NationStates Jolt Archive

I Think we should promote communism in all nationstates!

Capitalism does not work, all human beings should be treated evenly!

I Think we should promote communism in all nationstates!

Capitalism does not work, all human beings should be treated evenly!

There was a country called the Soviet Union. Ever hear of it ?

I assume you did going by your name. Are you just trying to be humorous or what ?

Let's not and say we did ;)

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b118/epsonee/newbie3.jpg

First, communism vs capitalism threads become seem to lose logic within the first couple pages. Then it becomes similar to arguing with a brick wall.
Second, back up claims like "Capitalism does not work", it makes you and everyone who is on your side look bad.
Finally, many people are going to repeatedly bring up the deathcount in the USSR. you may want to think of a counter-arguement.

Communism is like homosexuality, in that it's gay.

Communism?

Yuck!

I'd just like to say that while I support the ideals of communism, I don't believe it will ever fully function in society as communism calls for no leader and inevitably a leader will emerge, and in doing so I remember the saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Now you may counter attack and say "But what about a group of people?" I say the same thing, only now we have a bunch of corrupt individuals. They didn't mean to get that way, it just happens. But the ideals are still fantastic and people should attempt to apply them in their smaller communities, but it won't work in a global or even national spectrum.

Communism is like homosexuality, in that it's gay.
Actually, most communists I have met weren't very gay. They're to angry about the horrible conditions of sweat shop workers to be all that joyful to carefree.

Capitalism does not work, all human beings should be treated evenly!Ahem. Sadly, it has proven to be true that capitalism has worked better than communism. I shall explain:
Take a communist economy (the Chinese economy is different than this, but they aren't really communist, so it doesn't matter) and a capitalist economy. An east German jam producer produces jam. He gets told how many jars of jam he will produce because that's how many jars of jam are calculated to be neccessary and can be guaranteed at a low price. You need jam, jars, and little rubber isolation thingy's to make sure it stays airtight. Let's say something goes wrong in the production of rubber. No replacements are available because the exact amount needed is being used somewhere else. Hence, no jam.
In west Germany, that would have led to an entrepreneur starting to produce those rubber thingies at break-neck speed to have them there on time when the jam gets filled into the jars. They will be more expensive because of this, but there will be jam.
So: Communism is good for people who like to pay the same low price for something with the risk of it not being available at all because of some failure in your production cycles or because someone thought it wouldn't be as popular as it was.
Capitalism is for people who don't mind relative insecurity (when compared to communism) for the stuff they buy in exchange for the fact that it will be available.

Communism is like homosexuality, in that it's gay.The Soviets repressed gays with methods that would give religious nuts wet dreams...

There was a country called the Soviet Union. Ever hear of it ?

I assume you did going by your name. Are you just trying to be humorous or what ?

The Soviet Union was a collective of countries, not one itself, and I support communism in all ways.

*cough*

I think some sort of social democracy is the best way to go. By which I mean that institutions like the schools, healthcare, infrastructure and such are owned by the state and the "extravagant" services are private. I mean, what would happen if my water supply would be dependent on some jackass trying to make a profit of my waterdrinking?

But people are not naturally equal, so I fail to see why they should be treated as such.

Furthermore I fail to see how an intelligent, hardworking man should be equal to that of a guy who dropped out of high school and lives with his mother because he is too lazy to find a job and he has a few addictions.


Considering that describes me and my 20-year-old uncle. If you told me that I was equal to him, you'd get laughed at my MANY people.

The Soviet Union was a collective of countries, not one itself, and I support communism in all ways.Meh, I'm kinda glad my German grandparents decided to escape it. Socialism is nice, but communism is unfeasible.

Considering that describes me and my 20-year-old uncle. If you told me that I was equal to him, you'd get laughed at my MANY people.

You're equal to him. where are the laughs?!

But people are not naturally equal, so I fail to see why they should be treated as such.

Furthermore I fail to see how an intelligent, hardworking man should be equal to that of a guy who dropped out of high school and lives with his mother because he is too lazy to find a job and he has a few addictions.

Considering that describes me and my 20-year-old uncle. If you told me that I was equal to him, you'd get laughed at my MANY people.Don't think communists were about equality. In the GDR, it was nearly impossible for you to go to university if your parents had, while the opposite was the case if they hadn't.

You're equal to him. where are the laughs?!
Go out to the street naked. THEN the laughs will follow.

Don't think communists were about equality. In the GDR, it was nearly impossible for you to go to university if your parents had, while the opposite was the case if they hadn't.
That.makes.no.SENSE.

