NationStates Jolt Archive

Im not going to give my opinion, because the last time i did that i got a trolling warning. this is merely a poll. vote for what you want.

"Communism" as Marx said of course never existed. And it never will.
But the communist movement probably had a major influence in improving worker's rights and so on.
Plus they spawned Social Democracy, which is what I agree with moreso.

Actual Communism will never work, but it has some great ideas.

I think very highly of communism. It will make a wonderful world government. I can't wait.

Pretty much every application I've seen has been a failure. It's a pipedream and is resposible for the death and suffering of millions including members of my family.

A social and economical system simular to Communism is were we are headed, but it is to early to implement such a system. So keep spending everyone!

I would agree with the comment on socialism. I feel it is a government's right to provide for its citizens, not to leave them to fend for themselves. You pay taxes, you deserve something in return, besides ambiguous military protection used primarily to increase the power of whomever is in a position of leadership.

And to be honest, communist theory doesn't excite me. It doesn't explain how everyone would be happy to embrace an economy of independent factories, or explains how the mechanics of such a society would work in full. Which is why communism has been so abused in the 20th and going on 21st Centuries: there was never a blueprint for a communist society.

And to be honest again, communist states aren't communist at all. Communism is a theoretical society in which government withers away because workers create independent communes, which is the most simple, but unexplainable part. Modern communism shares almost every feature with fascism: a leader-cult, fanatical nationalism (which happens to go against the international proletarianism advocated by communist theory), oppressive and intrusive government, and a common enemy. Fascist governments were more apt to use as a common enemy, a culture or ethnic group, or even a race. Communist states used the ambiguous term "bourgeois" or, most notably in Stalinist Russia, "kulak". So, in effect, communism in the world really is just fascism using a communist guise.

i think it must need to be totally reworked.

both communism and capitalism are 19th century concepts that dont apply well to the modern world. we need some smart guy to give it some thought and update it.

wow, it seems we're at stalemate here

If I could have dinner with any famous person, living or dead, I'd have Marx as my second runner-up, just so I can laugh at him.

I personally hate the entire day, as it, like pure capitalism, requires massive purging and reeducation of society so as to eliminate "undesirables". The only difference being that pure capitalism eliminates people based on lack of skill, whereas communist societies eliminate people based on lack of compassion. I'm sorry, but there are a LOT of people out there that I don't love.
On the other hand, I am very productive. :p

Even though I disagree with communism in many ways, I foremost disagree with it from a moral standpoint.

1. It treats the individual as a slave to the society. The individual is not allowed to retain the works of his own labor, which is truly the only thing we own when we are born.

2. If complete altruism is socially pervasive communism is unnecessary, as capitalism provides ample avenues for charity. If altruism is not pervasive, then the communistic lifestyle is forced on to a person at the point of a gun.

Less than a quarter of people who've responded so far chose the negative answers. Pardon me for not mincing words, but WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!? Ahem. Sorry, I got carried away.

Whenever and wherever communism is tried out, it's utter shit. As far as I'm concerned, workability is the only criterion, and communism fails the test, no matter how brilliant it is in theory. And "pure" communism will never exist, because it's impossible, so don't try that dodge. Not to mention that it'd suck anyhow.

PS In case you're wondering I voted for "Obliterate It!" :p

It treats the individual as a slave to the society. The individual is not allowed to retain the works of his own labor, which is truly the only thing we own when we are born.
You know what the strangest thing is?
That was exactly what Marx sought to address. The worker did not profit at all from his labour in 19th century capitalism.
You could have gotten that sentence from his books.

I am not opposed to a state run economy. I most certainly would disagree with the pure form of communism but a socialist government that is clever enough to reward people who do well(rewards can take any shape and do not have to be economic) might be something I could accept.

Communism is a good idea on paper; everywhere else, it doesn't work. I prefer a form of socialist libertarianism.

That's a good point you brought up, Leon.

Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto to address 19th Century industrial society woes. They did not have foresight to see what the 20th Century would have been like. Communism, even though it is not able to be applied, is outdated, pure and simple, in the Western world. Marxism mainly gains modern followers in nations with low standards of living and a degree of technological isolation with global culture.

But I wouldn't be opposed to democratic socialism, or to socialist welfare policies. Socialism solved the American effects of the Great Depression, and without socialism, we woouldn't be getting social security checks after retirement.

You know what the strangest thing is?
That was exactly what Marx sought to address. The worker did not profit at all from his labour in 19th century capitalism.
You could have gotten that sentence from his books.

You are correct, his solution to inequity of freedom was to eliminate freedom.

[thinking aloud] However, he was incorrect in his analysis of slavery. He assumed the capitalist exploited the worker, when in actuality capital was in much higher demand than labor and earned a higher revenue. As capitalistic markets developed supply of capital has grown in relation to the supply of labor, slowly raising the earnings of labor as compared to the earnings of capital. The wonderful thing about natural wealth redistribution.[/thinking aloud]

This is flaming, and you've been reported.

whoa, sry tahoe, guess your getting either banned or a warning, no offense meant

so. she said some too. ill report her.

so. she said some too. ill report her.
does this count as a flame war? cause if it is, i pick tahoe's side

She merely stated that communism wasn't viable, in her opinion. With a few swear words thrown in, but it wasn't directed at any individual. You, on the other hand, California and Nevada, made a direct harassing post, which was incredibly rude, uncalled for, and unnecessary, for which you might be banned. I'd suggest you delete your post, and make an apology to him/her.

But I wouldn't be opposed to democratic socialism, or to socialist welfare policies. Socialism solved the American effects of the Great Depression, and without socialism, we woouldn't be getting social security checks after retirement.

World War Two ended the US depression.

i will delete but I will not apologize

Actual Communism will never work, but it has some great ideas.


That's my EXACT view! Jynx! Ditto!

