NationStates Jolt Archive

Wow, even more uneducated people have poured into this thread since I left.

And, if you must know, "it" wasn't explosive. I was hoping, but it was just another dream...

Ah, so you're saying you'd rather let them starve, just so people don't have to pay money "out of their pockets"?

If things were the way you want them to be, I might've died a long time ago (I'm currently on welfare).
Potaria, you're on welfare and have a computer and an internet connection?
Are you a veteran who fought for your country? I mean, how much are you getting, and why can't you work... I mean, you can type and have excellent english skills. What's the problem? (I'm not trying to be obtuse, I genuinely want to know because you don't seem like the type to collect if you weren't able to work)

The concept of taking away people's money is idiotic. The whole system favors the riches, the only money that is taken away by is from the poor.
I take money from wealthy business owners. By 'taking money from poor people", who are you referring to? Most people I know are taking money from the people who have it.

Then why are my friends and family working their asses off and getting paid half a paycheck?

You seem confused. They're receiving "half a paycheck" because the government took the other half in taxes to support social welfare programs. Didn't you know that? :rolleyes:

I am seventeen years old, and live with my parents (who are divorced). My father makes way more money then he should, and my mother is dirt poor. She works harder than he does. I have very high aspirations. I want to be the PM of Canada (seriously), and I will probably end up rich. Difference is, I believe that, in a world where people are starving on their feet, working their asses off for pennies a day, it is wrong to make (or, rather, keep) more than 20 000 a year (yes, canadian dollars). I want to get rich and use all that money to make the world a better place. I want to be rich because money is power in today's world. I want to be rich so that I can enact change that will make us all equal; brothers working together for a better world. I want to leave this world a communist planet, better than I found it.
I am a communist, and I want to work hard. I want to make the world a better place. I do not want to profit from the suffering of others.

wow,
can i have some of your money when you get rich?i really hate working and i am actually quite lazy,so please,i beg,send me your money.

you gotta be rich to think like that to begin with.

i wager that in 5 years or so you will be singing a different tune,even though i find your zeal and fervor to do right by your fellow man admirable,it is so friggen naive that you will soon realise the folly of what you just said.

you are young so you can be an idealist,but as you grow and become cynical like the world around you,you will sing a different tune.

i am not trying to be mean or anything,i was exactly like you 20 years ago,my kid is the same now.fact is ...life is brutal and ugly and beautiful and many things...but fair is not in lifes vocabulary!

Exactly.

how about i need more then you...cause i am needy...is that fair?you might be content with a flat and some books and food,i may want a boat and a motorcycle and lots of land to run around nekid on.
or should i just want what you want?

how about i need more then you...cause i am needy...is that fair?you might be content with a flat and some books and food,i may want a boat and a motorcycle and lots of land to run around nekid on.
or should i just want what you want?

Who says you can't have those things in a Communism?

You're thinking about the stereotypical form of "Communism", which is really a Dictatorship.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Kanabia
You're missing the point. Capitalism makes the wealth, Socialism redistributes the wealth, and Communism is the truly equal society at the end. You don't need more wealth if you already have everything you need



how about i need more then you...cause i am needy...is that fair?you might be content with a flat and some books and food,i may want a boat and a motorcycle and lots of land to run around nekid on.
or should i just want what you want?

Why must society be equal in all things when the people who make it up are not ?

If everyone has equal protection under the law . Then why cant they perform to their own level and be compensated as such .


Why would you force slavery on those that did not wish to support their less willing neighbor ?


why must a Doctors level of compensation be equal to a farmers ?


since when and how do you justify the state or the collective as having rights over the individual ?



how can you be free if you are in a communist system ?


Thank you US constitution and bill of rights and 2 cnd ammendment for existing.

Why must society be equal in all things when the people who make it up are not ?

If everyone has equal protection under the law . Then why cant they perform to their own level and be compensated as such .


Why would you force slavery on those that did not wish to support their less willing neighbor ?


why must a Doctors level of compensation be equal to a farmers ?


since when and how do you justify the state or the collective as having rights over the individual ?



how can you be free if you are in a communist system ?


Thank you US constitution and bill of rights and 2 cnd ammendment for existing.

1: It's just redistributing wealth, so that all people have equal opportunity.

2: Exactly. Who's saying they can't under a Communist system?

3: "Slavery"? Again, it's just redistribution of wealth, a.k.a. automatically "helping your neighbor". There's no "slavery" to it.

4: Think of it this way: Farmers feed everyone. Doctors save lives. Both professions keep people alive. Under such a system, a farmer would be more well-off than one would be under a Capitalist system, whereas a doctor wouldn't live like a god, but would still have a very good life.

5: Eh? Everybody has maximum civil liberties under such a system. There's no censorship. You can say anything you want, to anyone you want. You can even walk nude in public, if you wish.

6: Read above.

7: And thank you, dickheaded Republicans and Democrats, for your rampant censorship and curtailing of civil liberties. Thanks a bunch for turning us around 50 years.

4: Think of it this way: Farmers feed everyone. Doctors save lives. Both professions keep people alive. Under such a system, a farmer would be more well-off than one would be under a Capitalist system, whereas a doctor wouldn't live like a god, but would still have a very good life.

The reason why doctors get more is because we need more doctors. The capitalist system is designed to encourage people to pick the fields that we need. Doctors have to work harder and are in greater demand so we give them more so that they do not decide to be a farmer instead. Without incentives to pick that career we would have to start forcing people to be engineers, doctors and scientists and perhaps even farmers because there might not be enough people interested in the field to support society.

The reason why doctors get more is because we need more doctors. The capitalist system is designed to encourage people to pick the fields that we need. Doctors have to work harder and are in greater demand so we give them more so that they do not decide to be a farmer instead. Without incentives to pick that career we would have to start forcing people to be engineers, doctors and scientists and perhaps even farmers because there might not be enough people interested in the field to support society.

And, in this system, the doctors would still make more, but the wealth would be evenly distributed. That way, the doctors making more money makes others better off.

And, in this system, the doctors would still make more, but the wealth would be evenly distributed. That way, the doctors making more money makes others better off.
But it does not help the doctor. That was what I was trying to claim. People are by nature somewhat self-interested and they might not want to work hard when their friend the historian has an easier job and gets as much from it. Many people go into these fields for money, when the monetary incentive is gone(the money is distributed to others) then no one wants to be a doctor.

Are all the communists in this game at the bottom of the social ladder, and just find it impossible to climb it.
Actually, the far Left -- including communists -- is disproportionately composed of people working in "intellectual" occupations (university instructors, for one). While this is hardly the top of the social (economic) "ladder," it does put most of us far from the bottom.
Or can't bring themselves to climb it.
I suppose this is much closer to the truth. Since communists' relative success in academic competition, it would be somewhat difficult to argue that they are talentless or lazy individuals. Rather, it seems that they have pursued careers (as most people, in fact, pursue careers) that provide more fulfillment than they can expect in potentially higher-paying occupations.
All communism realy is when you get down to it is taking away from the wealthy who HAVE puthard work into building their companies, and giving it all to the poor. So it is nothing but stealing.
It seems others have been making the point that businesses do not necessarily (or, perhaps, frequently) depend on the "hard work" of the owning class; I have nothing especially important to add.

I would, however, like to clarify the discussion. There are two very different things to which you may refer when talking about "stealing from the rich." Perhaps you refer to the early stages of the communist revolution, in which capitalist private property must be destroyed in favor of communal ownership.

Marx himself responded to this bourgeois objection, in The Communist Manifesto. Because I am, unlike communists (which I am not), a lazy individual, I will paraphrase rather than find the exact quotation. Essentially, Marx pointed out that this kind of "theft" was necessary to the bourgeois revolution, as well. Capitalism destroyed feudal property to institute capitalist relations of ownership. This is the very essence of economic revolution: one form of ownership replaces another. To complain about its being "theft" is therefore (besides making oneself a hypocrite) to beg the question, namely "which form of property is superior?"

On the other hand, perhaps you understand communism to "steal" the product of hard workers, redistributing it to the poor lazy buffoons with no motivation. This is an "after the revolution" question, and therefore requires a more complex answer, for it requires one to slough-off one's capitalist mindset in an attempt to empathize with a person living under communism. Not an easy task!! It truly strains the imagination.

Nevertheless, one can make the attempt. The first step is to realize that the great tool of capitalist motivation -- money, wealth -- is only one among several motivations to work, operating even under capitalism. Indeed, when scientists survey workers about the factors affecting job-satisfaction, "salary" comes in at around number seven.

So what other motivations do people have? Well, think back to your childhood -- try around eight to ten years old. When people asked you, "What do you want to be when you grow up," what did you say? It's possible that you were one of the increasing number of children who say "rich" -- the fact of its increase being further evidence that this is a mentality generated and supported by capitalism -- but by and large, children name jobs that they believe they will enjoy... or which fulfill their ideals. They say things like, "I want to be a veterinarian, because I love animals." Or they say, "I want to be a doctor, because I want to help people."

The great tragedy of consumer society is that within a few short years, these same children will learn that other kids judge them by the clothes that they wear, or the car that they drive, or the video games they can purchase. Make no mistake -- they already knew about competition. They competed for grades, they competed in sports, and they competed in various recess-games. Competition does not depend on money. As Freud put it, "[a]ggressiveness was not created by property." If you want to understand communist relations, you have to come to grips with this first.

What capitalism does is to introduce a new and unnecessary object of competition: first wealth, then -- with consumer society -- possessions. (This is actually an important distinction... one privileges the "Protestant work ethic," while the other privileges gratification.)

So, to answer your question... In communist society, when people "work hard," they do not do it to accumulate wealth (which is impossible under communist relations of production). Rather, they work hard for the esteem of their peers, or to win awards, or because they enjoy doing a good job... or because they "want to help people." And NO ONE can steal these things from a person -- they are truly inalienable.

Remember, people work for all these reasons today. My publishing a paper bears a very indirect relationship to my salary (if it affects it at all)... but I do it, because I am competing with other scholars to "make a dent" in the field. Most other people work for similar goals. Yes, we also compete for money... but only because this competition has been introduced. People are inherently competitive. Give us something to compete over, and there is no stopping us!! Of course, by the same token, if you take it away... we'll just find something else at which to direct our pride and aggression.

You can't stop people from working hard by taking away capital. Instead, you'll be allowing them to take part in much more enjoyable, more human competitiveness.

The only problem I have with equality and fairness is when my business and hard earned money is taken from me and given to the damn government and people I don't know.
You're correct there, except for the "People I don't know" part. Pretty much the only people who receive money in a Communist government are, you guessed it, the government.

What I don't understand is how so many of those God damned pinkos want to be communists, why don't you just join the American Socialist Party. A democrat is not a commie.

Marx himself responded to this bourgeois objection, in The Communist Manifesto. Because I am, unlike communists (which I am not), a lazy individual, I will paraphrase rather than find the exact quotation. Essentially, Marx pointed out that this kind of "theft" was necessary to the bourgeois revolution, as well. Capitalism destroyed feudal property to institute capitalist relations of ownership.
This is specious though. The rise of capitalism didn't require that the feudal lords give up their lands. It involved merchants and people of the like accumulating their own property. Nobody stripped the lords of their lands and handed them over, at least not on a grand scale.

Also, your take on competition is true for things like academics, because there is a certain amount of pride and esteem that comes with having your name attached to a prominent paper. But how does that effect much more mundane but ultimately necessary jobs like sewing clothes in a garment factory? I don't think that a lot of people are willing to work hard to become known as the best stitcher.

The problem with communism is that it requires the alteration of human behavior. People like wealth and in order for communism to work would require a social construction that still might not affect people. I do not really care what other people think of me, I prefer having power and the capitalist system provides that power.

The fact that communists are professors does not really help their case either, because of the fact that professors are relatively isolated from the real world. Professors work with other professors and idealistic students, they can afford to be ivory tower intellectuals while most people go through life considering how to work best within the capitalist system. The professors seem to be communists while those who work within the capitalist system tend to enjoy it(unless they are at the bottom which is usually the fault of the person).

Part of the strength of the capitalist system is the reward. For every success a person receives a reward for doing so, this reinforces the ideas of capitalist teachings. Communism does not offer this reward because it gives everyone the same salary. Many people choose to improve themselves not simply because they love the field but also because of the success that the improvement will give them. Many people after going through life do not retain idealism and instead of doing the best job for some intangible they do it for something that can have and use. Capitalism is pragmatic but communism seems to be overly idealistic in my mind and the minds of many others.

nonsense. You can say that CEO's make too much money, but people who get to that level of business success usually put in plenty of 80 hour weeks to get there.

That's true. Many people in upper management really worked their asses off to get there.

However, the real communist concern is only indirectly with the CEO. The primary problem is with the owning class, the ones who make money by virtue only of the money they already have. True, many of them may also move on and off of the governing boards of major corporations, and they may occasionally act as CEO... but these, of course, are the one's who became CEO without any especially hard work. They were essentially born to it.

The other upper-management people -- the ones who worked to get there -- should be compared to slaves put in charge of other slaves... and given great rewards (as compared to those of other slaves) in order to keep them on their masters' side. Historically, real slaves in this position frequently identified themselves with the owning class rather than their fellow slaves, whom they considered "lazy" and "worthless." They could be quite brutal.

This is specious though. The rise of capitalism didn't require that the feudal lords give up their lands. It involved merchants and people of the like accumulating their own property. Nobody stripped the lords of their lands and handed them over, at least not on a grand scale.

You are looking at it too simplistically. Just think about why there was so much conflict between the old aristocracy and the rising bourgeoisie... Wars were literally fought over the rise of capitalism. Wars which put the bourgeoisie in power (through "democratic" revolutions)... and what did they do? They changed property and commerce law to undermine the old nobility's way of life.

That is exactly what the communist revolution would do: change property and commerce law to undermine the old bourgeois way of life.

You are looking at it too simplistically. Just think about why there was so much conflict between the old aristocracy and the rising bourgeoisie... Wars were literally fought over the rise of capitalism. Wars which put the bourgeoisie in power (through "democratic" revolutions)... and what did they do? They changed property and commerce law to undermine the old nobility's way of life.

That is exactly what the communist revolution would do: change property and commerce law to undermine the old bourgeois way of life.
The fact remains though that the feudal lords were allowed to keep their lands. You might find that simplistic but I see it as a big sticking point. Capitalism managed to rise without taking property from anyone.

The fact remains though that the feudal lords were allowed to keep their lands. You might find that simplistic but I see it as a big sticking point. Capitalism managed to rise without taking property from anyone.

