. Either Communism has been tried, or it hasn't. If it has, then it doesn't work as a system of government (with currency: the Spartans were the only successful Communism to date). If it hasn't, then the Manifesto is a failure, since it lays out a plan/dream that is impossible for human beings to achieve.

Er, no. That would mean he/she applying one rule for "true" Communism, and another for "true" anything else. My point is that either you accept that humankind can't implement anything "doctrinarily perfect", or you have to throw out everything.

[QUOTE=Ekland]
Anarcho Communism - Marxism

Marxism is not the all--end all of Communism and better yet, it has never existed. QUOTE]

I beleive anarcho communism existed in spain during the spanish civil war on quite a large scale untill the were wiped out by the soveit controled spanish republican army

Not to mention the Soviets in the month or so before the Bolsheviks decided that removing communism until a later date would be a good idea.

yes, and? they were a communist party, meaning that they at least were claiming that they intended to bring about communism. in order to do so, they had to lead the country through a socialist stage of cultural evolution, headed by the dictatorship of the proletariat. thus you had the union of soviet socialist republics, not the union of communist soviets.

come on, surely you know at least the rough outline of marxist-leninist theory on this point

Yes, and this implementation has failed on every occurrence.

The implementation of communism is inseparable from the communism itself. If the implementation of Communism is flawed, then communism is flawed.

So... Lenin was ruling a Stalinst nation, eh? Sorry, that doesn't work. Nevermind the wholesale "de-Stalinization" by Khruchev & co. Either Communism has been tried, or it hasn't. If it has, then it doesn't work as a system of government (with currency: the Spartans were the only successful Communism to date). If it hasn't, then the Manifesto is a failure, since it lays out a plan/dream that is impossible for human beings to achieve.

Er, no. That would mean he/she applying one rule for "true" Communism, and another for "true" anything else. My point is that either you accept that humankind can't implement anything "doctrinarily perfect", or you have to throw out everything.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the question posed.

I could care less whether or not "Communism" works... I do not accept that it can, or is even proper should it.

However, it is obvious it hasn't been tried/implimented to date. And therefore still exists, for the most part, as a theory.

The question is:"so i was jsut wondering what people thought is the polar opposite of communism"

Since Communism is defined by the Manifesto. Arguments as to real-world governments, such as those Socialist-Totalitarian regimes constructed by Lenin, and later implimented under Warsaw Pact states subsequent to the Second World War, have no bearing upon the Communist definition of the Manifesto.

Thus, the argument should center around the judgement of what construes communism in the manifesto, as it was layed out in theory. And then deriving the polar opposite of the views expressed by the Manifesto.

I contend that the polar opposite, is feudalism. Since communism exists as the theoretical meshing of public government, and public economic infrastructure.... That is, anarchial and communal in nature (as the French Libertaire).... And that which exists in a closed (private) system of government (Aristocratic/Monarchial/Oligarchial), and with private ownership; is the diametric opposite of the Communist Theory.

American Liberatianism, in contrast is not the diametric opposite, since it shares the same governmental ideology, and only posses in opposition towards ownership views.

Capitalism is not the diametric opposite, because capitalism is only an economic model, and Communism is Governmental, and Economic.

A dictatorship is invalid, because it only speaks towards governmental forms. And while opposed to the anarchial views expressed in the Communistic Theory, possess no direct lineage of economy.

Organized Religion is invalid, because Religion plays no direct part in governmental or format, unless combined in rulership as a theocratic system (which does become diametricly opposed to the system as expressed anarchialistically in communism).

Good and Bad are relative terminologies, and thus inapplicable to direct logical extrapolation of the theory itself.

I don't know is only valid for those ignorant of socio-political theory.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the question posed.

I could care less whether or not "Communism" works... I do not accept that it can, or is even proper should it.

Great... but we're in a side debate. If you don't want it in the thread, then just ask Sexy Andrew to ask us to leave.

However, it is obvious it hasn't been tried/implimented to date. And therefore still exists, for the most part, as a theory.

The question is:"so i was jsut wondering what people thought is the polar opposite of communism"

And, in my opinion, I've got to disagree. It is obvious that is HAS been tried/implemented, but failed.

<snip>
All fair enough, but if you don't want the side debate that was going on, you probably don't want me to respond to all that, either. ;)

So, the fact that no nation has ever been a true Communism is an "opinion" now?

Since you've not replied to any of my points with anything more than an "oh yeah?" kind of response, yes.