That's my EXACT view! Jynx! Ditto!

there is no such thing as acual communis. many different types of communism are foud. like in a democracy

Communism is for losers who can't get through college and get a good job. Sorry, that's not a good government in my book. If I put in the time and get through college, it's only right that I make more money than those who don't.

Of course one could argue some people don't have the money or time for college. I think that is the government's responsibility to help them out, and it doesn't require a total change in government.

many of you people are not communist, so dont talk about communism because you dont truly know it.

Communism is a good idea on paper; everywhere else, it doesn't work. I prefer a form of socialist libertarianism.

Saying you support libertarianism AND socialism is nonsensical. They're diametrically opposed.

And on topic, infatuation with communism usually dies off after people actually finish college and venture into the real world.

How would you define Communism, Cali&Nevada?

many of you people are not communist, so dont talk about communism because you dont truly know it.

*raises hand* i consider myself communist... i don't mean to make anyone mad by that statement, but i do consider myself communist

there are many different lypes of communism definitions. mine is too complicated to understand. But I am more inclined twards chinese communism. China is proof that communism works.

Alrighty, Ritlina. But how would you describe communism for yourself? What makes you think it is sustainable, or at least possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

China isn't communist in a traditional sense. Their society is still repressive, and lacking in political and civil freedoms. Their economy is almost fully capitalist, with government regulation and vigilance. It is safer to say that China is a capitalist dictatorship.

if china was trully capitalist they would say so.

I don't like it at all. It supresses individual freedom and totally disregards merit in favor of equality, which is unfair and horribly flawed. Secondly, it inevitably degenerates in to an oppressive oligarchy that is worse than the "evil" capitalists it replaced. Thus, it violates my two personal beliefs and I strongly oppose it in all of its forms.

i am a democratic socialist, but still a communist

i am a democratic socialist, but still a communist
:confused:

China doesn't need to admit anything. Their workers produce products on the greatest mass-scale in the world, and their companies manufacture just about every available type of product. They don't have "most favored trading nation" status for the world's nations, but Chinese products can be found almost everywhere in the world. Try and show how the Chinese economy is not capitalist-leaning.

Are you sure you fully understand what a communist state is? Communism, in theory, is a government-less worker's paradise. Meaning there is no centralized authority, only cooperation between factories. Which isn't realistic. But anyways.

in a perfect government one has to give up some rights to benefit himselafand averyone else. People must have rights, but it must be a compromise.

"Communism is a good idea on paper; everywhere else, it doesn't work. I prefer a form of socialist libertarianism."

That sounds pretty communist to me. Popular control of the economy and no government telling you what to do with your free time?


I object generally to the perception that Karl Marx is the be-all and end-all of communism and communist thinking, and by that I do not mean to give reference to any usurper like Lenin or Trotsky or to weirdos like Mao and other such leader figures. If this thread is entirely focused on Marxism and variations of Marxism, then I have no strong opinions and might get back to you when I've actually read some Marx, otherwise, yes, communism's great, bring it on. All this talk of murderous this and that is so weird because I don't see how anybody who feels passionately about it or whom has been affected by it could fail to know that these were the works of deadly anti-communists. Would a communist order an army sent against men for stating, "We stand for the power of the Soviets..." and could a communist society result from the guidance of such a man or of men in his political company? Clearly not, but the murders of such are still being attributed to communism or to a version of it, when obviously it is commited anti-communism.

Instead of making everyone absolutely equal, how about giving everyone an equal platform to achive what they wish and not being a slave to money etc. That is what Communism should be about. Not all this stuff about capital, labor, revolutions etc.

Speaking of revolution, the masses never revolt on their own accord. There is always a thinking elite guiding them. And once the established government collapses, the elitists take over as the new reigning oligarchy. It always happens. Which is why communism has ruined so much of the world already.

communism is not the cause of the murders. it is people who missuse communism. like in a democracy, which has it's flaws. (hitler)

I used to be an avid "communist" when I was younger. Before I read the Manifesto, and before I reviewed the effects of communism in Europe and Asia.

in a perfect government one has to give up some rights to benefit himselafand averyone else. People must have rights, but it must be a compromise.

That's a relative decision. Who decides what is in my best interests other than myself? We should be allowed to make our own decisions and not have someone else do it for us. That way, success or failiure hinge on your own effort, and there is no one else to blame for failiure but yourself.

The only things protected should be the most basic of personal rights, everything else should be free.

Instead of making everyone absolutely equal, how about giving everyone an equal platform to achive what they wish and not being a slave to money etc. That is what Communism should be about. Not all this stuff about capital, labor, revolutions etc.

Well, the only way to give everyone an equal platform is to give them the most freedom possible to do it. I like being able to earn my money and spend it on what I want, not having it stolen by the government to spend on what they think is best for me (which is usually not). Economic and personal freedom are the most important and effective methods of stopping social inequality.

People would always abuse communism. It centralizes all administrative power into a smaller group of bureaucrats, with the hopeless ideal that these men will behave like Jesus.

Saying you support libertarianism AND socialism is nonsensical. They're diametrically opposed.

And on topic, infatuation with communism usually dies off after people actually finish college and venture into the real world.They are not. Libertarianism is a social system. Socialism is an economic system. They can coexist. I am a social libertarian, and a moderately economic socialist -- that is, I support government control of things like the police force, gas companies, healthcare, water, etc. while private control of retail, agriculture, arms manufacturing, etc. If it gives you any idea, I'm a Civil Rights Lovefest according to my views.

if communism is not a good government? capitalism is not good either. Then what government do you propose? I propose communism mixed with democracy and filling in the loopholes.

Speaking of revolution, the masses never revolt on their own accord. There is always a thinking elite guiding them. And once the established government collapses, the elitists take over as the new reigning oligarchy. It always happens. Which is why communism has ruined so much of the world already.


Again, of course, that's really anti-communists doing the damage, though in theory it holds that you are partly right to accuse communism for its enabling quality in their regard. (Your later comment about the centralisation of power is less credible and totally apart from anything communist to begin with, so I'm already thinking that perhaps I've given you too much credit.)