That's not true. Feudal property relied on a particular kind of rent being collected by landholders from vassals... in perpetuity. It involved serfdom, slavery, and indentured labor. One step at a time, the capitalist revolutions made these forms of land-holding and employment ILLEGAL.

The communist revolution would simply finish the job by treating wage-slavery as the slavery that it is.

Name me one communist country that didn't reach economic problems or where the people didn't starve or that became wealthy and where the people weren't oppressed.


I can't name one communist country. No one can. There haven't been any. I can name numerous police-state dictatorships claiming to be "dictatorships of the proletariat", supposedly the last stage before true communism. BTW, capitalism does not offer freedom. Democracy does. Please, before you start a thread like this, learn the difference between a political system and an economic system.

Yes, and I'm sure Britney Spears is more important to our survival than a doctor. :rolleyes:
Hey, without sexual attraction there would be no survival of the species.

That is the biggest load of bullshit I have ever read, Africa has been shit since the begining of time

That's not true.

Around the European Middle Ages, much of Africa was far more advanced both culturally and politically.

A little lesson on slavery: Africans were not enslaved because Europeans were racist. Actually, the truth is somewhat closer to the reverse... racism as we know it today developed as a result of slavery.

When Christopher Columbus landed in the Caribbean, one of the first things he did was take slaves from amongst the natives. Considering that Europeans came back to the Americas seeking, first gold and silver, and later cash crops -- either of which requires a very labor-intensive production process -- it was somewhat natural for them to seek slaves.

Their first, very natural, choice, was to try to enslave the "Indians." But they ran into problems. First of all, Indians kept dying of European diseases to which they were not immune. Second, and perhaps more importantly, they were not at all used to farming or hard labor, so they tended to run away into the mountains.

There was a brief attempt to bring European (primarily slavic) slaves to the Caribbean... but they died too frequently of tropical diseases, so the investment could not pay off.

Finally, Africans. They were largely immune to tropical diseases already, and better: they were immune to European diseases, since they had been trading with Europe for centuries. Moreover, they were already accustomed to long work-days: they were farmers, after all. Finally, because Africa of that time was organized into kingdoms with advanced systems of communication and transportation, they possessed the infrastructure to effectively transport captured slaves to the coast for sale and shipping.

Racism as we know it developed as a justification for this "practical" solution.

Yes, europe did exploit africa..... yes, they did rather get screwed

But they've had amplr time to pull themselves out of the gutter and they still havent done it

Let's ignore, for the moment, the fact that the wealthy nations of the twentieth-century have not only done little to aid Africa, they have also actively hindered their development.

Let's pretend that Africa had "every fair chance." It takes quite a leap of the imagination, but I'm willing to do it.

Now, have they had "ample time" to recover? I don't know... how long did it take Europeans to drag themselves out of the mire that was the Dark Ages?

Is this some sort of racist double standard?

Well gee, still ignoring my post on canibalism......hmm how convienent

That's because i typically choose not to dignify racism with a response.

how about i need more then you...cause i am needy...is that fair?you might be content with a flat and some books and food,i may want a boat and a motorcycle and lots of land to run around nekid on.
or should i just want what you want?

As I have said...

That is want, not need.

Actually, the far Left -- including communists -- is disproportionately composed of people working in "intellectual" occupations (university instructors, for one). While this is hardly the top of the social (economic) "ladder," it does put most of us far from the bottom.

I suppose this is much closer to the truth. Since communists' relative success in academic competition, it would be somewhat difficult to argue that they are talentless or lazy individuals. Rather, it seems that they have pursued careers (as most people, in fact, pursue careers) that provide more fulfillment than they can expect in potentially higher-paying occupations.
<Snipped the rest of the novel>
Agreed. The majority of the extreme left persue happiness in work over financial gain. Incidentially, the vast majority are academics...

So does that put you lot completely out of touch with the working class?

From personal experience: It does. I can't even begin to count the number of people I've argued political systems with on the job. I have yet to meet more than 1 other semi anarchist.
Amazingly, the majority of people I've worked with have realized I wasn't a raving loon. A few weeks of discussion and suddenly people change their perception of economics immensely. Obviously they don't magically become anarchists or anything like that, but most of them never realized how our economy works and most come to realize that they want the same things I do. Too bad the elite doesn't.

Edit: I'm a construction worker primarily

Agreed. The majority of the extreme left persue happiness in work over financial gain. Incidentially, the vast majority are academics...

So does that put you lot completely out of touch with the working class?

From personal experience: It does. I can't even begin to count the number of people I've argued political systems with on the job. I have yet to meet more than 1 other semi anarchist.

To date, I have far more experience in "working" jobs than in academic work... and I agree. I actually waffled about going to grad school because I was so fed-up as an undergrad... I didn't think school had anything to say about the real world.

Eventually, I came back... though I'd sworn I wouldn't. As a worker, I still believed in change... but I realized that theory is lacking in both current reform efforts, and the small circles of anarchist and communist activists left. The world has changed since Marx... and the movements need to change with it.

So, I'm trying... against all odds... to figure out how theory and practice can be reunited. (I am studying as a political theorist.)

(By the way... I am more anarchist than communist. I just get into these debates because, while I have my disagreements with communism, I think it gets a bad rap for no good reason. So, I like to lend a hand. The communists I know are sincere, thoughtful, and intelligent people. I think they deserve a fair hearing.)

Communism is a dead ideal which never should have been born

It is too against human nature.

Not to say America's system is good, give everything to the Rich is Baby Bush's plan a, well that and make everyone hate us.

But anyhow, no, it is a nice dream, everyone equal. But we saw how it worked out under the Soviet Union. I just cant believe so many countries let their leaders hold em under it.... unless the govt hasnt let em know what happened in the last 100 yrs or so. Which ofcourse most countries thats true i guess. Every home doesnt have a TV ....

A lot of this debate focuses on human nature. If you believe that humans are by nature selfless, then you have a strong case for supporting communism.

On the contrary, I think that people are fundamentally self-interested, which is why I lean toward communism. You have to believe that most people care rather little about themselves if you think they prefer to work for someone else's profit rather than their own good and fulfilment.

I think people are inherently competitive... but that just means they'll compete over practically anything. You don't need money to "make" people compete with one another.

Capitalism is remarkable in that, while in some cases widening the gap between rich and poor (something which I actually attribute to barriers to free trade), has actually increased the welfare of everyone.

It would seem that way to you, if you live in a post-industrial country. For most of the nineteenth century, of course, people saw things differently... factory labor was making their lives more miserable, with less free time and more hardship. But then the industrialized nations exported capitalism to the rest of the world, drawing on resources (including labor) in the "Third World" to the extent that companies began to produce "superprofits." With these super-profits, they have been able to "share" a bit with their own country's working class, alleviating the pressures of capitalism. But someone always loses out -- they may just live where you don't see them everyday.

Think Plato's 'Republic' in action.

Even Plato didn't think Plato's "Republic" was a good idea.

Responding to several of the more recent posts....


Isn't it funny how capitalist ideologues are so eager to point to the failure of the USSR as a failure of communism, despite its bare resemblance to any kind of communist theory...

Yet when "Communist" China begins to look rather successful economically, they are equally eager to point out that it is NOT "real" communism!!

Obviously, neither one is communist. It's just really funny that capitalist rhetoric can be so transparent.

Responding to several of the more recent posts....


Isn't it funny how capitalist ideologues are so eager to point to the failure of the USSR as a failure of communism, despite its bare resemblance to any kind of communist theory...

Yet when "Communist" China begins to look rather successful economically, they are equally eager to point out that it is NOT "real" communism!!

Obviously, neither one is communist. It's just really funny that capitalist rhetoric can be so transparent.

*sorry, thought it was a known failure, didnt know i was peeing on your cherios. Good luck. And here is hoping you at the top since communism is nothing more then a dick-n-tater ship* :)

*sorry, thought it was a known failure, didnt know i was peeing on your cherios. Good luck. And here is hoping you at the top since communism is nothing more then a dick-n-tater ship* :)

Was that English? Honestly, I'd like to respond... but I wouldn't know where to begin.

Four points I have....

1. Altruism, communalism, etc is against human "nature". Greed is a part of human "nature". However, what we feel is not always right. Would you rape a member of the opposite sex you felt was attractive, and whom you actively wanted to have sex with? No, because you realize that you can get in trouble with the law for that. And you realize there is good reason for not allowing rape, although you would like to have sex with that person. People need to be educated about altruism, and be shown that their greed is wrong, and in the long run, less productive. Which leads me to my next point.

2. Altruism, again. Communism isnt only about making people equal. In the long run, it can quite possibly make us as a whole more productive. In capitalism, you make the worst products you can, up to a point where sales get proportionatly lower than profit. In communism, you would try your hardest at your job. Why would you try your hardest? Because if everyone tries their hardest, then everyone gets the best possible products. And with better products, people have more means to do better.

3. In communism, you want to progress, because you get better things. Its just like capitalism, there is only one real difference. Instead of direct benefits, you get indirect benefits. If its a true communist nation, those benefits should be equal to the direct benefits of capitalism.

4. Communism is possible. It requires three things.

a. Existing wealth(check)
b. Education in the way altruism works, and how it could benefit people, as long as everyone tried.
c. The will to try(which is more or less a derivative of (b), provided that people are sufficiently knowledgable that altruism can lead to equality and progress in wealth).

answer-

the communist manifisto and assorted idealistic trash

and

idiotic professors in college

Actually I first came across the concept in the bible. Acts 2:42-48 I think.

communism is about freedom china has adopted some ideas of the west because it sees america as a threat if america didn't put embargo's on china every time one of there industries grows large they would still be the same as in the 1950's the chinese do not follow communist writings to the letter because that would be totalatarian

China is a totalatarian country.

China is a totalatarian country.

Yes, and they aren't communist.

Yes, and they aren't communist.


Exactly. Thanks for pointing that out. :)

Vlad von Volcist:
Here is a suggestion for communists. Stop blamming all your problems on companies and the middle and upper classes and start working to increase your own standard of living. You know something more realistic then waiting for utopia that will never come, because a man's greed will eventualy drive him to do more.

Excuse me? Just because people who do manual labour are not businessmen, it doesnt mean they are not working! If all labourers went to start a business, then who would be the workers? Or are you mistaken lazy people to be communists? Additionally, Che Guevara the communist revolutionary, was a Doctor, who would have earned sizeable amounts but instead, chose to adopt a communist way of thought after he saw the masses in poverty (The Motorcycle Diaries)

You say Communist governments are corrupt, that is a generalization and a stereotype. Just because past governments who label themselves as communist were corrupt, it doesnt mean a non-corrupt communist government is impossible. Besides, capitalism is just as corrupt for the very basis that it exploits people for profit. You said it yourself, greed will drive them to do more, but doesnt greed breed corruption? While it is valid to say capitalists (such as CEO's) earn their fortune because they have worked hard to get up to their present status, it is also unfair because up to a point, they will have earned enough corresponding to what they deserve. They will then start to earn more than they deserve through shares and investments. They are sitting there doing nothing while workers are breaking their backs for a living.

My real third point, which I had forgotten mid-post last night.

People are using history as an example that communism doesn't work. This would be a valid assessment, if communism had fallen as a result of a bad economic policy. This is not the case in the 20th century. When russia was becoming communist, it was in a war. It pulled out to try to overthrow its government, and in 1921, was invaded by the victors of ww1. It won, but the first communist nation in the world already had been shown that the capitalist nations of the world were against it. It had to work on its military heavily, as both the capitalists didnt like it, and the germans were eager to kill and slave the russians, who were under the german race. So Russia had to build itself up. And it was right, when germany invaded it in 1941.

It fought another war, where it was put in a precarious position, had to build the strongest army the world had ever seen, to stop the german invaders, who had attacked russia for the second time in a 40 years. It then pushed for buffer zones around it, because nations kept invading russia.

The allies(other than russia) decided that Russia was a threat to them, and maintained their large armies, and built nuclear weapons, pointed at russia. Russia, in turn, supported budding communist nations, and did everything in its power to get nuclear weapons, so it could defend itself.

Russia was forced, until it desolved, to protect from enemies from without and within. It not only came from an unwealthy background, a horrid place to start communism, and had to become totalitarian to have any chance to defend itself. It had to spend so much on competing with the US, that it bankrupt itself. And on the contrary to what people are saying, the people were not lazy, and had things handed to them. They took their extreme hardship, and worked hard. Because they wanted to succeed. Much of the reason they tried was because of propoganda and such, but even so.

Now, all the other communist states of the 20th century are pretty much by-products of Russian communism. North korea and South were split by both superpowers, and koreans generally want to be one nation. Its not surprising that the north koreans used their soviet support to try to unify. Korea, too, didnt start with the wealth required to compete with capitalist nations.

Vietnam wasnt about communism, it was about nationalism. And it, too, started on shaky grounds.

Cuba, the US basically forced it to turn to the soviet union. The US tried to assassinate its leader multiple times, ferment counter-revolutions, etc. It didnt have much choice to become totalitarian.

China, basically the same thing. It couldn't compete with other capitalist nations, it didnt have starting wealth. The only reason its picking up, is because it has cheap labour, and is engaging in very capitalistic practices with it.

Communism was never given a chance to succeed. The capitalists of the world, both directly and indirectly, fought communism tooth and nail(is that the saying?). Communism has had to compete with stronger countries, with functioning economies. Communism is not about instant rewards, it isnt going to make an economic revolution. Its going to make an evolution to a better economy. When people stop worrying about profit, they can worry about better products. All profit lets you do, is buy similarly half-assed products. The only incentive to progress, in capitalist, is to be barely better than your competitor, so you lose the least money, and get the most buisness.

I'm surprised by how many people think Communism is about fairness and equality. Guess how many times the words 'equality' or 'fairness' appear in the Communist Manifesto? Zero times. That's because it had nothing to do with justice.

Also, there is nothing idealistic about Communism. Marx argued for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, not some utopian paradise. There was nothing pretty about what he was advocating.

but not taking that money leads to a less equal society, and potentially those who need the money more than you do not getting any (and having to face the subsequent problems that brings)

so you are against even paying taxes?

what it really boils down to are two things, i think:

a)Should a person be responsible for making his own way in life, or should he be allowed to survive on the benevolence of others?

and

b)what is more important -- freedom or equality? (free enterprise favors freedom, of course, while communism favors equality)

there's a reason why most communist countries' economies fail:

Entrepreneurialism is punished, while averageness is exalted.