And what is GDR anyway?

And apparently in a system like that I should be getting my ass kissed by dozens of universities right now.

What happend to a mixed economy?

@ Lol at 20 year old uncle. Having a child that early must be really crappy. Vote for infanticide law removals! Kill them little bastids.

...just had to add that most people discussing this issue, partly includding myself, does not have a clue what they talk about. How many of you people ever lived in the soviet union? Some of you must have not been born yet when it broke...and was the soviet union ever communist, or even purely socialist? Did you read Marx? Do you know who he was? Do you even care?

That.makes.no.SENSE.

And what is GDR anyway?

And apparently in a system like that I should be getting my ass kissed by dozens of universities right now.German Democratic Republic, aka East Germany.
It does make sense: "Musn't let those damn bourgeois people that studied study. We are a state for the proletariat that didn't study!"
Well, it did come from the people that said "No one has the intention of building a wall," shortly before building a wall.

...just had to add that most people discussing this issue, partly includding myself, does not have a clue what they talk about. How many of you people ever lived in the soviet union? Some of you must have not been born yet when it broke...and was the soviet union ever communist, or even purely socialist? Did you read Marx? Do you know who he was? Do you even care?Well, East Germany was communist and they had what is called a planned economy, which I tried to explain in my post about jam. I lived surrounded by it for the first five years of my life. Then it ceased to exist.

...just had to add that most people discussing this issue, partly includding myself, does not have a clue what they talk about. How many of you people ever lived in the soviet union? Some of you must have not been born yet when it broke...and was the soviet union ever communist, or even purely socialist? Did you read Marx? Do you know who he was? Do you even care?

Exactly- most anti-commies group Marxism and [C]ommunism (emphasis on capitalization [heh]) together, when true socialism died with Trotsky and Stalin made a mockery of Marx's writings by enforcing his state-capitalist policies. Marx has yet to be manifested.

German Democratic Republic, aka East Germany.
It does make sense: "Musn't let those damn bourgeois people that studied study. We are a state for the proletariat that didn't study!"
Well, it did come from the people that said "No one has the intention of building a wall," shortly before building a wall.
So...the educated are oppressed while the uneducated are treated like kings?

Sounds like the kids in high school that get mad at smarter kids for not letting them copy their work. :D

The Soviet Union was a collective of countries, not one itself, and I support communism in all ways.

Sorry for you :( It was tried. It failed. It is just another form of Dick-in-tater-ship.

Its really nice if your the head dick. But standing in 10hr lines for a roll of TP ? I love Eminem but wont stand in line that long for his latest CD.

I Think we should promote communism in all nationstates!

Capitalism does not work, all human beings should be treated evenly!

Communism was one of the greatist mistakes in human history.

So...the educated are oppressed while the uneducated are treated like kings?

Sounds like the kids in high school that get mad at smarter kids for not letting them copy their work. :DWell, you needed an Abitur (similar to a diploma, only you don't just get it, you pass exams and you take an extra year to get it) in order to study and not just everyone managed that back then. But if your parents had studied, you could get it denied or some worker-class kid could get in with worse grades than you.

Amestria']Communism was one of the greatist mistakes in human history.The economic part was worth a try. Some mistakes must be made to be able to say why they were wrong.

Well, you needed an Abitur (similar to a diploma, only you don't just get it, you pass exams and you take an extra year to get it) in order to study and not just everyone managed that back then. But if your parents had studied, you could get it denied or some worker-class kid could get in with worse grades than you.
Sounds like backwards capitalism.

So...the educated are oppressed while the uneducated are treated like kings?

Sounds like the kids in high school that get mad at smarter kids for not letting them copy their work. :D

It is really crazy folks still think this crap works. Is a never ending debate when throwing in how the Commies were never true commies.

Aight....

It is really crazy folks still think this crap works. Is a never ending debate when throwing in how the Commies were never true commies.

Aight....The Chinese aren't, I can tell you that much. It is also debatable whether abolishing the whole idea of having communal Soviets (councils) was a very communist thing to do. Lenin was the jerk that had the idea of having "professional revolutionaries" in the first place.

i thought it was something like "perpetual revolutionaries", but i might be mistaken.

i was in China a couple weeks ago. They're not communist/socialist. They do throw around a whole bunch of Maoist ideology that sounds like Marxism, though...

Exactly- most anti-commies group Marxism and [C]ommunism (emphasis on capitalization [heh]) together, when true socialism died with Trotsky and Stalin made a mockery of Marx's writings by enforcing his state-capitalist policies. Marx has yet to be manifested.