However, without it, other ruling elites have charge, so we have not much to lose, eh? Or maybe we do, though it is the subjugation of foreigners alienated from our political system and as such safe for the elite to abuse. I don't know, some of us apparently find it easier to live with that than do others, eh?

I would contend that the best way around the problem you point out is to have an educated public, is it not? And past leftist revolutions and movements have seen this gradually move towards realisation (though it is naive to say that it has yet been a complete success thanks to the on-going corruption of capitalist media and of inequality). In time -it is not so very hard to image- the public can and one hopes that they shall achieve a generally good standard of education, and of access to appropriate information that they may be better able to think for themselves and to defend their democratic gains in a socialist economy.

I propose communism mixed with democracy and filling in the loopholes.
It's called Social Democracy.... :D

I wouldn't propose any change. Capitalism is fine as it is; it does have a rough history, but people are much better off than they were four hundred years ago. I doubt anyone would seriously like to return to feudalism or mercantilism. I think capitalism needs better government regulation, but enough room to expand. And I think socialist policies concerning employment, resource management, and welfare should be continued. And it is very likely I'll end up seeing my wishes met someday in the future.

You're free to go move to North Korea, Beth Gellert.

That's a relative decision. Who decides what is in my best interests other than myself? We should be allowed to make our own decisions and not have someone else do it for us. That way, success or failiure hinge on your own effort, and there is no one else to blame for failiure but yourself.

The only things protected should be the most basic of personal rights, everything else should be free.



Well, the only way to give everyone an equal platform is to give them the most freedom possible to do it. I like being able to earn my money and spend it on what I want, not having it stolen by the government to spend on what they think is best for me (which is usually not). Economic and personal freedom are the most important and effective methods of stopping social inequality.

There would be no government to steal the money or money to steal( Moneyless society)

The only things protected should be the most basic of personal rights, everything else should be free.

what about the environment? animal rights (if applicable by you)? what's a basic personal right? education? property? healthcare? pension? freedom of speach?

before i say whether i'm pro or anti-communism i'd like a defnition, as there are many variations. I'm certainly anti stalin and the chinese systems, which weren't communist.

i'm definately socialist of some form. i don't think i know the terms for more detail yet. dunno how accurate they are, but i think i got about -6-6 on the compass thing. on the moral one i was big top left box, near the middle of it. what would those scores make me, if they're accurate?

I wouldn't propose any change. Capitalism is fine as it is; it does have a rough history, but people are much better off than they were four hundred years ago. I doubt anyone would seriously like to return to feudalism or mercantilism. I think capitalism needs better government regulation, but enough room to expand. And I think socialist policies concerning employment, resource management, and welfare should be continued. And it is very likely I'll end up seeing my wishes met someday in the future.

Ich, I don't much care for that... one could argue that life in prison is better than the electric chair, but to shrug and call it a lucky break and then to give up on the idea of escape or parole seems rather odd to me.

It's called Social Democracy.... :D

Thank you. that's what I am. But like I said some ideas in communism are better than capitalism.

You're free to go move to North Korea, Beth Gellert.

1) No, I'm not, I don't think Pyongyang's desperate for western infiltrators.

2) What in the holy flying out-house of Jesus shitting Christ does that have to do with anything?

I wouldn't propose any change. Capitalism is fine as it is; it does have a rough history, but people are much better off than they were four hundred years ago. I doubt anyone would seriously like to return to feudalism or mercantilism. I think capitalism needs better government regulation, but enough room to expand. And I think socialist policies concerning employment, resource management, and welfare should be continued. And it is very likely I'll end up seeing my wishes met someday in the future.

capitalism isn't exactly fine. it allows (encourages?) TNC;s to exploit the 3rd world. i know much of their problem is due to leadership, but debt, interest, TNC's etc. don't help. it's a disgrace that there are wars raging in countries we've never heard about, and a continent wracked with malnutrition and disease which we have the resources to cure if we released them. its not all capitalisms fault, but much of it is at best aggrevated by it.

what about the environment? animal rights (if applicable by you)? what's a basic personal right? education? property? healthcare? pension? freedom of speach?

i'm definately socialist of some form. i don't think i know the terms for more detail yet. dunno how accurate they are, but i think i got about -6-6 on the compass thing. on the moral one i was big top left box, near the middle of it. what would those scores make me, if they're accurate?

Environment is a basic right to a degree. After all, if it goes to hell we'll probably die. That being said, only the most basic provisions should exist to preserve it, to avoid hurting the free market. Animal rights are a right, but only when they do not conflict with human necessity. Healthcare is not, it should be paid for and supplied privately. Education should be privatized as much as possible, but tuttion vouchers should be available for the less fortunate. Pensions should be privately supplied, and freedom of speech should be free as possible save for libel (only when it would lead to the target's endangerment/imprisonment is it libel).


I'm a free-market libertarian, with 8.50 (Economic Left/Right) and -4.79 (Libertarian/Authoritarian)

capitalism isn't exactly fine. it allows (encourages?) TNC;s to exploit the 3rd world. i know much of their problem is due to leadership, but debt, interest, TNC's etc. don't help. it's a disgrace that there are wars raging in countries we've never heard about, and a continent wracked with malnutrition and disease which we have the resources to cure if we released them. its not all capitalisms fault, but much of it is at best aggrevated by it.

No, it was misguided Soviet-style economics that ruined Africa and much of the Third World. These policies do not work in practice, and resulted in massive debt, corrupt bureaucracy, and civil war. The countries that were the most free economically tended to fare better than their Soviet-style counterparts. Not all corporations are bad, and many help the areas they work in.

Again, of course, that's really anti-communists doing the damage, though in theory it holds that you are partly right to accuse communism for its enabling quality in their regard. (Your later comment about the centralisation of power is less credible and totally apart from anything communist to begin with, so I'm already thinking that perhaps I've given you too much credit.)