The implementation of communism is inseparable from the communism itself.

which, of course, has been a communist argument against installing a dictatorship of the proletariat from the beginning. do try to keep up.

Is pulling your head from your ass so fucking difficult?

Once you cut away all the extra bullshit you have two positions.

Authoritarian Communism - Stalinism
and
Anarcho Communism - Marxism

Marxism is not the all--end all of Communism and better yet, it has never existed. It was, is, and will always be nothing more then a nice dream, a delusion, in the minds of naive Socialists (as apposed to realistic Socialists that realize that Socialism has merits beyond being a stepping stone to a figment of a German's imagination.) Stalinism is no more or less Communism then the shit spewed from that asshole who had the audacity to publish THE Communist Manifesto as if the unachievable was the all--end all.

You may choose to cling to a delusion while you milk a capitalist society for your own self interest but I would advise you STRONGLY to at least try to pull your head from your ass and stop swallowing your own shit for once in your life! Maybe then you won't come here hogtied in a dark room of idiotic ideology contained in your shit saturated mind and spit out that smug drivel you like whenever someone links your precious delusion to a travesty.

Have a nice fucking day. :upyours:

Tell me, is pulling things out of your ass at random fun?

Now then ladies, I'm going to hold off issuing anything official this time since you're both as bad as each other, but I suggest you both cease posting in this thread unless you both cool off.

And, in my opinion, I've got to disagree. It is obvious that is HAS been tried/implemented, but failed.

I wouldn't say it has "absolutely" failed. Since it has been "tried" in theory (Paris Commune of 1871 was a model of Marx's Manifesto) but was defeated by imperialist military force (as opposed to economic self-collapse)...

Now then ladies, I'm going to hold off issuing anything official this time since you're both as bad as each other, but I suggest you both cease posting in this thread unless you both cool off.

Bah, it's been twisted (that reply was toward Markreich... To which Ekland responded with *that*). Anyway, I already decided to stop posting here, since it's really going nowhere.

Communism is defined by the manifesto; as such, it's a theory.... The argument here is what constituted the diametric opposite of "Communistic Theory of Economics and Government.

Check.

As such, it is a true, and factual statement that none of the "Warsaw Pact" nations were "Communistic" according to the theoretical model of communism, as espoused by the textual definition of Communism supplied in its foundational theories by Marx in the Manifesto.

I’ll disagree here. Each one was a human attempt to Communism, and all had tenets of the Manifesto’s requirements/definitions to some degree. Marx himself defines Communism as an evolution until the point where there are no more classes and even the “leading/rulers” are gone. (Note: no one ever pointed out how this would happen once power was amassed – this is a major reason why I consider it a failed thesis).


At this point, I would like to suspend my argument, to mention two facts:

First, I am not Communist.
Second, I do not believe Communism is the "proper" way to go.

Now, back to my argument.

All fair enough.


Communists appeal to the Manifesto (which defines the theory of Communism, and it's forms and functions). And their claims as to what constitutes Communism is valid by the form and text of the Manifesto.

I’ve read it at least 6 times, and have been to four Communist nations. It’s wishful thinking to believe that it could be done better than it already was, given any population.


As such, their proof lays in the document which defines the theory.

But to take such a document without interaction of the people is spurious; this is why the US, Polish, EU and just about every OTHER governmental document takes into account the interactions of the people to the state and to others. Communism makes no such provision, which is another reason why it is doomed to always fail.

As such, also, claims of the Warsaw Pact nations as "Communist" fails the test towards the Manifestos description, and definition of a "Communist" system.

Their claims are correct. The Warsaw Pact nations never implimented Communism (as described in the Manifesto). Thus it is ruled that these states are not Communist States.

Kind of circular, no? It failed so it wasn’t implemented properly, but it can’t be implemented properly because it’s never been tried?


If you wish to provide proof, other than claims by the states in question, then do so. Otherwise your argument is moot. The Communists have the valid claim and proof evident that the Soviet Block states were not "true" communist states.

Er? I’d BEEN to those nations. They most assuredly called themselves Communist. You’re asking for proof without providing any that they *weren’t* Communist. Care to tell me how that works?
They declared themselves Communist. They outlawed other parties. They had collectivization of industry and property (to a greater or lesser degree; farm collectivization never really got underway in Poland for example). They worked to spread Communism (Cuba, Viet Nam, China, various African nations, Nicaragua...) I think that is quite a bit of proof that they were!!

This isn't a sophistry.