Thank you for knowing something. To the rest, I would advise that you read Das Kapital or any other non-manifesto Marx work before arguing about the finer points of his economic and social philosophies.

Ture, Marx hated capitalism. However, he recognized it as a semi-nature economic system. Marx is more of a historian/economics than he is a policy maker. Marx's major contributions to the world come in sociology and economic history- not political science. To say that Marx was trying to set out a way of government is just silly since Marx is clearly very anti-state. His "ideal" political-economic system totally lacks a government. This problematizes all the anti-communist arguments since they all rely on empirical examples of planned economic systems. None of which are communism. The two major examples cited are Stalinism and Maoism- neither or which come close to being what Marx.

The problem with most pro-Marx endorsements is that the people claiming to be communists/Marxists are trying to force communism on society- again, something Marx never advocates. Marx's writings are mostly descriptive rather than prescriptive. That is, Marx is writing about the current economic system (industrial capitalism) as well as the history of the ecomony. The only work Marx actually descibes communism in is the communist manifesto. The problem with that work is that it was writen for the public so they could gain class consciousness. His arguments in there lack any sort of warrent or real explaination. Hell- the damn thing is only 20 odd pages long. Clearly, Marx never intended that to be any guide as to how to live life. Another problem with Marx is he assumes his communist revolution will occur soon. This ignores his own findings that economic systems typically last 500 years before a new one emerges.

In summery:
1. Communism itself is inherently good. The basis for which is a classless society which there really isn't any reason why this isn't a good idea. This would benefit 95-99% of the population. (This number is higher than you would expect since very few people are aware of their true class. There's a difference between being rich (a benefactor of capitalism) and being bourgeoise (a capitalist).

2. It is impossible to tell if communism will work at this point. To do so would require us to know what the state of nature is. We simply don't have this knowledge and have no way of learning. To say that humans are inherently self-centered relies on a view of the SoN that has been tainted by the existance of government. To say that humans are inherently good relies on unfounded opinions. For communism to work, the SoN has to be good.

Despite all this, I'm still a Marxist. Why? Because I understand him and appreciate the great volumes of work he has produced, especially in sociology.

I Think we should promote communism in all nationstates!

Capitalism does not work, all human beings should be treated evenly!


While Lenin was the MAN! Communism is far worse than capitalism. Let me take you back to dear old Stalin. He advocated communism...how many ppl suffered/died/grew an extra toe? In theory communism would work-which is why is may work on NS- as it is virtual-but in practise Communism causes far more misery and abuse than capitalism every will. Rock on capitalism!

Thank you for knowing something. To the rest, I would advise that you read Das Kapital or any other non-manifesto Marx work before arguing about the finer points of his economic and social philosophies.Hm. Who was argueing Marx? I thought we were arguing communism. I've given accounts on what regimes that claimed to be communist were like and not what was written they were supposed to be like. And that was the friendly ones. Marx is nice, but he never happened to any countries and it's unlikely he ever will, considering human nature's tendency to corruption.

good point- and thanks for actually quoting me (that doesnt happen much :( ...)

i need to read some actual Marx writings, not just decriptions....

Hm. Who was argueing Marx? I thought we were arguing communism. I've given accounts on what regimes that claimed to be communist were like and not what was written they were supposed to be like. And that was the friendly ones. Marx is nice, but he never happened to any countries and it's unlikely he ever will, considering human nature's tendency to corruption.

Much gets caught in the debates between Communism and communism.

Much gets caught in the debates between Communism and communism.Oh, God, not another semantics debate... :(

Hm. Who was argueing Marx? I thought we were arguing communism. I've given accounts on what regimes that claimed to be communist were like and not what was written they were supposed to be like. And that was the friendly ones. Marx is nice, but he never happened to any countries and it's unlikely he ever will, considering human nature's tendency to corruption.

At the point where Marx coins/defines the term in its popular useage he is the only reference point to the "true" nature of communism. Therefor the following are true:

1. It's fair ground to state why empirical examples of attempts at communism are fallacious examples since they don't meet the basic definition.

2. It provides the only common reference point to communism. It prevents the debate from going to the level of saying "Lenin was a good communist and Stalin/Mao were bad ones."

3. He's the only one in the canon of theorists that comes close to defining it.

good point- and thanks for actually quoting me (that doesnt happen much :( ...)

i need to read some actual Marx writings, not just decriptions....

A lot of those descriptions are still pretty good. There's no way in hell I would recommend that someone read ALL of Das Kapital. Volume one's pretty good. The other 12 or so volumes (of progressively longer length) probably get very boring.