Rather, they are normal people who have aspirations of power. As for centralization of power, in all communist states there has been a tendency to empower government even more, in a smaller group of bureaucrats. Thus, centralization, by definition.

However, without it, other ruling elites have charge, so we have not much to lose, eh? Or maybe we do, though it is the subjugation of foreigners alienated from our political system and as such safe for the elite to abuse. I don't know, some of us apparently find it easier to live with that than do others, eh?

In a capitalist democracy, there is a greater chance of regime change through voting. Democracy is still corrupt, and capitalism is also corrupt, but with a communist dictatorship, there is no chance for change unless
1. The Dear Leader dies
or 2. Armed revolution.
Subjugation of foreigners? If you meant that literally, it would mean you're saying people who do not live in a particular country, or participate in their politics, are alienated... which is something so obvious that I'm just going to have to ask you to reword yourself. As for "elite of abuse", every government has abused people to an extent. It happens.

I would contend that the best way around the problem you point out is to have an educated public, is it not? And past leftist revolutions and movements have seen this gradually move towards realisation (though it is naive to say that it has yet been a complete success thanks to the on-going corruption of capitalist media and of inequality). In time -it is not so very hard to image- the public can and one hopes that they shall achieve a generally good standard of education, and of access to appropriate information that they may be better able to think for themselves and to defend their democratic gains in a socialist economy.

Certainly. An educated populace would benefit society by providing increased technical labor and enhanced skills in an America demanding skilled workers at a growing rate. But, as Orwell pointed out, a society free from ignorance and poverty would become disruptive towards the oligarchy, and seek their destruction. Which is why the world might never be completely educated and free from poverty. Class structure is an inherent part of human society, and there will always be stratification.

First, if people would kindly cease their No True Scotsman fallacies, I'll be much obliged.

Secondly, I abhor the very concept of Communism. I disagree with Socialism, but I can accept it is at least vaguely grounded in reality. Communism, however, is both an inexplicably naive system (The reason Communist states gravitate towards dictatorships is partly that the people have to be forced to work.), and an indefensibly barbaric one. In my eyes, only I may choose what to spend my money on.

Do not tell me that money would be abolished; that idea disregards the entire purpose of money, which is to demonstrate how much one has contributed in the very labor time Communists so worry about. Only I have the right to decide into which projects my effort and talents go. As I do not have the training to be a doctor (And thus cannot contribute my talents.), I might instead contribute the money (Time/labor) I have legitimately earned working as perhaps a teacher or an accountant towards a medical enterprise, as I stand to gain from it personally, or I believe it a prudent contribution to others. To be forced to put my time/effort/talents into a cause I believe is flawed, mismanaged, or inherently wrong is an excellent example of tyranny.

Of those, the most important in my eyes is where to put my talents or abilities to use. Let us presume I am an exemplary painter, for the sake of this argument. What is my recourse in a capitalist society? I can get a job, save my money, and purchase art supplies. I am free to pursue whatever style, whatever subject, that I wish to. I might not succeed, but I can try again. I can also try my hand at other things, to see if perhaps music suits me better. It is not guaranteed, and it is almost certainly not easy, but in Capitalism one has options, if one desires to find and fight for them.

Let us now presume I am a painter in a Communist society. What is my recourse if, for example, 'the people' do not find merit in painting? What if they find my subject matter unpleasant? The worst I face in Capitalism is an obscenity charge, most likely. I might have to reconsider my style ofr subject matter, but there are still a million options open. In Communism - if I can get my equipments at all - I must also produce work which pleases not an interested (and appreciative of the area) minority, but a majority - one who has control over how I use my time and where my efforts go.

That is the inherent and irreconcilable moral error in Communist thought.

"Certainly. An educated populace would benefit society by providing increased technical labor and enhanced skills in an America demanding skilled workers at a growing rate. But, as Orwell pointed out, a society free from ignorance and poverty would become disruptive towards the oligarchy, and seek their destruction. Which is why the world might never be completely educated and free from poverty. Class structure is an inherent part of human society, and there will always be stratification."

That's just giving in, isn' it? But then Orwell was like that, eh. I wonder if there's any point trying to convince you to open up and seek progress, I think that it's something you have to come to admit to yourself or to else die in ignorance.

Obviously there is no such thing as a communist dictatorship, so if anyone ought to re-word their comments, I don't think it's me. I've done enough talking about anti-communists in that regard, for now.

Now I feel obliged to state that democracy is popular rule, not popular representation, and that, frankly, representation as it stands in most or all of our so-called democracies is little more than a denial of participation. Maybe that's neither here nor there in the wider context of this thread/discussion, but worth saying.

"Subjugation of foreigners? If you meant that literally, it would mean you're saying people who do not live in a particular country, or participate in their politics, are alienated... which is something so obvious that I'm just going to have to ask you to reword yourself."

How else would I mean it? Look at what I was saying, and in what context it was caused to arrive in the conversation. Bear in mind that I'm not a heartless nationalist. Not sure what else to tell you. There was talk of the usurping of communist revolution by authoritarians and the following subjugation of the people, but as I was trying to say, we already have that, we already have elites and people that they subjugate, and while in a so-called democracy it may be limited (but not absent) at home, the world as it stands is prone to out-sourcing of the worst suffering to other nations where the people haven't a direct link to their oppressors. I'm taking a wider view of politics and people than the present elites would probably like, and refusing to accept that just because person A is better off under this system than under Stalin doesn't mean that person B is. Just because, say, American diluted-capitalism and faux-democracy doesn't kill Americans on quite the scale that Stalin killed Russians it doesn't mean that it isn't doing harm there, or that it isn't killing, say, Africans* by the thousand.


*Nb. I do not by this mean to excuse African authoritarians or to absolve them of blame, but regardless of what these have done, it is inarguable that the outside is not subjugating and bringing suffering anyway.