As such, Communism is described in the Manifesto as an anarchialistic democratic form of (public) government, combined with public ownership of economic infrastructure.

Right. In other words, what the Warsaw Pact (et al) were SUPPOSEDLY evolving to (recall that Communism is an evolution that takes time), and failed. QED.

As such, to find its inverse, that is the model which most fits the opposite of the Communistic Model, is that which has a archtype government and economy.... The archtype is easy.... FEUDALISM.... Mon/Olig-archial (artistocratic) government, combined with private ownership by the Aristocracy. (which isn't on the list.... unfortuneately).

That is of no surprise, since it is exactly that form which Marx pits Communism against, as its archtype himself.

Marx was anti-Nationalist more than anything else, and regarded capitalism as a necessary step towards Communism. However, he considered Communism the final stop, that there would never be anything beyond it, which is in itself fairly short sighted. The US Constitution provides for amending… all the Manifesto does is OUTLINE a state, but not how it runs, nor how it evolves (just that it does). Thus, saying the CCCP or CSSR weren’t Communist nations is like saying the US or Italy aren’t Democracies because they don’t do everything my majority vote.

I wouldn't say it has "absolutely" failed. Since it has been "tried" in theory (Paris Commune of 1871 was a model of Marx's Manifesto) but was defeated by imperialist military force (as opposed to economic self-collapse)...

Right. And the Spartans were a successful Communist state (of course, they had the advantage of being able to not have currency...). But all attempts to carry out Marx's plans have failed over time. That's all I'm saying: it's a form of government that doesn't work. :)

I’ll disagree here. Each one was a human attempt to Communism, and all had tenets of the Manifesto’s requirements/definitions to some degree. Marx himself defines Communism as an evolution until the point where there are no more classes and even the “leading/rulers” are gone. (Note: no one ever pointed out how this would happen once power was amassed – this is a major reason why I consider it a failed thesis).

This is one of the reasons I think application is unlikely to suceed in interim. Unless you pull our Plato's Philospher-King doing all the work interim to the state.


Marx was anti-Nationalist more than anything else, and regarded capitalism as a necessary step towards Communism. However, he considered Communism the final stop, that there would never be anything beyond it, which is in itself fairly short sighted. The US Constitution provides for amending… all the Manifesto does is OUTLINE a state, but not how it runs, nor how it evolves (just that it does). Thus, saying the CCCP or CSSR weren’t Communist nations is like saying the US or Italy aren’t Democracies because they don’t do everything my majority vote.

The US isn't a democracy. Not in the sense of what defines a democracy. It's a "Democratic Republic"... that is a meshing of Plato's Republic with the ideals of Macedonian Democratic ideals. (Along with abit of Paine's/Loche's anarchism).

If I'm going to deal with the demographics of an ideology, I'm going to operate under the ideologies theories. Not how they are implimented by people. But how they are expressed in their foundational theory in origination.

I wouldn't use arguments applicable to the USSR's governmental form to attack Libertaire ideologies; anymore than I would use arguments applicable to Macedonian Democracy, to attack the USA governmental form. If you're going to deal with the ideology, you deal with the ideology itself. Not how it hasn't been implimented by another.... The later is no more than a straw-man argument.

If you argue that Communism failed, then so has democracy, since it has never been functionally been operated in history, without self-colapse. As has the Republic, Capitalism, and all other ideological forms.

When you express the term "communism" or "democracy", "capitalism", "feudalism" or "republic" you're reffering to socio-political theories of economy and government.... Not "real-world" states.

The US isn't a democracy. Not in the sense of what defines a democracy. It's a "Democratic Republic"... that is a meshing of Plato's Republic with the ideals of Macedonian Democratic ideals. (Along with abit of Paine's/Loche's anarchism).
Actually, no. The terms "democracy" and "republic" are used interchangeably by most dictionaries, and their academic definitions are all but identical.

Capitalism and Communism are not opposites ... they are both premised on continual economic growth. As such, they are both opposites of what is ecologically sensible.

which, of course, has been a communist argument against installing a dictatorship of the proletariat from the beginning. do try to keep up.

Condescension will get you nowhere.

Now, you said that there has not been a communist country so far, I pointed out that governments have been set up with the intention of being communist. I then stated that the implementation of a government should not be separated from the government itself, therefore a government that is in the process of becoming communist should be considered communist, even if communism hasn't even been reached yet.

Had Russia's privatisation completely failed with the nation reverting back to socialism/communism, you would have said that capitalisation had failed and I would have agreed.