Think about it:

Would you go into business if the state was going to own all your assets? No? Neither would I. And if I'm not going into business, where are people who aren't businessmen going to get jobs?

What you end up with:
Crappy products for consumers;
Long waits for consumers to buy said crappy products;
Guild system for the work force (you're stuck in your job);
Horrible trade -- nobody wants the communist country's crappy products, except maybe to sell at Dollar General (hehe);

The cream is not allowed to rise to the top, except maybe in scientific/academic fields. When the cream is allowed to rise to the top, the cream start businesses and create jobs for millions... and if the government keeps their hands off the companies' money, you end up with great products that serve the consumers well.

Are all the communists in this game at the bottom of the social ladder, and just find it impossible to climb it. Or can't bring themselves to climb it. All communism realy is when you get down to it is taking away from the wealthy who HAVE puthard work into building their companies, and giving it all to the poor. So it is nothing but stealing. That is why nobody can increase their standard of living. So you work all your life and in the end get no rewards. Plus it takes away all your rights for what? I'll tell you what so the wealthy and middle classes who work hard for their money are forced to give it all up and live life as a poor person regardless of all their hard work. That is why I think it appeals to the poor because it forces their bosses to live like them.
So for all the communists out there I ask you what the hell kind of government is this?

As for me I say LONG LIVE CAPITALISM.

That's an highly distorted outlook about Communism...by the way the one stealing it's the capitalist...why?

Simple...in first place because the "surplus" he gains comes from the use its worker do of the goods he gives them to work at his beck-and-call...for without workers there's no surplus, while the resources and goods are there and it's a simple "convention" (chosen by those who do it!) to say that one could possess goods that he personally doesn't need but that he keep to milk surplus from his slaves!

...in second place because usually 99.999% of capitalists does his worst to under-pay his workers, even below what's is needed for a decent living and to allow them to let their kids stand the same chances or better chances than themselves...

...in third place a system which overproduces to the point which comes the need to "destroy goods" to allow the capitalist to earn more "surplus" is inefficient, pointless and definitely idiot...things should be produced when needed and should be used for their fair life...wasting is stupid and is what capitalism does!

So Capitalism is a crap from efficiency point of view...it causes a growth of unrest, perversion of the minds and the invention of new crimes on capitalists' behalf...as for those capitalists which still have some real entrepreneurial spirit...I think that one of the problems with RS was the limited understanding of the collective usefulness of this characteristic if properly channelled through driving motives different from that of "possession" which is the motor of Capitalism...

For possession isn't what people "really want"...what they want is the illusion of finding refresh to one's superior and inferior needs through possession...actually they want the real thing, but as society is structured now, they couldn't have it...so the key of a successful new society is to find a way to "feed" both superior (spiritual) and inferior (beastly) needs of people without using the illusion tied to possession...for illusion is a tool of Capitalism...fear and illusion are its main tools and it excels in them...

As for Real Socialism (the one you call "Communism")...there were limits and errors...for in some ways it couldn't absorb useful solutions of other kinds of society and in other ways it kept similar logics to the one which run Capitalism...but the concept is still better than Capitalism, which hadn't "won"...the simple truth was that Real Socialism was killed by the limits of its "on the road" construction choice and by the refusal of auto-enhancement that a political class turned into a "new bourgeoisie" and refused change for it meant losing power...

...the thing about "becoming all poor" is mostly bullshit...the truth is that many socialist countries ended after Communism in a better condition than they started since most of them were deep in feudal era before Communism took over and then they'd always been on cold war with Capitalistic Countries trying to sabotage and destroy them...one could say that Japan passed from feudalism to industrialization in very little time, but one should also say that Japan wasn't under continual threat of destruction from hostile forces all around the world...so one couldn't be surprise if a place started as feudal country which had to keep up a continual war against the outside had hard time making everybody "rich"!
For any country war and near-war state are money-leeching conditions from the economical point of view...could be different for a country starting poor?

F**K CAPITALISM!! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!

there's a reason why most communist countries' economies fail:

Entrepreneurialism is punished, while averageness is exalted.

you are talking about the marxist-leninist-stalinist-whateverist countries that self-identified as socialist, right?

if so your analysis doesn't really have much to do with reality. the reality of it is that the problems of the ussr's system had more to do with the lack of accurate information transfer between planners and producers and consumers, as well as overly centralized planning 1) being unable to fully deal with the complexities of everything and 2) focusing the plans on the the things the planners and other party elite were interested in, rather than the more general needs and wants of people.

1. In your communist type government concept,
would you accept democratic national elections
with diffrent political partys offering diffrent
economic, political and social points of view
like say those in the European socialist countries
of Europe like Sweeden?

2. In your communsit type government concept,
would you accept, private independent civil social organizations not under government control to exsist?

Please post here, and if you wish
I have always said, I welcome all telegrams
from any nation on any subject positive or negative
anytime, thank you.
La Habana Cuba.

I mispelled Sweden

1. In your communist type government concept,
would you accept democratic national elections
with diffrent political partys offering diffrent
economic, political and social points of view
like say those in the European socialist countries
of Europe like Sweeden?

2. In your communsit type government concept,
would you accept, private independent civil social organizations not under government control to exsist?

Please post here, and if you wish
I have always said, I welcome all telegrams
from any nation on any subject positive or negative
anytime, thank you.
La Habana Cuba.

1: Of course. Why wouldn't it be this way? There would be Leftist and Rightist parties, and of course Centrist parties.

2: I don't see why one would need them. The government already provides everything that these would provide, and more.

No I'm not against paying taxes because the government needs that money to run, and even if in theory communism has no central government you have to look at real life communism. There is a very strong and oppressive central government. Also look at the world communism is a failure and capitalism works cause it offers freedom and progress.


The communism that was attempted by the soviets, china and cuba isn't the communism that Karl Max wrote about. The oppressive commuism that was done in the USSR was the result of Stalin. Communism was also suppose to be done in industrilized nations, while the Soviets and China are agriculture based countries.

The communism that was attempted by the soviets, china and cuba isn't the communism that Karl Max wrote about. The oppressive commuism that was done in the USSR was the result of Stalin. Communism was also suppose to be done in industrilized nations, while the Soviets and China are agriculture based countries.

Exactly, which is why those countries (including North Korea) were/are Totalitarian, not Communist.

That is great, now this is for all,

The problem I see is in every so called communist nation
where socialism or communism lets say for the sake of
argument the same, has been practiced, they have outlawed all other political partys and social organizations
not under government control, my own native nation of
Cuba included.

I truly believe that most if not all of my fellow
socialist or communist nations on Nationstates
want a totaly good communist or socialist nation
to exsist, I give you that, even though many of
those nations attack me for my views as I see
them practiced in those so called communist nations.

I think the problem with communism or socialism the same, is when the state controls everything there can be
no opposition to anything and it creates an utomatic dictatorship.

The European democratic socialist nations of Europe
like Sweden concentrate more on providing social services
than state ownership of everything.

That is why in my view, they can work with diffrent
political partys, economic and social points of view.

New question?
In your communist or socialist concept of government
would you allow private companys to exsist,
if so would they just be small business type companys
as apposed to big corporation type companys like in
the capitalist nations.

And why am I always attacked
by communist and socialist when I
point these facts out about Cuba?
My native nation.

That's just the thing --- A true Communism isn't under control by a government. That's a Totalitarian Dictatorship.

A Communism is controlled by the people.

There is no true pure capitalist country, but such a thing would be a horror to behold. There has also not been a true comunist country because people are inherently "evil". Both theories are deeply flawed, but we have yet to find a better method. There are other methods of allocating scare resources, but none of them really work.

Capitalism fails because it assumes infinite competition and infinite information about prices at no cost.

Communism fails because it ingores human nature.

"Imperial Borg" works out as an economic theory because I say it does :D

Communism fails because it ingores human nature.

But what is human nature? Is anyone who does not agree in exploitation and pursuing material interests inhuman? Hardly. "Human nature" is a construct of society, because it isn't my nature.

But what is human nature? Is anyone who does not agree in exploitation and pursuing material interests inhuman? Hardly. "Human nature" is a construct of society, because it isn't my nature.

'Tisn't mine, either.

*The fucking transfer failed, and it had 308kb left! Argh!!

I dont see how in a so called
communist concept of government
as practiced in Cuba where
all the means of production and all social organizations
are under government control,
there can exsist diffrent political partys
offering diffrent economic political and social points of view, which they do not exist.

That is my main argument against
the government of my native nation of Cuba.

I am not sure if some understand me or not.

I dont see how in a so called
communist concept of government
as practiced in Cuba where
all the means of production and all social organizations
are under government control,
there can exsist diffrent political partys
offering diffrent economic political and social points of view, which they do not exist.

That is my main argument against
the government of my native nation of Cuba.

I am not sure if some understand me or not.

That's the thing. Cuba's under a Dictatorship. It's Totalitarian, just like China, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union.

Under a real Communism, Cuba would be a much better place.

I dont see how in a so called
communist concept of government
as practiced in Cuba where
all the means of production and all social organizations
are under government control,
there can exsist diffrent political partys
offering diffrent economic political and social points of view, which they do not exist.

That is my main argument against
the government of my native nation of Cuba.

I am not sure if some understand me or not.

Well, that's the thing. The vast majority of modern communists oppose such a system, as the government is basically operating as a huge corporation - state capitalism. It does not empower the workers, and is not democratic on any level. Most of us do not believe that Cuba is socialist. (Though I do admire their healthcare and education system, considering its circumstances)

(PS, only a minor quibble...could you try and form paragraphs, please? It would make your posts much easier to read....right now it seems like poetry :))

Are all the communists in this game at the bottom of the social ladder, and just find it impossible to climb it. Or can't bring themselves to climb it. All communism realy is when you get down to it is taking away from the wealthy who HAVE puthard work into building their companies, and giving it all to the poor. So it is nothing but stealing. That is why nobody can increase their standard of living. So you work all your life and in the end get no rewards. Plus it takes away all your rights for what? I'll tell you what so the wealthy and middle classes who work hard for their money are forced to give it all up and live life as a poor person regardless of all their hard work. That is why I think it appeals to the poor because it forces their bosses to live like them.
So for all the communists out there I ask you what the hell kind of government is this?

As for me I say LONG LIVE CAPITALISM.

so yur saying that a bunch of rich assholes live nice will everyone else rots in prison for being poor is the way to go

so yur saying that a bunch of rich assholes live nice will everyone else rots in prison for being poor is the way to go

Whoa. What the hell's going on? Methinks this isn't the real Neo Anarchists...

in theory, communism isnt bad. Im an american, and am against communism of today, but if you really look at the theory of communism, made by Marx, then you'll notice without corrupt governments and lazy people that communism would be a good answer to the worlds problems. People just mess it up.

Do my fellow communist and socialist nations
on Nationstates who want a good
communist or socialist nation to exsist think
Cuba is a good communist nation government?

In what ways is it a good government?

In what ways is it a bad government?

What would you change in the government concept
of Cuba as practiced?

Problems with Communism:
1. although in theory it is alright there has not yet been a practiced example that has not ended in something horrible. You can say all you want about theoretical Communism but it is Practial Communism that counts.
2. Do you support communism? Is your sole ambition to be a factory worker your whole life? Unless you can answer 'yes' to both these questions you will be in the group that causes communism to fail. Almost all supporters of communism i have met/know see themselves as the leaders and not the workers. It would seem in practical communism this is also the case which is why it fails.
3. Capitalist Greed is not based on money - it is based on power and status. Money is merely a way of quantifying this and making trade easier. Without money there is still Power and Status and in practice people tend to seek both in all types of society.

On the other hand i disagree with captalism in its extreemes as you really do need a welfare system (thats good) to act as a safety net for those on hard times and to aim to give children born into poverty at least a *chance* to make something for themselves in life. I think the UK has something approaching the right balance of welfare vs capitalism, but think much of europe has gone slightly too far.

Problems with Communism:
1. although in theory it is alright there has not yet been a practiced example that has not ended in something horrible. You can say all you want about theoretical Communism but it is Practial Communism that counts.

This is a half-truth... but one worth discussing.

First, it will be helpful to point out that there are at least two parts to any theory of radical change:

On the one hand you have the "what/why" of a theory: what does it mean to accomplish, and why is that better than the status quo.

But you also have the "how (not to mention who, when, and where)" of a theory: how does one expect change to happen (also who will start it, and when and where can we expect to find them?

With a theoretical enterprise such as communism, what unites all theorists is the "what/why" -- this is what makes them "communists." What varies from theorist to theorist is the how... how will communism overthrow capitalism?

Having established that, let us further point out that there are theoretical and practical aspects to both: given the "what" of communist theory (i.e. "what is communism AFTER the revolution"), there are plenty of practical problems -- such as motivation. These, of course, have never been tested. There have simply been no practical tests of communism itself.

When communists complain that it is unfair to judge the viability of their theory on failed revolutions, what they mean is that it is unfair to judge the end-state of the theory. This, historically, has not been tested. Thus, any arguments about why communism itself will not work must be stated in a theoretical fashion. There simply is no practical evidence of its failure.

Of course, there is evidence that some major "how" theories are failures. Communists would do well to admit this.

Marx' own "how" involved a revolution by proletarians in the most advanced capitalist nations. By the turn of the twentieth century, it was already becoming obvious that this theory was unlikely to pan out... although there remain significant reasons to suspect that it might have had a very different fate if not for World War I. But that is purely speculative.

Lenin, realizing that the proletariat of the most advanced nations had been pacified through the high wages and pseudo-socialism made possible by "superprofits" generated by global capitalism, saw the need for a new "how" theory. He argued that it would be, not the pacified wealthy proletariat, nor the poorest of the earth, but those of the "marginal," emerging industrial nations who would lead the revolution. Russia, at the time, was just such a marginal state.

Still, the theory relied on other, poorer nations to follow the communist banner. Communists who "blame" the United States and Europe for killing the revolution militarily need to read both Marx and Lenin again... Neither expected capitalists to sit idly by during the communist revolution. They expected war, and they expected to win. Both miscalculated.

Lenin's miscalculation does, however, have something to do with nuclear weapons. When the global communist revolution became the Cold War, with both sides vying for allies, the political-economy of communism became clouded by the need to avoid catastrophe. The politics -- in both potential communist allies and the USSR itself -- was lost in the weaponry.

I am not saying the revolution would, necessarily, have been more successful without the Bomb. There are significant reasons to believe it was doomed from the start. Nevertheless, it is something that should be taken into account if one wants to criticize Lenin... it would have been near-impossible for him to predict.