Environment is a basic right to a degree. After all, if it goes to hell we'll probably die. That being said, only the most basic provisions should exist to preserve it, to avoid hurting the free market. Animal rights are a right, but only when they do not conflict with human necessity. Healthcare is not, it should be paid for and supplied privately. Education should be privatized as much as possible, but tuttion vouchers should be available for the less fortunate. Pensions should be privately supplied, and freedom of speech should be free as possible save for libel (only when it would lead to the target's endangerment/imprisonment is it libel).


Environment should be a basic right for itself, not just coz we depend on it. Think of all teh species richness out there, it has non-monetary value. it is important. and in many cases, once its gone we can't get it back.

Well, i'm glad animal rights would exist. sounds like it'd be were it's at now, farms, free range and factory, and animal expts.

I strongly believe in an NHS. private healthcare widens the gap between rich and poor and shows an inequality there. in GB we have NHS and private; people who can afford private have an unfair advantage, they don't have such long waiting lists. But if you have no NHS, then teh poor pay a greater % of tehir money into staying healthy, and the rich a smaller %, and teh divide widens. Why do you support private healthcare?

Similarly with private schools, they widen teh gap as richer kids get ot go to better schools, and so in theory can do better and earn more money than teh poorer kids. i kinda thought libertarians would be against private schools as it doesn't set everyone up equally.

I don't know much about pensions so wont comment.


No, it was misguided Soviet-style economics that ruined Africa and much of the Third World. These policies do not work in practice, and resulted in massive debt, corrupt bureaucracy, and civil war. The countries that were the most free economically tended to fare better than their Soviet-style counterparts. Not all corporations are bad, and many help the areas they work in.

in some countries this will be the case. but many of the countries were set up as colonies, with an exploitative export trade. since then trade barriers, debt interest and exploitation have combined with corrupt bureaucracy, and civil war and related famines to keep Africa poor.

as an example of exploitation, shell pumps oil in nigeria. locals have been forcefully evicted by soldiers of the authority. nigerians get very little out of it, teh regime gets something and shell gets a fortune.

i need to go to bed coz i stayed up last night on this foruma nd i'm doing the same now and i haven't slept and i need to do actual work. i'll try and pick this up tmmorrow.

It's a completely crappy political system that most American liberals subscribe to. Someone should have killed Marx before he thought this shit up, because America would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better.

It's a completely crappy political system that most American liberals subscribe to. Someone should have killed Marx before he thought this shit up, because America would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better.
ROFL

To the theoretical painter, I wonder, why the devil couldn't you get a job in a communist society, and what in the world makes you think that you magically get a different audience?

And what's this talk of being forced to contribute to a society that displeases you? In modern capitalism many of us disagree, too, but haven't much choice. Sometimes people can choose not to contribute and scrape by on welfare, arguably doing nobody any good, other times that is not an option. Of course, the only other way is to turn to crime, which of course not only means none-contribution but detraction, and which leads to further detraction and to authoritarianism as the system reacts. If these people were to effect change, it would be to bring on socialism.

Of course, as it happens, that has always resulted in more authoritarian expenditure on forcefully subduing such movements.

To the theoretical painter, I wonder, why the devil couldn't you get a job in a communist society, and what in the world makes you think that you magically get a different audience?

First point: I'm not saying I can't get a job in a Communist society. I'm saying that as all products would be regulated, I might not be able to get the paints and paintbrushes and easel, if the factoryowners have decided there's no need for them, or whatever.
Second point: If I'm deemed to be unoproductive in painting, I'll have to do another job. In Capitalism, one might get away with only 5% of the population liking your paintings, maybe less. In Communism, you're looking at needing over 50% appreciating them to the point where they don't mind you not ploughing the fields.

And what's this talk of being forced to contribute to a society that displeases you? In modern capitalism many of us disagree, too, but haven't much choice. Sometimes people can choose not to contribute and scrape by on welfare, arguably doing nobody any good, other times that is not an option. Of course, the only other way is to turn to crime, which of course not only means none-contribution but detraction, and which leads to further detraction and to authoritarianism as the system reacts. If these people were to effect change, it would be to bring on socialism.

Well that's the whole thing about Libertarianism. It removes as many governmental controls as is feasable, and lets everyone do their own thing largely. If you want to go and form a commune, you can do so. If you want to try a Communist experiment, you can do so.

Of course, as it happens, that has always resulted in more authoritarian expenditure on forcefully subduing such movements.

Agreed. Society is hysterical and easy to goad into accepting ridiculous laws about things they find merely distasteful and have no business is. Hence, once more, Libertarianism. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population hate your furry fetish, until you actually harm someone else in a demonstrable manner, they can't do jack to do.

They are not. Libertarianism is a social system. Socialism is an economic system. They can coexist. I am a social libertarian, and a moderately economic socialist -- that is, I support government control of things like the police force, gas companies, healthcare, water, etc. while private control of retail, agriculture, arms manufacturing, etc. If it gives you any idea, I'm a Civil Rights Lovefest according to my views.


Sounds more like a left-wing Democrat to me.

Libertarianism is not limited to social issues. You are the first person I have ever met who claims to be a libertarian was not a very firm capitalist.

It's a completely crappy political system that most American liberals subscribe to. Someone should have killed Marx before he thought this shit up, because America would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better.

American Liberals are... just that liberal, not Leftist or Marxist.

First point: I'm not saying I can't get a job in a Communist society. I'm saying that as all products would be regulated, I might not be able to get the paints and paintbrushes and easel, if the factoryowners have decided there's no need for them, or whatever.
Second point: If I'm deemed to be unoproductive in painting, I'll have to do another job. In Capitalism, one might get away with only 5% of the population liking your paintings, maybe less. In Communism, you're looking at needing over 50% appreciating them to the point where they don't mind you not ploughing the fields.