Now tell me how the revolution will take hold and be maintained without a dictatorship of the proletartiat.

Right. And the Spartans were a successful Communist state (of course, they had the advantage of being able to not have currency...). But all attempts to carry out Marx's plans have failed over time. That's all I'm saying: it's a form of government that doesn't work. :)

Woah. Advantage? What about division of labor, the need for currency so more people can be customers with one another?

Right. And the Spartans were a successful Communist state (of course, they had the advantage of being able to not have currency...). But all attempts to carry out Marx's plans have failed over time. That's all I'm saying: it's a form of government that doesn't work.

Woah. Advantage? What about division of labor, the need for currency so more people can be customers with one another?

The Spartans banned currency; the state controlled all labor and everyone had the exactly the same cups, plates, red robes, etc. That's why I cite them as the only Communist state to function: they had done away with personal wealth as a concept. All lived for the community/state.

Division of labor was easy: if you're a man, you served in the military and farmed. ;)

(Seriously: they had some tradesmen, but they were exceptions.)

This is one of the reasons I think application is unlikely to suceed in interim. Unless you pull our Plato's Philospher-King doing all the work interim to the state.

Agreed.

The US isn't a democracy. Not in the sense of what defines a democracy. It's a "Democratic Republic"... that is a meshing of Plato's Republic with the ideals of Macedonian Democratic ideals. (Along with abit of Paine's/Loche's anarchism).

Also agreed. But I posit that a "true" Democracy (as with a "true" Communism, etc) isn't possible in a large group (say, larger than a city-state), or in an inter-active world. The Spartans could not use currency because the world was a LOT smaller in those days. The Athenians could hold plebicites in a reasonable amount of time. Imagine having to call a vote in NYC every time a teacher's union wanted a raise! ;) Ergo, the US is a Republic/Democracy, the USSR was a Communist State, in the manner of which mankind could fashion them from their component theories.

If I'm going to deal with the demographics of an ideology, I'm going to operate under the ideologies theories. Not how they are implimented by people. But how they are expressed in their foundational theory in origination.

Any idological theory worth it's salt MUST consider the theory's implementation by mankind. If it does not, it may as well be a theory on how dolphins could parasail. :)

I wouldn't use arguments applicable to the USSR's governmental form to attack Libertaire ideologies; anymore than I would use arguments applicable to Macedonian Democracy, to attack the USA governmental form. If you're going to deal with the ideology, you deal with the ideology itself. Not how it hasn't been implimented by another.... The later is no more than a straw-man argument.

As above, it can't be in my opinion. Further, the post that started all this was my mentioning that I'd been to four Communist nations, and that they'd gotten better after the fall of the wall. :)
Also, if you can name a successful implementation of Marxian (as opposed to primitive) Communism, I'd be happy to discuss it, but I can only draw on my own (first hand) experience.
If we cannot use the implementation of ideologies by mankind, then the debate is pointless. :( Discounting attempts as "not have beens" is not only not sporting, it makes the idea in question moot (as I've said before).

If you argue that Communism failed, then so has democracy, since it has never been functionally been operated in history, without self-colapse. As has the Republic, Capitalism, and all other ideological forms.

Please explain this viewpoint to me.
The US has been the modern Republic/Democracy since 1776 (or 1789, if you must). It's still functioning. So are the governments of most of Europe & South American, half of Asia, and some of Africa... and Capitalism certainly hasn't failed!

When you express the term "communism" or "democracy", "capitalism", "feudalism" or "republic" you're reffering to socio-political theories of economy and government.... Not "real-world" states.

Er, you may be. I'm calling a spade a spade. If a term does not describe a real-world state, it's academic... and can stay there.
If one begins to get so nit-picky that no definition fits any example, one has gone deconstructionist to the point of uselessness.

I wouldn't say it has "absolutely" failed. Since it has been "tried" in theory (Paris Commune of 1871 was a model of Marx's Manifesto) but was defeated by imperialist military force (as opposed to economic self-collapse)...

The state couldn't support nor defend itself. The concept was tried, but failed.

Also agreed. But I posit that a "true" Democracy (as with a "true" Communism, etc) isn't possible in a large group (say, larger than a city-state), or in an inter-active world. The Spartans could not use currency because the world was a LOT smaller in those days. The Athenians could hold plebicites in a reasonable amount of time. Imagine having to call a vote in NYC every time a teacher's union wanted a raise! ;) Ergo, the US is a Republic/Democracy, the USSR was a Communist State, in the manner of which mankind could fashion them from their component theories.