To reiterate, what has been tested practically are two theories of "how the revolution can happen." Both have failed. To date, no serious communist theorist can offer an alternative likely to succeed in today's world. Nevertheless, these failures in themselves say nothing of the viability of communism in its end-state. To say that they do is a blatant fallacy.

2. Do you support communism? Is your sole ambition to be a factory worker your whole life? Unless you can answer 'yes' to both these questions you will be in the group that causes communism to fail.

To paraphrase Marx, in communist society one might fish in the morning, hunt in the afternoon, and philosophize in the evenings over dinner. I do not believe there is a serious communist in the world who wants to "be a factory worker" her/his whole life. The whole point of communism is to eliminate slavery to the job, particularly the factory job. Most communists, including Marx himself, thought that automation could take over in most factories to the point that actual human factory labor would be reduced to an absolute -- near zero -- minimum. (There are plenty of factories in the United States that are, today, almost completely automated.)

3. Capitalist Greed is not based on money - it is based on power and status. Money is merely a way of quantifying this and making trade easier. Without money there is still Power and Status and in practice people tend to seek both in all types of society.

Exactly! That is why I have argued that one needs neither money nor wealth to motivate people. They will inevitably compete for status, honor, prestige, and influence. (Influence being related to, but quite different from, power.)

1. In your communist type government concept,
would you accept democratic national elections
with diffrent political partys offering diffrent
economic, political and social points of view
like say those in the European socialist countries
of Europe like Sweeden?

No...the idea in itself it's asking for troubles...the idea of rebuilding a chaste of professional politicians will in and of itself bring corruption in the system, since it gives power to few people...and most people hasn't saintly qualities!

I think the best idea would be to have smaller communities which administer themselves through direct democracy and should something be chosen in a inter-communitarian way...well...that'd need a speaker bringing the ideas of its community to the meeting, but he'd not be a "professional politician"...

Everybody would have spare time to follow its community administration, so everyone would be its own "politician"...

I think one of the aims of a Communistic society would be to remove any un-needed complexity from society to allow a direct democratic auto-management of communities and inter-communitarian coordination possible...

2. In your communsit type government concept,
would you accept, private independent civil social organizations not under government control to exist?

If as "organization" you mean a legal entity...no...that wouldn't be allowed for that's a way for an organization to stop minding the people who made it up and it's a way to turn something was made through agreements between people as a tool and a property for few.

Obviously would be allowed and welcome clubs tied to hobbies or other interest which would improve the ties of the social texture...as far as organizations openly bringing new ideas for the communitarian organization...they'd be welcome too...but should they be just scheming to bring down the system ...well...I think would be the duty of any good citizen to execute anyone trying to do that...positive criticism is useful, needed and welcome...but treacherous scheming bastards should just be executed.
Jashkar

That is great, now this is for all,

The problem I see is in every so called communist nation
where socialism or communism lets say for the sake of
argument the same, has been practiced, they have outlawed all other political partys and social organizations
not under government control, my own native nation of
Cuba included.

I truly believe that most if not all of my fellow
socialist or communist nations on Nationstates
want a totaly good communist or socialist nation
to exsist, I give you that, even though many of
those nations attack me for my views as I see
them practiced in those so called communist nations.

I think the problem with communism or socialism the same, is when the state controls everything there can be
no opposition to anything and it creates an utomatic dictatorship.

The European democratic socialist nations of Europe
like Sweden concentrate more on providing social services
than state ownership of everything.

I think that real socialism has shown the limits of an "on-the-road" building of an alternative society, but definitely democratic socialism is crap!

You cannot sell your ass to Capitalism and then offer the crumbs to the poor...if that's anyway near to what socialism or communism should be then religious figures such like Saint Francis or Jesus Christ are as "communist" as Karl Marx and definitely more "socialist" than those corrupt b...s!!

Capitalism shouldn't negotiated with...it must be overthrown and then a new society (possibly a carefully thought society, different from the "on-the-road" building of RS) should be built...none excludes that some working ideas of Capitalism structure and other kind of societies could be recycled, but anyone thinking that democratic socialism is communism is a traitor who's crapped upon the red flag!!


That is why in my view, they can work with diffrent
political partys, economic and social points of view.

Yeah...traitors and bitches could work with "different people" too...as long as they pay them...same applies to democratic socialists!

New question?
In your communist or socialist concept of government
would you allow private companys to exsist,
if so would they just be small business type companys
as apposed to big corporation type companys like in
the capitalist nations.

Big corporations usually have born little, so I think that the idea of "good small business vs. evil big corporation" is a total no-sensical propaganda created by those capitalists which are too lacking and inefficient to survive to
the hard rules of the system they support...

In my society if you've a good working idea which could be really useful to the citizens and enough enterpreneurial spirit to try you would be allocated the needed resources and you'd put in contact with people with the skills you need...then your products would be tested...if they're good, people needs and uses them...well...you'd be given other resources for next year production requirements and more if production needed is more.

If you're good at coordinating your "firm" you'd be see your skill recognized for that in your community and your final customers...and may be other driving motivation tools would be used to make you more entusiast of your chosen job, if you're good at it...

...but from the material point of view you'd not earn anything more than anyone else...your children would start from the same point of all childrens and would be given the chances to do what they like and are good at...you'd not be allowed to hoard money for money wouldn't even exist.

Obviously if you're not good at your "coordinator" job or if your good is found useless by the community, you'll be allocated less and less resources till
you can just shut off "your" entrerprise...

That's my idea of what should be done in a communist society...no State-run
enterprises...just collectively-controlled resources...

And why am I always attacked
by communist and socialist when I
point these facts out about Cuba?
My native nation.

Well, man...simple...

First thing, most communist and socialist still aren't in the mind-frame that we need a new project of a communist society...they hang to folklore and broken dreams...

Second thing, Cuba is definitely the less unsuccessful experiment of Real Socialism which the world have seen...so communists and socialists defend it with teeth and claws...and one has to say that after all Cuba is in better condition than most states of its area...it's not at the levels of many "First World" societies, but it's in better shape than many Third World countries of its area...for most Latin American countries are definitely very poor, being for most part USA-interests-run colonies...

Third thing, Cuba's regime is recognized as a matter of national defense...
Castro has freed Cuba from the corrupted dictatorship of Batista who channeled the blood of Cuba out of it to USA...may be RS in Cuba wasn't perfect, but it defended the national resources from a bloody corrupted robbery!

I'm not of the idea that any RS was perfect...each could have some good ideas to add to a new project, but they were faulty since they were built "on-the-road" and experienced the problems of anything "improvised"...

I definitely think that Cuba was one of the less unsuccessful RS experiments...and also I think that Castro defends its Country from a USA colonization such like that happened in all the Latin American area (and was in Cuba before Castro)...may be he's gone a bit paranoid and "touchy", but his Country and his person has been targeted for terroristic attacks for years after all...

Since I think that in the French Revolution the choice of Terror was right for the situation, I think that the not-so-democratic choices of Castro are definitely right for the situation its Country lives...

After that fascist imperialistic plutocracy which are USA will be cut off its dirty "fingers", put manacles and a good muzzle...well...may be I'd start thinking that we could ask Castro to be a bit more "democratic"...but I'd rather prefer to ask that after my idea of communism has spread to most part of the world, for we cannot ask someone to take our path if we're waist-deep in the crap, isn't it?
Jashkar

There have been a number of attenpts at communism and all have failed to varying degrees of horror meted out on the population. It is a nice idea but not one that has proven to work very well.


""2. Do you support communism? Is your sole ambition to be a factory worker your whole life? Unless you can answer 'yes' to both these questions you will be in the group that causes communism to fail.""

In this statement I was pointing out that many supporters of communism seem to see themselves at the top of the food chain as the great political leader guiding the people (see point three about capitalsm being about power and status, not money) to a new future. Few seem to see themselves doing the drudge work in the farms and factories (or anywhere). This is why communism fails, not because of money but because the people driving it wish to see themselves in power with status, not working amoung the people doing the same rubbish everyone else does.

In this statement I was pointing out that many supporters of communism seem to see themselves at the top of the food chain as the great political leader guiding the people (see point three about capitalsm being about power and status, not money) to a new future. Few seem to see themselves doing the drudge work in the farms and factories (or anywhere). This is why communism fails, not because of money but because the people driving it wish to see themselves in power with status, not working amoung the people doing the same rubbish everyone else does.


There are farmers already. Those farmers, for the most part, could stay farmers. We already have a working economic system, its not like we would put names into a hat, call out jobs, and pick names. We already have enough food in places like america to feed the entire country, etc. I wouldnt be a farmer in communism, because there are already plenty of farmers. I would most likely be doing a job where my talents are more useful. Probably something to do with computers for an important field, or something. Whatever the government thinks would be my most helpful place for society.

There are farmers already. Those farmers, for the most part, could stay farmers. We already have a working economic system, its not like we would put names into a hat, call out jobs, and pick names. We already have enough food in places like america to feed the entire country, etc. I wouldnt be a farmer in communism, because there are already plenty of farmers. I would most likely be doing a job where my talents are more useful. Probably something to do with computers for an important field, or something. Whatever the government thinks would be my most helpful place for society.
Well most certainly no one would want to be a garbage man. Many careers would notice marked decreases in the people wanting the position if the economic incentive were gone, especially in jobs that are disgusting or hard. So what ends up happening is that society collapses because no one is taking jobs that are needed but not desirable, or the government forces people to take certain jobs and ends up being somewhat oppressive, or the government is forced to give people money to take these careers which will deviate from the ideology. Capitalism is not perfect but it does address some of the problems with economic inefficiency created by lacking motive for individuals to achieve.

For possession isn't what people "really want"...what they want is the illusion of finding refresh to one's superior and inferior needs through possession...actually they want the real thing, but as society is structured now, they couldn't have it...so the key of a successful new society is to find a way to "feed" both superior (spiritual) and inferior (beastly) needs of people without using the illusion tied to possession...for illusion is a tool of Capitalism...fear and illusion are its main tools and it excels in them...


You misunderstand consumer-based capitalism. The desire is the thing that drives the economy. It's like getting a donkey to pull a cart. You dangle a carrot in front of it and the donkey tries to get at it, pulling the cart in the process. If you let the donkey actually get the carrot you've rendered the system pointless.

Same goes for the capitalist economy. The goal isn't to actually let poor people get rich, it's to convince them of a falsehood: that if they try hard enough they can become wealthy. In reality the carrot will always be out of reach, because that's the way the system is designed.

That is the most Liberal bullshit ever.

its better then you racist selfish pro-buisness capitalist right wing bullshit

while your at it, why dont you get ready for clan meeting or neo nazi march

jk
im not that steroytypical
or at least not about the nazi part

and while im at it, who was is who said the USSR is worse then the nazis?
go fuck urself

"will" have the defect

and yes, what you said is true.....the same basic idea works for nudist colonies

i personally beleive that nudist colonies are gross
but as long as thhey stay the hell away from me and my family i don't care if they're not wearing any clothes

where do you get off deciding morality rules

no morality rules are built into homosapiens
(for any retards reading, thats a big word for humans) :rolleyes:

There are farmers already. Those farmers, for the most part, could stay farmers. We already have a working economic system, its not like we would put names into a hat, call out jobs, and pick names. We already have enough food in places like america to feed the entire country, etc. I wouldnt be a farmer in communism, because there are already plenty of farmers. I would most likely be doing a job where my talents are more useful. Probably something to do with computers for an important field, or something. Whatever the government thinks would be my most helpful place for society.

And if the farmers feel they should be doing something a bit less backbreaking? Or the government has little need for computing for a while and you need to work in Hospital Waste Disposal?

"Whatever the government thinks would be my most helpful place for society."

Exactly who decides who should be a part of the government? I don't know about you but telling others what jobs to do sounds like a much easier life to me than waking up at dawn to work on the farm and a lot more pleasent than cleaning out bedpans in hospitals. Personally I reckon a lot of people would like to be in government and other cushy jobs and few would want to do the crap stuff.

Name me one communist country that didn't reach economic problems or where the people didn't starve or that became wealthy and where the people weren't oppressed.

Note: Edited as neccessary.

That's an oxymoron - as is communist state. You can't have a communist country since communism itself seeks the abolishment of all countries, states, establishments, etc. You can however have a socialist state with communist intentions.

Now, if you were simply pulling the 'failures of communism' from states like the USSR and China, then you are sadly mistaken on almost every case. The USSR failed because it didn't even follow Marxist teachings. They went - essentially - from feudalism/merchantilism to socialism without stopping in capitalism to create and industrialised country.

The USSR was doomed to fail between a mixture of bureaucracy and corruption after Stalin's purges. However, to stand up for the USSR, if they had been less militaristic and around 1980, removed the Political Bureau, the USSR might still be around today and better off. They shouldn't have allowed it to become so bureaucratic.

vlad von volcist said:"China is a totalatarian country" well i have lived in China for 6 years now and i find the goverment not oppresive and good people And for everyone who say's the ussr was a communist state it wasn't it was socialist unil stalin took over then it was chaotic.china is adopting things such as cooperations because it can no longer stand being pushed aside by the capitalist world.

vlad von volcist said:"China is a totalatarian country" well i have lived in China for 6 years now and i find the goverment not oppresive and good people And for everyone who say's the ussr was a communist state it wasn't it was socialist unil stalin took over then it was chaotic.china is adopting things such as cooperations because it can no longer stand being pushed aside by the capitalist world.

China is actually still totalitarian. The government controls everything, though it is lenient on quite a few things.

The USSR was doomed to fail between a mixture of bureaucracy and corruption after Stalin's purges. However, to stand up for the USSR, if they had been less militaristic and around 1980, removed the Political Bureau, the USSR might still be around today and better off. They shouldn't have allowed it to become so bureaucratic.[/QUOTE]

then how come in the fifties and sixties the ussr was nearly winning the arms race and there economy was booming not till the late eighties was the ussr colapsing

about the above i oppologise i didn't read all of you're reply i am sorry

Well most certainly no one would want to be a garbage man. Many careers would notice marked decreases in the people wanting the position if the economic incentive were gone, especially in jobs that are disgusting or hard. So what ends up happening is that society collapses because no one is taking jobs that are needed but not desirable, or the government forces people to take certain jobs and ends up being somewhat oppressive, or the government is forced to give people money to take these careers which will deviate from the ideology. Capitalism is not perfect but it does address some of the problems with economic inefficiency created by lacking motive for individuals to achieve.