First point: Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about communism, not something completely different. Excuse me.

Second point: Again, the mind boggles. I don't see any reason why this would be. All of your comments here, especially the tone implied by the whole ploughing-the-fields bit seems to indicate that you're addressing some phantom communism that exists only in your imagination, apparently for the sake of an easy win in an argument. This is often the case with anti-communist sentiment, I find.
If five percent of the population like your painting, you're doing a fairly decent job if you live in a community with more than twenty people, eh? You seem to presume that all the workings of a specific unrealised nation have been worked out in advance, which destroys the democratic element of it entirely, anyway.

An example, while we're in fantasy land, based on my Nation State, the Igovian Soviet Commonwealth of Beth Gellert: here, your fictional painter would live in a community (in this case called a Pantisocratic Phalanstery, but that's neither here nor there, really) of a few hundred to a couple of thousand persons. You would grow up with a good communal education, and possibly start working the fields and plots around the community, or working in its light industry where you would have a direct interest in productivity and conditions. Quite possibly your community would have such things as an arts and crafts centre, and you would make use of its facilities in your likely ample spare-time, unless you happened to be a workaholic or the community to be in great strife (where in it might expect aid from the Commonwealth). Maybe you would prefer to go and work at one of the centres of advanced science and heavy industry too great to be concentrated in a small democratic commune, or to attend university there. Maybe you would study art at the university, maybe not. Working perhaps at the city's automobile plant you would be enroled in the union, and you would sit down with your collegues each day to discuss the week's work. By now, you've a taste for art, and when you go home to the community each day, you get comments on how jolly good your work is, or, hey, people don't get it, and it's not popular, but you've a passion, now. So your work is great and everybody loves you quit work in the city to concentrate on it. Hey, everybody loves you, you're well known around the nation, and you already have space in the Phalanstery so you live there, and your friends and family are happy to excuse you work in the community because of this. They're proud of you, well done! You are able to exhibit works around the community and elsewhere and you still have your home and food. Alternately, okay, you're not so popular... but people at the university recognised your talent, even if it appeals only to an aquired taste. Well, communists have aquired tastes, too. Once you make art public, it belongs to the community, because you can't just take and not give, and you bear this in mind as things progress... a gallery displays your art and compensates you for your work, perhaps in contributions from visitors or sponsorship from communities convinced -perhaps by their own artist members- to take an interest, or from factories likewise inspired by a workmate. You don't get to make millions you'll never spend, but that's no loss, makes sense, and is the way of an artist... most good ones die in unrecognised poverty anyway, eh? You've got one over on them already, and no chance of ending up homeless.

Sorry that was long-winded, but I have a feeling it still won't be enough.


Agreed. Society is hysterical and easy to goad into accepting ridiculous laws about things they find merely distasteful and have no business is. Hence, once more, Libertarianism. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population hate your furry fetish, until you actually harm someone else in a demonstrable manner, they can't do jack to do.

Yeah, good, all for that. There's always a danger of mob mentality, but with communtiy at the base of society and good education universal, as well as the lessons and progress of history, there's hope.

Communism should be abolished.

In the 1840's when Marx wrote his ideas it made sense. Laborers in Europe lived sad lives, underpaid, making too many hours a day, childlabour was considered a good thing by the "bourgeoisie". And factories were very dangerous places. If a man was killed by an accident, his widow could get a few bucks, and that was that.

He could not see any other way out for these people then rebel, revolution. That was a pretty good prediction at that time.

But....

He did not foresee the creation of unions that could make a fist against the upperclasses. He did not foresee members of parliament acting for the good of the poor. And the capitalists realized they could make money from their own employees. If the laborers had more money they could spend it! Thus making the rich even richer.
And when people have nothing, they have nothing to fight for.

There was never ever one country that had the revolution Marx predicted. Marx said, wait and see. Revolution will come, like a law of nature. The communist revolution in Russia was made by intellectuals (at least Lenin was a lettered man, Stalin was not), not by poor factory laborers. Russia was still an agricultural society, and Marx said that revolution should only take place in an industrial society.
The communist countries had labour unions. Why should a country like the GDR ("the farmers and laborers state" as they called themselves) have a union? Communist countries had lots of diffuculties integrating unions in their political system. The communist state was for the good of the people, and so was the union...
Religion was forbidden in some countries. Marx was very much against that. Religion will just fade away, he said.

And I agree: communism like Marx predicted will not work. The communism we've seen in the USSR did not work.

In short:
History proved Marx wrong. He meant well, though.
The communist states that existed since 1917 were nothing like Marx predicted.

Even shorter:
Marx = good
Communist countries = bad

But, Brabantia Nostra, ordinary Russian people did take direct part in the revolution and in its guidance. It's just that anti-communist authoritarians like the Bolshevists had them killed, deported, or imprisoned, and the likes of Trotsky even denounced them precisely for being other than intellectual and as ill-educated. Communism in Russia did fail, but not because the system failed, rather because its advocates were defeated militarily, which could happen to any ideology. From there on, Moscow had an anti-communist influence on revolutionary movements around the world for the rest of the century. It is hard to understand why so many people don't see this.

Apart from that, again, Marx is not all there is to communism, and does not own or entirely define it.

And I would not seek violent revolution as the first route towards communism, anyway. And it [communism] goes on despite the wishy-washy reforms of social-democrats and the patronising help of party-politicians. I'm sure you've heard the words, "...we want no condescending saviours."

1- Communism and States Governement are not friend. So, Soviet Union (by the way, thanks to defeat the nazis) was not a communist country, as they said themself : it's a "real socialism"

2- Communism is : "Work as you can, receive as you need". Community deceid for themself, workers too.

3- For an occidental, what communism can give for now? Nothing! Just wait the capitalism crush down. At this time, the sistem will collapse, like 1929. But, a coventional war is foolish, so...