Any idological theory worth it's salt MUST consider the theory's implementation by mankind. If it does not, it may as well be a theory on how dolphins could parasail. :)

Well, the problem with adopting it in the "generalized" framework of applied theory, is that none of them are equated enough between the differing implimentations to derive the concept of the "polar" opposite. Which is why, when operating to devlope the inverse of the theory, you should use it definition of the theory, as opposed to a failed implimentation of the same theory (remember, the question was not whether or not it has worked, or whether or not is has been tried, only what the opposite of Communism was).

If you deal with real world theories, you must somehow "combine" the differing implimentations of claimed versions of the applied theory... This makes finding inverses impossible, since none of the applications can indeed be reliably combined into a single unifying principle.

USSR Communism is different then Anarcho-Libertaire-Communism, is different than Chinese Communism, is different than Cuban Communism. And they lack no applied commonality in "Government" nor "Economy" which negates any ability to classify their polar opposite socio-economic theory. Chinese, Russian and Cuban communism was heavily totalitarian, with nationalized ownership. (Socialism), whereas Anarcho/Libertaire (Paris Commune, Spartans, etc.) is heavily anarchial, with public ownership (not nationalized)... Cuban/Russian/Chinese is very similar to Fascism; whereas Anarcho/Libertaire is almost the inverse of Fascism... If you can't develope a commonality, you can't analyze the system as a whole to devlope the inverse of the theory. As such, that makes the endeavor to do so pointless to begin with. As such, you then need to "drop back" into the theory of model, as espoused in its primitive form.

The same applied to other forms. You can't assume the US as a model Capitalist state, and then use it to develop polar-opposite of the theory; since anyone adopting the idealogy of true-capitalism would dislike the state as it stands... In many aspects, with operative Coporate Welfare structure, and socialized aspects of the system, as being more closely related to Fascist economic policy, than an actual "Free-MArket"/Capitalist state would be in the theory.

Merely because a state "lables" themselves under a particular theory, does not make that state indeed an application of that theory... the "People's Republic of China" is in no way a true application of the "Republic"... Nor is the Democratic Socialist Republics, which off-shoot from Russia post-WW2, "Democratic" or "Republican" in nature... (Though, they were "Socialist").

Indeed, you realize none of the "Communist-Bloc" states that have existed, were indeed even "Communist" to begin with. They were totalitarian socialist empires (more akin to the Octavian, and Post-Octavian [Augustinian] Roman Empire).


As above, it can't be in my opinion. Further, the post that started all this was my mentioning that I'd been to four Communist nations, and that they'd gotten better after the fall of the wall. :)
Also, if you can name a successful implementation of Marxian (as opposed to primitive) Communism, I'd be happy to discuss it, but I can only draw on my own (first hand) experience.
If we cannot use the implementation of ideologies by mankind, then the debate is pointless. :( Discounting attempts as "not have beens" is not only not sporting, it makes the idea in question moot (as I've said before).


Actuall, wrong debate: The debate, in fact, is what constitutes the opposite (that is what is in diametric inverse) of Communism. Not whether or not the system works. Thus, arguing implementation strategies to develope the proper argument of the polar opposite, becomes a straw-man argument. An improper implimentation of a theory, does not constitute a valid argument for, or against, that theory.... Since the argument is the diametric opposite of "Communism", you deal with theory, as opposed to application (since each individual application will have their own associative opposites).

So, in reality, what you are developing is an argument for "What consistutes the polar opposite of the four states you provided in example", as opposed to the answer of the question to what posits an opposite to "Communism" [which in fact was the question to begin with].

I can develope the opposing theory towards that of the "Union of Soviet Socialist States", however, that posited opposite, will not be the associative opposite of "Communism". I can develope the opposing theory of towards that of the "People's Republic of China", however, that posited opposite, will not be the associative opposite of "Communism", nor even that even be directly associative to the one posited from the application by the USSR.

What you're doing is analyzing the applications, and whether they work or not, as an argument for whether or not "Communism" itself works..... However, that isn't answering the question. It's avoiding the question asked to begin with (very much a sophistry).

The question: "what is the opposite of communism" ?

Your ansers, and argument, to date, have consisted of the quivalent of answering:

"What is the anti-particle of the electron?"

with:

"Atoms contain electrons..."

Certainly the ansers are correct.... However, they are also wrong, because they have nothing to do with the actual question asked to begin with. While "related" to the question, they are not actually answering the question posited to begin with, and therefore are wrong.