You dont need economic incentive for these things. If people dont want to be garbage men, then they will likely decrease the working hours for it, and open more positions for it. Besides, in communism, its not about what you want to do. Everyone should want to be the garbage man, if society needs garbage men. Maybe it is a stinky job, but its a nessecary one, and it helps alot of people. Such a job would hold high-marks in an altruism-based economy.

potaria said:"china is still totallatarian even though it is leaniant on some things"

the definition of totalletarianism:A right wing goverment/work or die policy employed in such casses as ant colonies and the nazi party

I think The word you were looking for was oppresive and i know this but werent all the goverments in europe oppresive in the 18th-19th centuries when they were building there economies , china is only just building it's economy

You misunderstand consumer-based capitalism. The desire is the thing that drives the economy. It's like getting a donkey to pull a cart. You dangle a carrot in front of it and the donkey tries to get at it, pulling the cart in the process. If you let the donkey actually get the carrot you've rendered the system pointless.

Same goes for the capitalist economy. The goal isn't to actually let poor people get rich, it's to convince them of a falsehood: that if they try hard enough they can become wealthy. In reality the carrot will always be out of reach, because that's the way the system is designed.

But you are dealing with donkeys, not people. If you can teach the donkey that he will get carrots every day, for pulling the cart, then you can feed him, because he knows he will get carrots every day. And too, he can also know that he can have carrots more often than that, if he works his hardest, and everyone else works their hardest too, to produce more.

Communism requires people to be educated about its benefits.

And if the farmers feel they should be doing something a bit less backbreaking? Or the government has little need for computing for a while and you need to work in Hospital Waste Disposal?

"Whatever the government thinks would be my most helpful place for society."

Exactly who decides who should be a part of the government? I don't know about you but telling others what jobs to do sounds like a much easier life to me than waking up at dawn to work on the farm and a lot more pleasent than cleaning out bedpans in hospitals. Personally I reckon a lot of people would like to be in government and other cushy jobs and few would want to do the crap stuff.

For your first part: Farmers typically stay farmers. There would be those who would want to change, and if they had the abilities for other needed jobs, they would be allowed to change. We would still have plenty food, as we overproduce as it is. There would also likely be benefits to being a farmer, such as not having to travel to work, not that hard work(with machinery, farming isnt that much labour anymore), and decent hours. As for me, I might get a job in hospital waste disposal, while they looked for a better job for me(as with my computer skills, and ability to speak two languages, and people working full time to best distribute skills, their would be places I would be more useful).

Second part: Being in the government wouldnt be that easy of a job. You would likely have to take years of hard education, while taking another job in the meantime. Once you got the job, you would most likely work many hours, having to go over numbers, trying to see if people who applied for different jobs would be more useful in different capacities, etc. Sure, its not labour, but its an important and hard job. I wouldnt call it cushy, as it would still be a lot of work.

But you are dealing with donkeys, not people. If you can teach the donkey that he will get carrots every day, for pulling the cart, then you can feed him, because he knows he will get carrots every day. And too, he can also know that he can have carrots more often than that, if he works his hardest, and everyone else works their hardest too, to produce more.

Communism requires people to be educated about its benefits.
Part of the reason why that fails is game theory. The worker will get a similar reward no matter what he does because he is usually just a drop in the bucket. A few workers that slack off will not affect the economy drasically but will gain considerable economic benefit for themselves. If this attitude spreads then everyone will have a worse life because nobody is supporting the economy, however cheating the system for short term gain is very much part of human nature.

The argument that communism requires that people be educated about its benefits could be applied to capitalism as well. If people work hard in a capitalist society not only will they get the short term benefit of more money but they will also get the long term benefit of a better society, many people do not think far enough ahead to even supply the work required to build themselves a better life. If capitalism fails to get people to do their best then communism will probably do a lot worse.

You dont need economic incentive for these things. If people dont want to be garbage men, then they will likely decrease the working hours for it, and open more positions for it. Besides, in communism, its not about what you want to do. Everyone should want to be the garbage man, if society needs garbage men. Maybe it is a stinky job, but its a nessecary one, and it helps alot of people. Such a job would hold high-marks in an altruism-based economy.
Not everyone would become an idealist altruist without massive brainwashing(and possibly killing). This is the truth about most utopian world theories, people do not always agree with society because if they did we would have more people in the armed forces, less crime, more hard-workers, and probably a better world. Really your suggestions would probably not help the economy very much at all, you are supporting economic inefficiency by creating jobs that require less effort from a person and more human resources overall, it is almost the same as providing a higher wage because of the higher pay per hour except we can use the additional persons on other jobs.

For your first part: Farmers typically stay farmers. There would be those who would want to change, and if they had the abilities for other needed jobs, they would be allowed to change. We would still have plenty food, as we overproduce as it is. There would also likely be benefits to being a farmer, such as not having to travel to work, not that hard work(with machinery, farming isnt that much labour anymore), and decent hours. As for me, I might get a job in hospital waste disposal, while they looked for a better job for me(as with my computer skills, and ability to speak two languages, and people working full time to best distribute skills, their would be places I would be more useful).

Second part: Being in the government wouldnt be that easy of a job. You would likely have to take years of hard education, while taking another job in the meantime. Once you got the job, you would most likely work many hours, having to go over numbers, trying to see if people who applied for different jobs would be more useful in different capacities, etc. Sure, its not labour, but its an important and hard job. I wouldnt call it cushy, as it would still be a lot of work.
Well, what you fail to consider is human desire. I might not want to have a certain job, for the government to assign it to me despite my lack of desire in having that job would create some level of discontent and anger towards the government. Plus the methods used to control the economy in such a fashion might be considered anti-democratic because of their possible use in moving enemies into a job that is completely undesirable.

Being in the government might end up being an easy job. To work people too hard in that job could create inefficiency through too much stress and paperwork and could even be more harmful than making it easy. Plus the government decides how hard people have to work and could decrease its loads and increase its workers to whatever degree that would please them. To concentrate so much power in the government would allow for a lot more corruption than in other states and the power could be abused by unscrupulous individuals in the government and the bureaucracy would be almost unimaginable in such a system. Your communist ideal sounds incredibly impractical and would probably work as well as or even become something similar to the soviet system.

Seems to me the fact that you have to force communism on people and then keep them heavily indoctrinated repressed , or kill them to keep them communist says all there is to say about it . Its a bad idea that died because it's a bad idea . Reading through this thread has been a trip..I thought all you comrades were retired . ;)

and people working full time to best distribute skills, their would be places I would be more useful).
trying to see if people who applied for different jobs would be more useful in different capacities, etc.
Considering how many jobs that are created by the government to support this system it makes me wonder if this would actually hurt economic efficiency. You are taking the best minds in the nation and bending them towards the purpose of telling mediocre minds what job to get. The best minds in the nation(the ones that you claim would have to study so hard and work in order to get in this position) not only would probably be people that could be used better for other jobs but also are more likely to want more because of their talent. More talented people want to be rewarded simply for being talented. There is nothing inherently wrong with this idea simply because a more talented person can produce more with less than a person that is less talented and for this ability they deserve rewards and recognition. This government job would probably not provide them with what they want but if they steal from the system they would get a more fair reward.

What it all comes down do is this:
Capitalist countries do better than communist countries. This really can't be disputed. Compare the US to North Korea, or even China.
Therefore, capitalism > communism

Well most certainly no one would want to be a garbage man.

No. They wouldn't. In most serious communist theories, the least desirable jobs would be responsibilities shared by everyone. Just as in your house, you are (probably) expected to put your own trash in the receptacle rather than leaving it wherever you drop it, you would -- in communist society -- have to participate in the collective disposal of waste.

Of course, if people have to actually deal with their shit, the first result should be a great incentive to reuse and recycle... not to mention a great incentive for communist industry to produce products that are durable, multifunctional, and ultimately recyclable. There would also be an incentive to minimize useless packaging (which is, in many cases, just for "sell" value anyway).

Many careers would notice marked decreases in the people wanting the position if the economic incentive were gone, especially in jobs that are disgusting or hard.

The communist model seeks to eliminate these jobs. Of course, this is where I partially depart in my agreement with communists. I think that everyday necessities such as waste-disposal can be collectivized to a great extent. (Indeed, there are many places in the world today -- industrialized, advanced places -- that do not employ "janitors" because employees and students learn to clean up after themselves in their offices and schools. Indeed, they seem to take pride in it.)

However, an industrialized economy would still need mines and such -- unpleasant jobs, localized to particular areas, and requiring at least some long hours and experience to be accomplished successfully. Here I would argue for a form of market socialism in which the least intrinsically desirable jobs tend to pay the highest wages. (This should, in fact, tend to be true simply by known market principles operating under conditions of relative equality.) The idea is that such jobs would tend to attract people who just want to make a "quick buck" over a relatively short period of time -- say a month or two up to a few years -- and then move on to better things. Thus, there is no "class" that gets "stuck" with the shitty jobs, killing their bodies and their minds.

I am talking about a kind of mixed economy. True communism in some things -- collective participation -- and a very different labor market in others. (I also prefer market allocation for consumer goods.)

"Whatever the government thinks would be my most helpful place for society."

Exactly who decides who should be a part of the government? I don't know about you but telling others what jobs to do sounds like a much easier life to me than waking up at dawn to work on the farm and a lot more pleasent than cleaning out bedpans in hospitals.

I agree... and I think most communists would. I don't know who these people are who think that "the government should tell me what to do," but they subscribe to a sort of communism very unlike that with which the rest of us are familiar.

I think that people might actually be happier in communism. In capitalism, a LOT of people are in jobs that they're not happy with simply because of how much they get paid. And at that, because they don't necessarily like being there, they're not very effecient workers (compared to the people who enjoy doing that sort of work).

If you eliminate the paycheck (as communism does), then people will go to doing jobs they enjoy (not necessarily easy jobs either, those are VERY tedious and less enjoyable than difficult jobs that you have an interest in). And that not only makes the general population happy, but also makes the entire work force extremely more effecient.

I am really beginning to suspect that "Chellis" is just pretending to be a communist in order to give them a bad name.

Either that, or he/she is incredibly naive (an "altruism-based economy"? really?) and is deeply masochist. You really want to be "told what to do"?

Communism is supposed to be about freedom, not slavery. I suggest you read up on it. Start with the Communist Manifesto. Or Marx's essay on "Alienated Labor."

Marx' essay
Is this the result of communist education? Seriously...

You realize that if you want to keep that sounding the same but make that really possesive, it'd look like "Mark's essay," right?

Try "Marx's"

Just because a word ends in an S sound doesn't mean the proper possessive is a simple apostrophe. Hell, even some words that end in S still need an apostrophe and an S to be properly possessive.

Is this the result of communist education? Seriously...

You realize that if you want to keep that sounding the same but make that really possesive, it'd look like "Mark's essay," right?

Try "Marx's"

Just because a word ends in an S sound doesn't mean the proper possessive is a simple apostrophe. Hell, even some words that end in S still need an apostrophe and an S to be properly possessive.

Gee, I didn't realize punctuation would ruin the argument.

Of course, you are correct... although for singular nouns of more than one syllable ending in "x" or "s", one omits the "s" to make it plural, as in "the Lorax' favorite hat", or "Jesus' wise words."

Check the MLA style manual if you don't believe me.

EDIT: This is only universally true for proper nouns. For other words (of more than one syllable) ending in an "s" or "z" sound, one uses an "s" after the apostrophe... unless it is followed by a word that begins with "s". Then the possessive "s" is, again, omitted.

I think that people might actually be happier in communism. In capitalism, a LOT of people are in jobs that they're not happy with simply because of how much they get paid. And at that, because they don't necessarily like being there, they're not very effecient workers (compared to the people who enjoy doing that sort of work).

If you eliminate the paycheck (as communism does), then people will go to doing jobs they enjoy (not necessarily easy jobs either, those are VERY tedious and less enjoyable than difficult jobs that you have an interest in). And that not only makes the general population happy, but also makes the entire work force extremely more effecient.
I do not think that communism would increase efficiency because many people take certain jobs for the economic incentive. I would think that the number of doctors and engineers and pretty much any job that requires work but gives economic reward would decrease, considering that the economic reward is created by the lack of people wanting the job. The economic incentive in capitalism is made to increase economic efficiency because it puts people into jobs that are necessary (maybe not enjoyed). Without economic incentive most people would go to college for their liberal arts degrees because those degrees would probably be more interesting than mathy degrees but the world would not need all of these sociology majors for any practical purpose.

spaghetti and meatballs said:capitalist countries do better that communist ones.


That is bullshit compare the 3 communist countrie vietnam the USSR and china to the 24 capitalis countries in africa i.e democratic republic of congo southafrica guinea marroco algeria gambia and don't bother bringing up zibabwe as a communist country it isn't it's feudalist but run in the name of communism three sucessful communist countries and one sucessful capitalist one and to save the capitalist's there preciouse typing time britain isn't capitalist it's a social democracy

I do not think that communism would increase efficiency because many people take certain jobs for the economic incentive.
There are other incentives.
I would think that the number of doctors and engineers and pretty much any job that requires work but gives economic reward would decrease, considering that the economic reward is created by the lack of people wanting the job.
I think most people who become doctors have other reasons for doing it. Also, communists want to also remove the economic disincentives, such as high medical school tuition. I strongly suspect that, given free schooling, the non-economic incentives would be more than enough to produce a sufficient supply of medical personal.
Without economic incentive most people would go to college for their liberal arts degrees because those degrees would probably be more interesting than mathy degrees but the world would not need all of these sociology majors for any practical purpose.
Two things:
1. There were mathematicians long before capitalism, and there will be mathematicians long after. I, for one, took a math degree because I enjoyed it... and I know plenty of people who enjoy chemistry, engineering, and electronics and such.
2. In communist society, sociologists really would be more or less out of a job, considering there are no class divisions to study. I suspect the field would be pretty much swallowed up by anthropology.

spaghetti and meatballs said:capitalist countries do better that communist ones.