4- Think global. Capitalism is the entire of this world (exepted Cuba and North Corea). It kill 20 000 poor poeple by days. There is 365 days on a year. Yes, communism is baaaaaaad... ;) . And i'm not speak about Irakian on Indonesian communist killed with the protection of Occidental Loving Power (more than 500 000 death in Indonesia... A litle Goulag, isn't it?)

5- Can capitalism give the occidental (or even, the best of one, the American) Way of Life to the rest of the world? No, the society of consomation is reserved to the rich and they better slaves. But, what happend when the natural resource have been exausted?

6- If a man (king) can't decide on the life of 1 000 000 people, why a companies president can? (Like Wallmart and it's 500 000 directly dependant fammily?)

7- If a man can't received in hertitage a social and political status (feodalism), Why he can received a ... social and économic status, just caus "he's well born"?

8- Communism is Utopic. Well, i supose it was the same for the democracy (as we understand democracy) in the 12-em.

9- The fall of Soviet Union is the demonstration of the failure of communism? Realy? Like the waterloo defeat is the failure of French Revolution? Why French are Republic created on the principe of 1789 for now? Napoleon was the Republic? Of course not! Why Stalin should be the Communism?

10- If all potential working machines is divided by the world, a much time of work by people? If it's not a consomation world? 10 hours a week? 20 Hours of work? All the time to paint you need

For now, the capitalism must go at is end (10 years? 20? 50? I think it's less than 50). If he not go? Well, we must accept than you can have right. If he come to his end, perhaps you should accept than we can have right.
By the way, it's people who will decide. Don't be affraid, People's have change the world so many times...

And, last but not least...
Individualism is the death of individual freedom for the majority (yes, of corse, some people "win"... just some). Communism will not accept than you have a private swimming pool, that's true. But all people can go to the swimming pool... Communism is a Rational thinking of our individualism. I can't have the right to have something AGAINST the other (by the way, it's near one the freedom définition : freedom end's wherre other's freedoms begin)

ps : Marx have explain than Russia can't do a revolution alone (last preface of Communist's manifest). If it's alone, it's the failure. So, the ONLY case where Soviet union is the demonstration of Marx hav wrong, it's if Soviet Union survive... But, the wall is fall, isn't it?

pps : sorry for my poor english

Communism sounds good and would be good...If it didn't rely on people but as it does, it will always be corrupted by someone who wants more power, that is the problem with communism people just aren't pure enough for it to work.

It's a completely crappy political system that most American liberals subscribe to. Someone should have killed Marx before he thought this shit up, because America would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better.

how helpful :rolleyes:

Perhaps the the betrayal of the USSR by Stalin (and others) has now steriotyped it too much as being 'evil' and undemocratic.

'True' communism, as described by Marx, perhaps too utopian for now. However, there's still much we can use from it to produce an alternative to capitalism.

First point: Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about communism, not something completely different. Excuse me.

Ok, now, how do you figure I'm going to get the art supplies I need if the factories aren't making art supplies?

[quote]Second point: Again, the mind boggles. I don't see any reason why this would be. All of your comments here, especially the tone implied by the whole ploughing-the-fields bit seems to indicate that you're addressing some phantom communism that exists only in your imagination, apparently for the sake of an easy win in an argument. This is often the case with anti-communist sentiment, I find.

Communism is 'dictatorship of the proletariat', correct? It's easy to confuse majority rule with democracy (Which is an imperfect system, I'll grant you.), but that's not so much the point here. The point is, I do not own anything. I do not own my own labor-time, it is owned by the Commune, or the State, or whatever system is in power to decide where manhours go. Ergo that same power must appreciate my work, believe it is a valid and useful form of production, and be prepared to lose the time which would otherwise go into whatever production is required.

If five percent of the population like your painting, you're doing a fairly decent job if you live in a community with more than twenty people, eh? You seem to presume that all the workings of a specific unrealised nation have been worked out in advance, which destroys the democratic element of it entirely, anyway.

No, I just know where mob rule will go, especially when the mob feels maligned by some airy-fairy art fag. Why should fancy-pants there get to sit around and draw pretty pictures when we have to lift heavy crates?

An example, while we're in fantasy land, based on my Nation State, the Igovian Soviet Commonwealth of Beth Gellert: here, your fictional painter would live in a community (in this case called a Pantisocratic Phalanstery, but that's neither here nor there, really) of a few hundred to a couple of thousand persons. You would grow up with a good communal education, and possibly start working the fields and plots around the community, or working in its light industry where you would have a direct interest in productivity and conditions.

Charles Fourier had good intentions I daresay, but his ideas completely disregard the very essence of Human endeavour, of exploration, of pushing the limits. Not to mention the natural evolution of a planet of sentient beings as their communication and transportation technologies improve. In a Utopian state, I daresay it would indeed be easy for intellectuals to convene and to make advances in their fields. But it would not be a Utopia (Sadly, simply sticking the idea of a Pantisocracy in there doesn't actually work out so well in reality.), it would degenerate, inevitably and inexorably, into xenophobic city-states who are out to conquer each other.

Quite possibly your community would have such things as an arts and crafts centre, and you would make use of its facilities in your likely ample spare-time, unless you happened to be a workaholic or the community to be in great strife (where in it might expect aid from the Commonwealth). Maybe you would prefer to go and work at one of the centres of advanced science and heavy industry too great to be concentrated in a small democratic commune, or to attend university there. Maybe you would study art at the university, maybe not. Working perhaps at the city's automobile plant you would be enroled in the union, and you would sit down with your collegues each day to discuss the week's work.

Again, a flaw in Communist thinking. Instead of letting financial and manegerial experts make the decisions they are trained (For years) to do, instead of having one person or board who can say 'we're making this much of product X and this much of product Y', you presume that not only would the workers be capable of making a reasonable decision, but that they would reach it in a reasonable way; that there would be no misinformed production, no unreasonable excess or shortage, and no therefore no waste of resources. (Where do the resources come from, by the way? How is their distribution handled?) I just entirely fail to see what is wrong with letting the people with the training and qualifications make the decisions. I don't see what is wrong with rewarding the people who used their resources to create my job.