That is bullshit compare the 3 communist countrie vietnam the USSR and china to the 24 capitalis countries in africa i.e democratic republic of congo southafrica guinea marroco algeria gambia and don't bother bringing up zibabwe as a communist country it isn't it's feudalist but run in the name of communism three sucessful communist countries and one sucessful capitalist one and to save the capitalist's there preciouse typing time britain isn't capitalist it's a social democracy
The USSR is known for killing millions of people and its economy completely collapsed. It was never really that successful. "Vietnam, however, is still a very poor country with GDP of US$227.2 billion (est., 2004). This translates to US$2700 per capita. The impressive growth is due to its low base and the high inflation rate, estimated at 14% p.a. in 2004. This figure has been scaled down by the Government to 9.5% per annum to avoid the ‘double digit’ classification." From this line I pulled from wikipedia vietnam is not doing very well. China is not that communist, they sacrificed parts of the communist ideal for economic success. A chinese leader even said in reference to the economy that it doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white so long as it catches mice. Besides, the chinese GDP per capita is less than that of the United States or Japan. The countries in africa that are doing horribly would do that horribly under almost any other economic system because of the fact that they are under-developed, it would not matter if they were devoted to communism or capitalism, their governments are weak, their industry is lacking, and their people are not that interested in being part of the nations. These countries in Africa suck, America is mostly a capitalist country and it is doing well, Japan is mostly a capitalist country and it is also doing well, South Korea is now the 11th largest economy and is doing better than North Korea which is communist, Taiwan is very successful with its economy, Hong Kong has a very successful capitalist system. Capitalism has proven to be more successful than communism.

Capitalism has worked better because human nature doesn't allow it to work properly. It always ends up with some more equal than others, to quote Orwell, but if it were followed properly it would be great. The slogan 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' sums it up, and if society was like that, we'd all be better off. To be fair, Communism in the USSR would have work much better, had Russia been fully industrialised when the communist revolution took place. However, it wasn't, so problems such as poor food distribution to the cities started to crop up rapidly. Also, the Russian economy, although not brilliant, was vastly improved in Stalin's time by his 5-year plans, as he rapidly industrialised Russia. The drawback, of course, was the massive cost in human terms, but what I'm saying is that Communism isn't all bad - it modernised Russia, improving literacy rates and living standards.
Modern Communism has had good sides, too - Even now, in Cuba, the literacy rate is higher than in many capitalist countries. Commuinism, if carried out in a completely non-corrupt way, would be better all round. However, humans like to own things, to be better than their neigbours, and so it hasn't happened yet.

There are other incentives.

I think most people who become doctors have other reasons for doing it. Also, communists want to also remove the economic disincentives, such as high medical school tuition. I strongly suspect that, given free schooling, the non-economic incentives would be more than enough to produce a sufficient supply of medical personal.

Two things:
1. There were mathematicians long before capitalism, and there will be mathematicians long after. I, for one, took a math degree because I enjoyed it... and I know plenty of people who enjoy chemistry, engineering, and electronics and such.
2. In communist society, sociologists really would be more or less out of a job, considering there are no class divisions to study. I suspect the field would be pretty much swallowed up by anthropology.
There are other incentives than economic incentives and I do realize that, it is just that economic incentives are very compelling and appeal to a good proportion of the population. Most people want money, other prizes are not as desired.

Med school is hard. Many people want to go to med school because it is a good profession to work in AKA economic incentives. Cheap schooling and lacking economic incentives would probably cause people to get those liberal arts degrees that do nothing. I disagree with the thought that we would get enough professionals without the economic incentives of those degrees.

I know people that are looking at business degrees, engineering degrees and medical degrees because of economic incentive, without the economic incentive we will not have as many of these degrees. I do not think that the world is full of people that are idealists, there seem to be many pragmatists. I think that the capitalist system uses the pragmatism of people in order to get them to serve society. Serving society and pragatism both seem to be good things and the capitalist method of getting success seems to be good.

Sociology was simply the degree that I was putting in to show an example of a degree that does not serve anyone. Sociology would still exist because it examines social structures and interactions, it does not necessarily have anything to do with social class and courses in sociology might deal with age, gender, criminal behavior, family, religion, politics, population problems and many other things.

Capitalism has worked better because human nature doesn't allow it to work properly. It always ends up with some more equal than others, to quote Orwell, but if it were followed properly it would be great. The slogan 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' sums it up, and if society was like that, we'd all be better off. To be fair, Communism in the USSR would have work much better, had Russia been fully industrialised when the communist revolution took place. However, it wasn't, so problems such as poor food distribution to the cities started to crop up rapidly. Also, the Russian economy, although not brilliant, was vastly improved in Stalin's time by his 5-year plans, as he rapidly industrialised Russia. The drawback, of course, was the massive cost in human terms, but what I'm saying is that Communism isn't all bad - it modernised Russia, improving literacy rates and living standards.
Modern Communism has had good sides, too - Even now, in Cuba, the literacy rate is higher than in many capitalist countries. Commuinism, if carried out in a completely non-corrupt way, would be better all round. However, humans like to own things, to be better than their neigbours, and so it hasn't happened yet.
I will admit that communism would probably be a utopia if we could make it happen. I just do not think that in a non-utopic world that communism would do very well. I want money and power and must serve the system in order to get it, a communist wants the same and he must cheat the system in order to get those things. Communism, if everyone believed in it a communist society would work but without massive brainwashings it would not be successful.

Are all the communists in this game at the bottom of the social ladder, and just find it impossible to climb it. Or can't bring themselves to climb it. All communism realy is when you get down to it is taking away from the wealthy who HAVE puthard work into building their companies, and giving it all to the poor. So it is nothing but stealing. That is why nobody can increase their standard of living. So you work all your life and in the end get no rewards. Plus it takes away all your rights for what? I'll tell you what so the wealthy and middle classes who work hard for their money are forced to give it all up and live life as a poor person regardless of all their hard work. That is why I think it appeals to the poor because it forces their bosses to live like them.
So for all the communists out there I ask you what the hell kind of government is this?

As for me I say LONG LIVE CAPITALISM.

You have a firm point there, but has it ever occurred to you that, in order to be rich there is but one provision, namely; other people need to be poor (or at least have less money then you. You see, in capitalism an employer makes money of his employees. I am not defending communism, but I don't think capitalism is any better, capitalism is stealing too!
The point is that in both cases people are taking advantage of other people. Communism is nothing but capitalism, led by the state (the only one who really takes advantage is the state)

The problem is and will always be the same: power

There are other incentives than economic incentives and I do realize that, it is just that economic incentives are very compelling and appeal to a good proportion of the population. Most people want money, other prizes are not as desired.
Then why, in scientific studies of job-satisfaction, does salary rank so low compared to other things?
Med school is hard. Many people want to go to med school because it is a good profession to work in AKA economic incentives.
Of course med school is hard. In fact, it is so hard that if you do not love medicine, you are not likely to complete it... and if you do, you are not likely to make much money unless you take an interest in specializing. For every person who manages to get the loans to go to med school because they think it will "pay off" in the long run, I'm willing to bet there are five who would love to be doctors, but simply can't afford the bills.
Cheap schooling and lacking economic incentives would probably cause people to get those liberal arts degrees that do nothing.
First of all, by your own capitalist logic, liberal arts majors would not be getting jobs today if those degrees "do nothing." Second of all, you really underestimate the number of people who enjoy technical, scientific subjects. I have a cousin who is a genetic engineer, and a good friend who is a civil engineer. Both make decent livings, but they both also know they could make a lot more money doing other things... they don't, and they didn't go to school for them, because they enjoy what they do.
I disagree with the thought that we would get enough professionals without the economic incentives of those degrees.
To be honest, virtually everyone I know could be making much more money if they pursued other careers. Many of them have turned down lucrative promotions because they didn't like the change in work and/or lifestyle. But that is anecdotal... the fact is that statistically, the same is true across the board. Money is important in a capitalist society, but even here it remains less important (for most people) than a wide range of other work incentives.
I do not think that the world is full of people that are idealists, there seem to be many pragmatists.
I agree. But you don't have to be an idealist to want to do work that you enjoy.

Sociology was simply the degree that I was putting in to show an example of a degree that does not serve anyone.
Again, if it does not serve anyone, then who is paying all these sociologists?
Sociology would still exist because it examines social structures and interactions, it does not necessarily have anything to do with social class and courses in sociology might deal with age, gender, criminal behavior, family, religion, politics, population problems and many other things.

Okay... I don't want to get into a debate over whether sociology would or would not adapt to communist society. It was just an aside... and it remains true that communist society is expected to be a truly classless society... The factors that differentiate age-groups are therefore likely to be more psychological than sociological. The same goes for criminal behavior: the sociology of crime is the study of "who" becomes a criminal in terms of various class identifiers. In the relative homogeneity of communist society, only psychological questions about individuals would remain. Families would not be differentiated by class -- again, we're talking family psychology, not sociology. The rest (religion, politics, and population) are matters for anthropologists and political scientists.

Really, I can't think of a meaningful way to frame a sociological question in a classless, relatively homogeneous society.

Then why, in scientific studies of job-satisfaction, does salary rank so low compared to other things?

Of course med school is hard. In fact, it is so hard that if you do not love medicine, you are not likely to complete it... and if you do, you are not likely to make much money unless you take an interest in specializing. For every person who manages to get the loans to go to med school because they think it will "pay off" in the long run, I'm willing to bet there are five who would love to be doctors, but simply can't afford the bills.

First of all, by your own capitalist logic, liberal arts majors would not be getting jobs today if those degrees "do nothing." Second of all, you really underestimate the number of people who enjoy technical, scientific subjects. I have a cousin who is a genetic engineer, and a good friend who is a civil engineer. Both make decent livings, but they both also know they could make a lot more money doing other things... they don't, and they didn't go to school for them, because they enjoy what they do.

To be honest, virtually everyone I know could be making much more money if they pursued other careers. Many of them have turned down lucrative promotions because they didn't like the change in work and/or lifestyle. But that is anecdotal... the fact is that statistically, the same is true across the board. Money is important in a capitalist society, but even here it remains less important (for most people) than a wide range of other work incentives.

I agree. But you don't have to be an idealist to want to do work that you enjoy.

Again, if it does not serve anyone, then who is paying all these sociologists?

Okay... I don't want to get into a debate over whether sociology would or would not adapt to communist society. It was just an aside... and it remains true that communist society is expected to be a truly classless society... The factors that differentiate age-groups are therefore likely to be more psychological than sociological. The same goes for criminal behavior: the sociology of crime is the study of "who" becomes a criminal in terms of various class identifiers. In the relative homogeneity of communist society, only psychological questions about individuals would remain. Families would not be differentiated by class -- again, we're talking family psychology, not sociology. The rest (religion, politics, and population) are matters for anthropologists and political scientists.

Really, I can't think of a meaningful way to frame a sociological question in a classless, relatively homogeneous society.
If salary is sufficient people may start to look at other factors. This does not mean that there will always look for the highest salary although some people do. People want money to get what they want accomplished but a few want to reach the top. Besides, corporations want the best employees so in order to get the best talent they will have to provide the things that the talent wants. Burger flippers do not get as much from their careers as other careers.

Med school is hard but that does not mean that someone who has a talent in medicine would not prefer in many ways to be an anthropology major. I am talented in many things, many people have talents for a variety of careers. This does not mean that they will not look over their options for the best deal. I do not think that there would be that many students who would like to be doctors but can not because of costs, there may be some but I would think that a person with good grades could push forward.

My logic is not completely flawed, the people who have useless majors would still get jobs because there are simply a lot of jobs. The fact is that those people that you mentioned get decent livings and for some reason are satisfied, but there are people that will try to get ahead and take the jobs that they did not want because of the economic incentive. If people are not interested in money then why are there business majors? I would imagine that many of the people there see the business degree as a means towards an end rather than because they love stocks. I know of some people that love business but I think that the amount of business majors is probably larger than the number of people that actually love the stocks more than the money that they represent.

This is interesting, I know some people that take jobs because of the money more than because of some love for their job.

The sociologists may not be paid for sociology, they probably get hired just as intelligent workers but they do not get a salary as high as Business majors or Engineering majors and I do not think that the employers really care as much about how well they did in college.

A classless society can not really exist in my mind. Some people were born to lead and others to follow. In a capitalist society two people can have the same salary but in 20 years one could end up with more money and possessions than the other through clever investments. Class exists as a natural part of human society, and even in a communist society you are likely to get some people that are more successful and powerful than others likely through crime and government corruption.

The debate about sociology and anthropology is rather stupid.
Anthropology 1. The scientific study of the origin, the behavior, and the physical, social, and cultural development of human beings

sociology 1. The study of human social behavior, especially the study of the origins, organization, institutions, and development of human society. 2. Analysis of a social institution or societal segment as a self-contained entity or in relation to society as a whole.
See, they overlap! Anthropology classes tend to focus on past societies while sociology focuses on current society.

Are all the communists in this game at the bottom of the social ladder, and just find it impossible to climb it. Or can't bring themselves to climb it..

Mao tse-tung, Lenin, Trotsky and even Marx were realtively prosperous. Enersto 'Che' Guevara was (if I remember correctly) a doctor. None were millionares, but were not at the bottom of the social ladder.

All communism realy is when you get down to it is taking away from the wealthy who HAVE puthard work into building their companies, and giving it all to the poor.

Do the wealthy all work hard? The UK Royal Family/Aristocracy inherits money and recieves it from the taxpayer, and get to avoid tax in return. And who is it that builds these companies? The bosses offer leadership and have ideas, yes. But they are nothing without their workers, who recieve little or no credit, yet are the force that keeps that company running day in day out.

So it is nothing but stealing. That is why nobody can increase their standard of living.

Transnational corporations paying mere pennies for shifts of many, many hours is real theft. Not stealing money (as they have none), nor material objects. They steal lives.

Do you object to paying tax because it is 'stealing' your money? We live in a world of give and take, not "that's mine and you can't have it."

So you work all your life and in the end get no rewards. Plus it takes away all your rights for what?

Why do you suddenly assume that under socialism you have no rights? It seems to me that you know very little about communism. Both capitalism and communism are (mostly, but not entirely) economic principles, with little bearing on civil liberties.

I'll tell you what so the wealthy and middle classes who work hard for their money are forced to give it all up and live life as a poor person regardless of all their hard work. That is why I think it appeals to the poor because it forces their bosses to live like them.

We don't need cheap shots in an intellgent debate. However, the idea of socialism is that everyone is equally prosperous. There is no communist idea that the government should keep all in poverty. That's ridiculous. The only book describing that is Nineteen Eighty-Four (So that people focus on living not opposing the Party). Poor people, too, work hard for their money. Many work much harder than their bosses, too, under much more dangerous conditions in different countries (The words 'Union Carbide' spring to mind).

So for all the communists out there I ask you what the hell kind of government is this?

Please describe the government first, as opposed to a commie-bashing rant.

As for me I say LONG LIVE CAPITALISM.

Long live true, democratic socialism! ;)

The best system is not a pure anyhing. Its a hybrid taking elements of the best out of all systems...much like the US . why people stick themselves in a box by labeling themselves as adherants to any particular creed or philosophy is beyond me ...why not " what works " ? Communism may well work on a micro level as a part of a greater whole but as a system of governing it sucks mighty moose balls . How much more real life proof do you need ?

If people are not interested in money then why are there business majors?

Right. And in communist society, there would be no business major, so it wouldn't matter. Those people would have to fall back on one of their other interests.

Your problem seems to be that you think, like all capitalist ideologues, that if you remove the profit motive, people have no strong motivations left. Like prestige, honor, or just love of the work. Take away the money, and all you have to do to get ambitious people to be doctors is to tell them that it is the most respectable thing anyone can do, and doctors will be honored above others in the society. People are just that competitive.

A classless society can not really exist in my mind. Some people were born to lead and others to follow.
Well, unless you think that only the children of leaders can lead, I fail to see how this leads to a class division. Every society has leaders. That doesn't mean every society has classes.

The debate about sociology and anthropology is rather stupid.
Anthropology 1. The scientific study of the origin, the behavior, and the physical, social, and cultural development of human beings

sociology 1. The study of human social behavior, especially the study of the origins, organization, institutions, and development of human society. 2. Analysis of a social institution or societal segment as a self-contained entity or in relation to society as a whole.
See, they overlap! Anthropology classes tend to focus on past societies while sociology focuses on current society.

Yes, they do. But the difference is not so much in what they study -- note your own definition of anthropology says nothing about past societies -- but in how they study society. The difference is in the kind of questions they ask. Moreover, other social science questions divide up the field even more, both in terms of what they study, and in how they ask their questions. When you come right down to it, however, sociology is the only one that really depends on class ("societal segments") to ask its questions. As I said, the "sociology of crime" asks what backgrounds produce criminals. In a classless society, "background" drops into the psychological (individual) tidbits that make distinctions from the homogeneous whole. Likewise, the "sociology of knowledge" discusses ranges of knowledge (and "ways of knowing") based on social class, gender, and so on. But in a society in which people are treated equally, these distinctions vanish -- with the exception, perhaps, of the psychology of gender.

Of course, you can still study the historical origins of religion and so on... but now you're either studying history or anthropology. You can study political institutions... but isn't that really political science?

I really didn't want to get into this debate... and perhaps there is something I'm overlooking. If there is a sociologist around, I would be very interested to know what kind of questions he/she might study in a classless society.

Really, I can't think of a meaningful way to frame a sociological question in a classless, relatively homogeneous society.

Because you have the mistaken impression that sociology is dependant on artificial "classes" in order to exist. It isn't, at least not as taught by my sociology professor, though class study is included. Sociology is the study of humans in groups, and as long as humans exist, they WILL exist in groups of some kind. Communism doesn't eliminate family, culture, social circles or foot traffic, as far as I know. At least I would hope not. That being the case sociology will continue to exist even under pure communism.

Because you have the mistaken impression that sociology is dependant on artificial "classes" in order to exist. It isn't, at least not as taught by my sociology professor, though class study is included. Sociology is the study of humans in groups, and as long as humans exist, they WILL exist in groups of some kind. Communism doesn't eliminate family, culture, social circles or foot traffic, as far as I know. At least I would hope not. That being the case sociology will continue to exist even under pure communism.

Ah, you are studying sociology. Then you should be the perfect person to explain to me the difference between sociology and social psychology.

EDIT: It will satisfy me if you just tell me the kinds of questions you ask about families, cultures, and social circles or foot traffic. What is it that you study?

EDIT AGAIN: I think part of the problem lies in the fact that you assume I am using "class" in its narrowest sense. On the contrary, I mean any kind of systematic division of people according to particular traits. But if you read the Communist Manifesto, Marx evisioned the elimination of all such divisions... even to the point of redistributing the population to eliminate the distinction between urban and rural areas. So far, in my experience, sociological "explanation" always relies on such distinguishing traits.

Ah, you are studying sociology. Then you should be the perfect person to explain to me the difference between sociology and social psychology.

To be honest I haven't taken either course in a while. There isn't a whole lot of difference, I think 'social psychology' was merely the result of what happened when sociologists became educated in psychology and vice versa. In my case, it meant that half the quarter was spent talking about sociology and the other about psychology. ;)

In my case, it meant that half the quarter was spent talking about sociology and the other about psychology. ;)

Ahhh... now I do know that feeling. In my own field (political science), we spend plenty of time talking about psychology -- and sociology, of course.

It has taken me the longest time to have finally developed the skill to differentiate between the "true" political science questions and the "helpful results" of related fields. I am now trying to do the same for sociology... and in my experience, sociological explanations rely on factors that differentiate one population from another (e.g. "urban families" from "rural families" -- see my previous edit).

But if a student of sociology can give me a different picture, I would be most happy to change my view. My own intro sociology professor and I did not get along very well... at least, not after she told the class that "alienation" was, according to Marx, the problem of motivation to be faced in communist economies -- rather than an integral part of his famous critique of capitalist labor. When I disagreed, she actually said, "Well, I don't think you've read the 'later' Marx." Foolishly I replied, "I don't think you've read any Marx at all!" My grades went from A's to B's for the rest of the semester.

in my experience, sociological explanations rely on factors that differentiate one population from another (e.g. "urban families" from "rural families" -- see my previous edit).

A lot of them (too many IMO) do rely on those kinds of background factors, but there are different levels of analysis based on ad-hoc populations like "males on a public street" and such. I tend to associate behaviors like flocking with the study of sociology (or social psychology) too, but I may be wrong in that (I know that's something studied by mathematicians and computer science too).

But if a student of sociology can give me a different picture, I would be most happy to change my view.

I'm not really a student of sociology, I've only taken a class or three on it. But actually we used anthropology texts, and as a result my opinion is there's really almost no actual difference between sociology and anthropology.

My own intro sociology professor and I did not get along very well... at least, not after she told the class that "alienation" was, according to Marx, the problem of motivation to be faced in communist economies -- rather than an integral part of his famous critique of capitalist labor. When I disagreed, she actually said, "Well, I don't think you've read the 'later' Marx." Foolishly I replied, "I don't think you've read any Marx at all!" My grades went from A's to B's for the rest of the semester.

I'd probably have been more interested in sociology in general if I'd gotten along with the prof, but alas mine was probably very similar to yours. With the exception of my not even trying to argue Marx of course. :p

There are some people who inherited all of their assets, but they are a pretty small portion of the people in the world who are well-off.

Would that 'small portion' be anything like the earth's 200 richest individuals maybe? The ones who collectively posses enough money to equal the worlds poorest two billion people.

You don't have to be a communist to see that there is appaling inequalities present in todays society.

Right. And in communist society, there would be no business major, so it wouldn't matter. Those people would have to fall back on one of their other interests.

Your problem seems to be that you think, like all capitalist ideologues, that if you remove the profit motive, people have no strong motivations left. Like prestige, honor, or just love of the work. Take away the money, and all you have to do to get ambitious people to be doctors is to tell them that it is the most respectable thing anyone can do, and doctors will be honored above others in the society. People are just that competitive.

Well, unless you think that only the children of leaders can lead, I fail to see how this leads to a class division. Every society has leaders. That doesn't mean every society has classes.

I know that there would not be a business major in the communist society, I was using that example as a sign that people do really care about profit and monetary reward.

The profit motive is obviously a very strong one. People want to win and to get profit off of those winnings. I would claim that people often do not really care about their jobs or the honor that they receive in getting them, they want the pay check so that they can go do what they actually love doing(unless they love money). With prestige going around to anyone that follows the government's will and flowing so freely it may become undervalued because the prestige does not come with perks. What gives these professions prestige today is the fact that they provide money and power which are real things and many respect the value of those things. People are competitive but they are not so stupid that they can not realize that they should get a real reward instead of some stupid honor that is not really worth anything.

Class division occurs through living. People acquire power, with that power they put themselves on a higher level than those who lack the same level of power. Ultimately they want to pass on this power, to some extent you would either have to eliminate giving gifts, saving possessions/money, inheritence, nepotism and other things to prevent people from establishing a class system. In America at the very least there is upward mobility so long as you work to get ahead and do the appropriate actions.

Would that 'small portion' be anything like the earth's 200 richest individuals maybe? The ones who collectively posses enough money to equal the worlds poorest two billion people.

You don't have to be a communist to see that there is appaling inequalities present in todays society.
Many of the earth's richest billionaires got to the top through their cleverness and hard work. Warren Buffett was saving money and investing at the age of 14 when he used the money he got from dispensing newspapers to buy farmland. Bill Gates took a risk and quit college in order to found Microsoft which amazingly made it. Many of the billionaires simply got ahead through hard work, skill and luck. The world's poorest 2 billion are in foreign countries that have horrible economies that would fail no matter what the economic system was.

The profit motive is obviously a very strong one.

I don't doubt it. My claim is only that when you take it away, there are still very strong motivations left over.

With prestige going around to anyone that follows the government's will and flowing so freely it may become undervalued

Prestige, by definition, is a scarce resource. If some honors are "going around to anyone," others will necessarily be more rare. Moreover, honor is not necessarily -- indeed, hardly ever -- monopolized by the government. Popular opinion has a powerful role in determining who is honored and who is not... thus, there is a sort of automatic "market" principle at work in allocating prestige.

Class division occurs through living. People acquire power, with that power they put themselves on a higher level than those who lack the same level of power.

Yes... that's one of the reasons communists want to make it impossible for individuals to attain any great degree of power. It's easy to do, in a sense: you just organize society along principles that neither requires nor allows institutions of great power. The bourgeois/democratic revolutions of the last two hundred years have either eliminated monarchies or severely reduced the power of monarchs. Thus, no one can be a king anymore, at least not in the sense that one could be a king in the sixteenth century. That kind of power simply doesn't exist anymore. Likewise, communists want to get rid of other institutions of power.

Ultimately they want to pass on this power, to some extent you would either have to eliminate giving gifts, saving possessions/money, inheritence, nepotism and other things to prevent people from establishing a class system.

While communists would not eliminate most forms of gift-giving, as for the rest... yes, that is exactly what they plan to do.

In America at the very least there is upward mobility so long as you work to get ahead and do the appropriate actions.

Statistically speaking, that simply isn't true (anymore). Once upon a time, under an earlier form of capitalism, yes. But not anymore.

Many of the earth's richest billionaires got to the top through their cleverness and hard work. Warren Buffett was saving money and investing at the age of 14 when he used the money he got from dispensing newspapers to buy farmland. Bill Gates took a risk and quit college in order to found Microsoft which amazingly made it.

Great examples.

You neglect to mention that Warren Buffett's father was a stockbroker and Congressman, or that Bill Gates came from a long line of entrepreneurship and general wealth. His parents, you may know, enrolled him in an exclusive private school before sending him to Harvard.

While both managed to do well with what they were given, they were both given quite a bit. They are hardly examples of "upward social mobility."

Great examples.

You neglect to mention that Warren Buffett's father was a stockbroker and Congressman, or that Bill Gates came from a long line of entrepreneurship and general wealth. His parents, you may know, enrolled him in an exclusive private school before sending him to Harvard.

While both managed to do well with what they were given, they were both given quite a bit. They are hardly examples of "upward social mobility."
Alright, I just did not feel like looking up the lives of a few other people even though I did know about the problems with my original choices. Sam Walton grew up during the great depression and had to do many chores to make ends meet. His parents were farmers. Sam Walton formed Wal-mart and made it successful due to mostly his own ability, he became a billionaire. Ty Warner invested every thing that he owned into Ty inc. considering that he was gambling everything with this and was not a college graduate he was very lucky but he became a billionaire. I could even mention the success of asians who were originally discriminated against when they entered America but are now more successful than the average American.

This wiki article even mentions the success of the asian people in america
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_minority

I don't doubt it. My claim is only that when you take it away, there are still very strong motivations left over.

Prestige, by definition, is a scarce resource. If some honors are "going around to anyone," others will necessarily be more rare. Moreover, honor is not necessarily -- indeed, hardly ever -- monopolized by the government. Popular opinion has a powerful role in determining who is honored and who is not... thus, there is a sort of automatic "market" principle at work in allocating prestige.

Yes... that's one of the reasons communists want to make it impossible for individuals to attain any great degree of power. It's easy to do, in a sense: you just organize society along principles that neither requires nor allows institutions of great power. The bourgeois/democratic revolutions of the last two hundred years have either eliminated monarchies or severely reduced the power of monarchs. Thus, no one can be a king anymore, at least not in the sense that one could be a king in the sixteenth century. That kind of power simply doesn't exist anymore. Likewise, communists want to get rid of other institutions of power.

While communists would not eliminate most forms of gift-giving, as for the rest... yes, that is exactly what they plan to do.

Statistically speaking, that simply isn't true (anymore). Once upon a time, under an earlier form of capitalism, yes. But not anymore.
I disagree that the forms of success that would be left would be strong enough to really matter.

Popular opinion is not going to get us more doctors or anything. People are remarkably stupid and I doubt that their ideas of prestige are tied to the market consider the fact that some people like Britany Spears and many other people who are overvalued. Ultimately the whole prestige thing does not work because of all the people who need to be rewarded, and the fact that the populace does not decide what is "cool" based on the market. We could be totally lacking in computer scientists but that does not mean that people will stop thinking that they are nerds.

Institutions of power are a natural part of human existence. People naturally acquire power and dominance over their fellow man and people seeking power will usually work to get it. Politicians for instance naturally have power as do most other people who by nature are in a position that requires important decisions, I can not even conceive a system where everyone is truly equal because even in times when people are set to be equal someone will usually become dominant and achieve some level of power. I do not view the system of everyone being equal as even possible.

I do not think that people will take too kindly to their work being denied to them. Many people work for the benefit of their offspring and plan want to reward them with possessions and gifts. I do not think that making sure that people do not save is even possible and to even try to keep people from passing on their wealth to their descendents or giving their relatives a position of power if they are doing well is almost impossible. The police state required to keep people from cheating this insane system is almost incredible. People do save money and saving money is a virtue that no one should cripple people by removing and the removal of some of the other things is either impossible or too difficult to logically be done.

There is most certainly some level of upward mobility, I do not think that it would be impossible to become a millionaire if one is clever, or at the very least to raise your own status from lower to middle.