By now, you've a taste for art, and when you go home to the community each day, you get comments on how jolly good your work is, or, hey, people don't get it, and it's not popular, but you've a passion, now. So your work is great and everybody loves you quit work in the city to concentrate on it. Hey, everybody loves you, you're well known around the nation, and you already have space in the Phalanstery so you live there, and your friends and family are happy to excuse you work in the community because of this. They're proud of you, well done! You are able to exhibit works around the community and elsewhere and you still have your home and food. Alternately, okay, you're not so popular... but people at the university recognised your talent, even if it appeals only to an aquired taste. Well, communists have aquired tastes, too. Once you make art public, it belongs to the community, because you can't just take and not give, and you bear this in mind as things progress... a gallery displays your art and compensates you for your work, perhaps in contributions from visitors or sponsorship from communities convinced -perhaps by their own artist members- to take an interest, or from factories likewise inspired by a workmate. You don't get to make millions you'll never spend, but that's no loss, makes sense, and is the way of an artist... most good ones die in unrecognised poverty anyway, eh? You've got one over on them already, and no chance of ending up homeless.

Sorry that was long-winded, but I have a feeling it still won't be enough.

It isn't up to my family and friends to excuse me from work. It's my choice where to put my effort. Such a system cannot reach it's ultimate form until a species requires no more effort be put into any life-sustaining jobs (Food production, sewege cleaning, anything like that.), but capitalism at least puts the power to rty in one's own hands, not in the hands of the people I happen to have been born nearby.

It's interesting on paper, but doesn't work in practice, like Christianity.

But, Brabantia Nostra, ordinary Russian people did take direct part in the revolution and in its guidance. It's just that anti-communist authoritarians like the Bolshevists had them killed, deported, or imprisoned, and the likes of Trotsky even denounced them precisely for being other than intellectual and as ill-educated. Communism in Russia did fail, but not because the system failed, rather because its advocates were defeated militarily, which could happen to any ideology. From there on, Moscow had an anti-communist influence on revolutionary movements around the world for the rest of the century. It is hard to understand why so many people don't see this.

Apart from that, again, Marx is not all there is to communism, and does not own or entirely define it.

And I would not seek violent revolution as the first route towards communism, anyway. And it [communism] goes on despite the wishy-washy reforms of social-democrats and the patronising help of party-politicians. I'm sure you've heard the words, "...we want no condescending saviours."

I have two questions: What do you smoke? Where can I get some?

Whether or not Lenin et. al. were real communists is up to debate, but calling them "anticommunists," is the stupidest thing I ever heard. Whether or not they were communists, they thought they were communists, so calling them anticommunists is just dumb.

I'm not too sure about how the 'it'll never work' thingy. My history teacher said it many times, in fact, she actually said 'it looks great on paper...'

Wouldn't a fair argument be that we will never know if communism will ever work because the whole 'revolution for the people' has never been executed correctly. For example Lenin saying that the revolution was The Worker's Revolution, however he and a number of powerful non-workers executed it in the name of the revolution, thus ceasing control over the government.

Blahblahblah, they got obsessed with the power and while they were still Communist, it wasn't communism that they were following.

I'm pretty sure I got that right, I have a tendancy to doubt my historical knowledge whenever I try to make a point...

But yes! That's what I believe, Communism is wonderful because it allows those who have the power, the majority, to be able to harness and use it. It may never work because of that flaw that'll doom us till the end of time, we're human, and therefore, obsessed with power and incredibly greedy, but I guess we'll never know...

Yay for suspense and run-on sentances.

I'm all for anarcho-communism, though Marxism doesn't float my boat, really.

During the Cold War, those who supported Communism said so outright. Now, they can't do that anymore because it's a blatant failure. So what do they do? Abandon the idea for the junk it is? No. Now we have to deal with this "it's great in theory" stuff. What exactly is that supposed to mean? National Socialism was "great in theory" too, but in practice, you get people like Hitler. In communism, you get people like Stalin. It's not because these people are invading a good system and ruining it, it's because a poor idea breeds poor leaders. Having read The Communist Manifesto, which is as theoretical as it gets, I can honestly say that it makes no sense. Communism stinks in theory because it is making human beings something that they are not. It is unnatural. Marx's main argument is not against capitalists, its against industrialization and progress. He doesn't want to end "greedy" capitalists, he wants to send human civilization back before the Agricultural Revolution in the period before divided labor. Do we want that? Even in theory that's a bad idea.

During the Cold War, those who supported Communism said so outright. Now, they can't do that anymore because it's a blatant failure. So what do they do? Abandon the idea for the junk it is? No. Now we have to deal with this "it's great in theory" stuff.

Exactly-you look at something that failed and find out why. Only then can you improve it. Just because something doesn't work once is not a good enough reason to denounce it as junk.

What exactly is that supposed to mean? National Socialism was "great in theory" too, but in practice, you get people like Hitler. In communism, you get people like Stalin. It's not because these people are invading a good system and ruining it, it's because a poor idea breeds poor leaders.

There have been good and bad capitalist leaders, too. Not just communist ones.

Having read The Communist Manifesto, which is as theoretical as it gets, I can honestly say that it makes no sense. Communism stinks in theory because it is making human beings something that they are not. It is unnatural. Marx's main argument is not against capitalists, its against industrialization and progress. He doesn't want to end "greedy" capitalists, he wants to send human civilization back before the Agricultural Revolution in the period before divided labor. Do we want that? Even in theory that's a bad idea.

Not true. I don't mean to defend Stalin, but under the 5 year plans, the USSR industrialised enormusly. At the end of WW1 Russia was the most backwards country in Europe. At the start of WW2 it had nearly caught up with the UK and France, and even overtaken them in terms of production.