Look, I do not think that communism is practical and possibly not even possible for humanity to correctly embrace, the human factor is what occasionally screws up our current system and this system is made to utilize greed, what will happen to a system that refuses to acknowledge the human desire to better themselves? Communism is likely to be plagued by black markets and all sorts of other problems.

*snip*

You can cite as many rags to riches stories as you want. It does not change the fact that, statistically speaking (and therefore in terms of the "real world" for any random person), there is no such thing as upward (or, for that matter, downward) social mobility. The class into which you born is, by any safe bet, the class in which you will die.

I disagree that the forms of success that would be left would be strong enough to really matter.
Well, we may have to agree to disagree here. The fact of the matter remains, according to both scientific studies and virtually every person I know, that money actually matters far less than capitalist ideologues would have us believe. It is fashionable to love money; it is not inherently human.
Popular opinion is not going to get us more doctors or anything.
Why not? People are impressed just by the title "doctor," even if you happen to be one of the many doctors in today's world not making a lot of money. (This number is steadily increasing.)
People are remarkably stupid and I doubt that their ideas of prestige are tied to the market consider the fact that some people like Britany Spears and many other people who are overvalued.
"Values" are artifacts of culture. These judgments are clearly artifacts of the capitalist American culture. And it remains true that even within this culture, people who perform valuable functions are respected and admired (whatever their salary happens to be). Hell, look at the way even non-religious people (such as myself) admire priests, rabbis, pastors and nuns.

We could be totally lacking in computer scientists but that does not mean that people will stop thinking that they are nerds.

I think most computer scientists really like computers. Do you really think it takes the promise of great salaries to draw people to computer science majors? I don't. "Nerds" love that stuff.

Institutions of power are a natural part of human existence.

If that were true, every society would have them... which they don't. Thomas Jefferson went so far as to describe Native Americans as having "no government" (and speculated that this was a preferable existence), because their leaders possessed great influence, but not power. If the community did not agree with a leader's decision, there was no way he could force them to abide by it. They simply would not do it.

People naturally acquire power and dominance over their fellow man and people seeking power will usually work to get it.

If there are no institutions of power, then there is simply no power to acquire, no matter how one tries. It would be like trying to be a priest in a community of devout atheists -- you can try all you want, but no one is going to listen.

The organization of society has always regulated the amount of power a person can acquire. Some societies have had monarchs with absolute power -- and even in such societies, the power one can acquire is severely limited, since virtually no one could become king. In many modern societies, no one can acquire the power of a king... because that kind of power simply does not exist. Indeed, the more democratic a society becomes, the fewer are the positions whose holders control more power than anyone else. Communists want to take this progression to its furthest logical conclusion.

I can not even conceive a system where everyone is truly equal because even in times when people are set to be equal someone will usually become dominant and achieve some level of power.

One can become "dominant" by acquiring a great deal of influence... but to have power is to possess the ability to enforce one's opinions even when others disagree. Think about your relationships with your friends. When you hang out, there may be a few people -- perhaps known for their good taste or knowledge -- who exercise disproportionate influence when, say, deciding what movie to rent. Nevertheless, if the rest of the group doesn't agree (or perhaps you've already seen that movie), no one has the power to make you watch that film.

I do not view the system of everyone being equal as even possible.
We decide on a decision-making rule and we all get an equal vote. We abide by the decision of the group. You probably do it all the time.
I do not think that people will take too kindly to their work being denied to them.

On the contrary, it is capitalism that denies a person her/his work. A communist's work belongs wholly to her/himself. He/she may do whatever he/she likes with it.

Many people work for the benefit of their offspring and plan want to reward them with possessions and gifts.
In capitalist society, sure. But communists do not have to worry about their children: they will be fine. Moreover, they may give whatever possessions they like as gifts -- who is going to stop them? Gifts are great.

I do not think that making sure that people do not save is even possible and to even try to keep people from passing on their wealth to their descendents
Well, it would be pretty hard to save money that does not exist... and even in a moneyed socialism such as I envision, progressive taxation can go a long way.
The police state required to keep people from cheating this insane system is almost incredible.
Why would one need police to prevent people from hoarding what does not exist? It would be like policing collections of magic pixie dust.

You can cite as many rags to riches stories as you want. It does not change the fact that, statistically speaking (and therefore in terms of the "real world" for any random person), there is no such thing as upward (or, for that matter, downward) social mobility. The class into which you born is, by any safe bet, the class in which you will die.
Well, the average person is oftentimes not very worthy of upward mobility. Many of the poor people do not try enough to get ahead. Where I live we had a program to help homeless people get GEDs, it ended up being canceled because of the fact that the homeless people would skip class and were generally disinterested with getting GEDs and trying to better themselves. Many of the people born in the lower class will die in the lower class because they get into sex and drugs and all sorts of stupidity.

Well, we may have to agree to disagree here. The fact of the matter remains, according to both scientific studies and virtually every person I know, that money actually matters far less than capitalist ideologues would have us believe. It is fashionable to love money; it is not inherently human.

Why not? People are impressed just by the title "doctor," even if you happen to be one of the many doctors in today's world not making a lot of money. (This number is steadily increasing.)

"Values" are artifacts of culture. These judgments are clearly artifacts of the capitalist American culture. And it remains true that even within this culture, people who perform valuable functions are respected and admired (whatever their salary happens to be). Hell, look at the way even non-religious people (such as myself) admire priests, rabbis, pastors and nuns.



I think most computer scientists really like computers. Do you really think it takes the promise of great salaries to draw people to computer science majors? I don't. "Nerds" love that stuff.



If that were true, every society would have them... which they don't. Thomas Jefferson went so far as to describe Native Americans as having "no government" (and speculated that this was a preferable existence), because their leaders possessed great influence, but not power. If the community did not agree with a leader's decision, there was no way he could force them to abide by it. They simply would not do it.



If there are no institutions of power, then there is simply no power to acquire, no matter how one tries. It would be like trying to be a priest in a community of devout atheists -- you can try all you want, but no one is going to listen.

The organization of society has always regulated the amount of power a person can acquire. Some societies have had monarchs with absolute power -- and even in such societies, the power one can acquire is severely limited, since virtually no one could become king. In many modern societies, no one can acquire the power of a king... because that kind of power simply does not exist. Indeed, the more democratic a society becomes, the fewer are the positions whose holders control more power than anyone else. Communists want to take this progression to its furthest logical conclusion.



One can become "dominant" by acquiring a great deal of influence... but to have power is to possess the ability to enforce one's opinions even when others disagree. Think about your relationships with your friends. When you hang out, there may be a few people -- perhaps known for their good taste or knowledge -- who exercise disproportionate influence when, say, deciding what movie to rent. Nevertheless, if the rest of the group doesn't agree (or perhaps you've already seen that movie), no one has the power to make you watch that film.


We decide on a decision-making rule and we all get an equal vote. We abide by the decision of the group. You probably do it all the time.


On the contrary, it is capitalism that denies a person her/his work. A communist's work belongs wholly to her/himself. He/she may do whatever he/she likes with it.


In capitalist society, sure. But communists do not have to worry about their children: they will be fine. Moreover, they may give whatever possessions they like as gifts -- who is going to stop them? Gifts are great.


Well, it would be pretty hard to save money that does not exist... and even in a moneyed socialism such as I envision, progressive taxation can go a long way.

Why would one need police to prevent people from hoarding what does not exist? It would be like policing collections of magic pixie dust.
Well, I have heard of people who are trying to get jobs that will help them get money. To like money is human and it is part of our nature, money brings us what we want and therefore we work for it, it is a powerful incentive. If money were not a powerful incentive there would not be crime or corruption, we know that corruption exists and that people sell morality for money.

People may be impressed by doctor, people tend to be impressed by people who make money. Perhaps many doctors do not make very much money, I have heard something about litigation being a reason that doctors will get out of the field and start investing in biomedical stocks. I do not think that people become doctors just for the title. People may admire someone's choice for doing something but that does not mean that they will do it unless there is a practical reward

Actually, I thought that Britainy and the other celebrities became overvalued because of their fame which really occurs simply because of the nature of their jobs. I do not really think that we can change the values of our system that easily and most certainly not without brainwashing.

Computer scientists may also be interested in the money, many people go to college to get money from a job. Without the monetary benefits of going to college to get a good job, there is less incentive for parents to send their kids off to college or even for their kids to go. It is not like everyone who goes into computer science must be by definition a nerd.

The indian tribes are small communes, the chiefs do have some minor amount of power over the people but as you said not very much. Institutions of power do not need to exist as much in a society that is as small as an indian tribe. We live in a modern civilization, there are millions of people. In our society there are more structures that must be maintained and the people maintaining these structures to some extent have more power. Politicians have power and so do many other people in our society, politicians are known for using the new attention that they have to get support for their beliefs and really they can get more attention than we do.

Power does exist and always will exist. Society is created by how power is concentrated. With any institution that arises someone can get power in some way, think about J Edgar Hoover, he was very powerful and he could control many powerful people with secrets while in a position within the bureaucracy. The crime lords that became powerful because of the market selling booze during the prohibition were powerful and they were not even doing something that was legal. Politicians are powerful and get their opinions heard and use their power to stay on top. In any society we are going to need people to manage things, hierarchies must exist in this modern world if only for efficiency reasons and because the average person does not make the best decisions.

Influence is a form of power, to have influence is to have some measure of power. Influence is referent power, I learned that in my political science class, and the power that comes from a position is legitimate power. Capitalism gets people to succeed through the use of reward power to get them to work. Power is simply a way to describe how politics work. Some people will be powerful within the society because of their expert power. I do not really care about my friends decisions, they have some level of power but not very much. If your parents or your priest or mentor or whatever you listen to tells you to do something you are somewhat likely to do it. If one of your friends is the person with all of the good ideas you are likely to do as he might decide even if you do not like it that much but simply out of your trust of his judgement.

Equal decision by vote, not really. I do not care about such things and they only work in small groups. One thing is we can not practice direct democracy on every issue and another is that not all people make the right decisions and could simply be making the decision because they like some person who says this is a good idea. Even in groups not everyone is considered equal, Cornelius might be more fun and cause more people to join his side, Lauren might be really hot and everyone joins her side because she looks so fine, Morty may be ignored because he is new and has a stupid name.

Capitalists are given some of the profits for their work, the profit they receive is given to them by how valuable their work is considered to be. Communists are just given the same as everyone else even if they are super geniuses that invent really cool things. If I had talent I would want to live under a capitalist society so that I could reap the benefits of my talent, if I had no great talent I would want to be a communist because that way I would get as much as everyone else despite how valuable my service may be to society. I did not understand your question or it must be some communist dogma, people get more for doing more useful work and that is why capitalism is more rewarding while communism takes away money from those with great ability and gives it to those who are not as useful for society.

To get ahead and get things for their children is the capitalist ideal. Besides, these parents may want to help their children have more than they did. If my parents give me 1000 dollars and I keep it and give my children 2000 dollars and this keeps on going my descendents would eventually become millionaires. Saving may not be as useful in a communist system because you have gotten rid of a means for people to succeed while helping their society at the same time, the savers can invest in the market in the capitalist system and provide businesses with capital while getting money for themselves from the investments.

The fact that you would try to get rid of the ability of people to save would also mean that you would not give them as many consumer goods as they like in a capitalist society. We need money for society, it helps us buy things and buying something is simply how we exchange the value of our work for possessions that we want. It almost seems you are advocating enslavement and working for almost nothing.

People will naturally get power and they will also try to get money if only to use the black market that will probably come into existence under this system. I could see a very high crime rate occuring under this system because under your vision of the future the only way for someone to get ahead in life is to become a criminal and to get power through the use of a black market.

I sincerely do not believe that communism can work very well in a society that is much larger than a commune. Capitalism is proven to work and the majority of people in America agree with it and believe in it.

How exactly is communism even relevant in todays global economy ?
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
How do the ideas of Marx and Engels ( even if you admit that the USSR and others are a perversion of the Communist ideal ) Have any relevance today ?
The conditions that existed at the time are not extant .

The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.

How does this apply in Japan ? How does this apply at a brokerage firm or at McDonalds ? how does this apply for a large majority of the US workforce ?

No. There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians, any more than there has always been free unbridled competitions

Workers in the US are poor ? Yeah right . how about Germany-Britain-france ....etc. etc.

at any rate I'd have fun destroying the " principles of communism " but I feel guilty beating a dead horse .

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

at any rate after reading " Das Kapital " I had a good chuckle and struggled to find how I could fit Marxist principles into todays society .

http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/261/1294/frameset.html

In short it wont work . it did not work . It could never work . go back to sleep now and dream ...thats the closest you will ever come to seeing communism succeed .

The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.
How does this apply in Japan ? How does this apply at a brokerage firm or at McDonalds ? how does this apply for a large majority of the US workforce ?

are you seriously attempting to argue that the majority of workers at mcdonald's earn a living through their ownership of capital? the division is still there; there are capitalists who live off wealth they get largely by owning things, and there are workers who sell themselves to those owners on the installment plan. however, things have changed. one of the muddying factors is the invention of what has been called 'the professional managerial class'. these are those workers who don't own any significant part of the means of production, but are paid better to do the managerial work for the capitalists and whose economic interests therefore tend to follow those of the capitalists. a significant part of the u.s. workforce (but by no means a large majority) falls into this, as do people in the other post-industrial nations.

Also capitalism allows poeple to rise in social standing and progress in life. Also there is no reason for a farmer to be making as much money as a doctor.

why not? the farmer probably works harder, for longer hours, and allows you to live (by growing food).

Even more, why should a lawyer earn more than a farmer?

Of course, both doctors and lawyers need to make an investment early in their life and study longer for their profession (investment in time: in a communist country universities would be probably free, and there are non communist countries like mine where fees are based on your income, and thus can be afforded by most people), but an increasingly number of farmers are taking university level courses to improve their tecniques.

Name me one communist country that didn't reach economic problems or where the people didn't starve or that became wealthy and where the people weren't oppressed.

Name me one communist country that managed to keep communist in anything but name

Name me one communist country that didn't reach economic problems or where the people didn't starve or that became wealthy and where the people weren't oppressed.
Norway? :p

No. In Communism everyone would start at the same place and not go anwhere, not even get to the finish line.
Yeah, Einstein worked for the money :rolleyes:
Doctors Without Borders is all about the money :rolleyes:
Nobody does anything except for more money.

You live in a depressing little inner-hell, don't you?

Capitalism isn't defined by working for money. Capitalism is defined by investment. That is to say, those who have money can sit on their a$$es and make more money than hard working individuals. Of course all those dividends are to use the first guys term "stolen" from workers.