At the point where Marx coins/defines the term in its popular useage he is the only reference point to the "true" nature of communism. Therefor the following are true:

1. It's fair ground to state why empirical examples of attempts at communism are fallacious examples since they don't meet the basic definition.

2. It provides the only common reference point to communism. It prevents the debate from going to the level of saying "Lenin was a good communist and Stalin/Mao were bad ones."

3. He's the only one in the canon of theorists that comes close to defining it.Marx was the only theorist to come close... BECAUSE HE WAS THE FIRST. Considering it the only reference point rules out all relevant examples in real life. In other words, it kills any debate whether such a social structure and economic system would be desireable, since there's no way to prove it would or wouldn't work. All we can say is that people have tried and they fucked it up royaly because they interpreted it and made it fit their own ideals. Debating whether communism as Marx saw it was a good idea or not is moot, since the only one who can do it as he thought it up was he himself, and since he's no longer around, it's doubtful that it will ever happen.

how many ppl suffered/died/grew an extra toe?
How many?
Do we count the ones who starved to death in China?

I'd just like to say that while I support the ideals of communism, I don't believe it will ever fully function in society as communism calls for no leader and inevitably a leader will emerge, and in doing so I remember the saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Now you may counter attack and say "But what about a group of people?" I say the same thing, only now we have a bunch of corrupt individuals. They didn't mean to get that way, it just happens. But the ideals are still fantastic and people should attempt to apply them in their smaller communities, but it won't work in a global or even national spectrum.

Well, communism *could* work, but on a very small scale - its a unscalable system - kinda like Windows :-P

Take away cash, and ultimately, everyone works for the benefit of each other - the problem is, however, you'll always get freeloaders and those who are willing to work long hours - hence the reason why the freemarket, more or less, seems to work - those who work hard, get rewarded, and those who do nothing, get nothing.

Marx was the only theorist to come close... BECAUSE HE WAS THE FIRST. Considering it the only reference point rules out all relevant examples in real life. In other words, it kills any debate whether such a social structure and economic system would be desireable, since there's no way to prove it would or wouldn't work. All we can say is that people have tried and they fucked it up royaly because they interpreted it and made it fit their own ideals. Debating whether communism as Marx saw it was a good idea or not is moot, since the only one who can do it as he thought it up was he himself, and since he's no longer around, it's doubtful that it will ever happen.

Not at all the first. The term communisme has been around in French for quite a long while. He's the first to apply the term in the macro-socioeconomic level that became part of the popular culture. It hardly kills the debate at all. There's still plenty of ground for both sides. We could have a good old state of nature debate related to this (even though both sides of that one are equally flawed), it's totally legit to point out the sucesses and failures of state-planned economies if they're related to the broader sense of communism, it'd be cool to offer other alternatives to communism and debate those in relation to communism, or even defend the status quo of capitalism while making warrented analyses to Marx's writings. As for your argument that he's dead/mootness: why does it matter? Stalinism doesn't exist anymore (okay, Cuba, but that's still a bastardization of Stalinism). Mao's dead. Both the empirical government structures and Marx's writings are socially constructed and situated in the normative realm. They matter equally
There's your ground, now debate. Stop crying about the fairness of how I'm framing this.

True Communism as stated by Marx and Engels were never achieved, each communist country had their own little perk, or in fact differed greatly from Marx and Engels. True Capitalism is very rare today as well, can you imagine 100% privatisation? Public toilet seats would probably be made of leather and have Coca-Cola ads printed on the toilet papers...

What works today is a mixed form, in economy and in politics. The United States grants social welfare, while China allows private shops. All the "communist nations" were socialist nations striving towards communism, at least in name and motto. But none has achieved communism, and that communism must be achieved on a worldwide scale or it would not work at all, this is the "Internationale", though the "Juche" idea is different.

Communism has good ideals and I think it is a definately feasible way to utopia. You are what you learn. If communism is achieved, it is believe by Marx and Engels that the Communist Party would dissolve because it becomes unnecessary when people finally have the ability to govern themselves.

When Marx and Engels wrote down their theories, the poor were neglected and the nations were very capitalistic. It was all about money, and even today many nations haven't changed much. In the only superpower, the United States pretty much doesn't want to admit that there is a West Virginia, and there are pockets of third world standards in many places in the US and rest of the "developped capitalistic nations".

When you say "power corrupts", it is surely true, but it is also true to all governments which grants power to a small representative organ.

Communism could be seen as a form of Utopianism, it is a few philosophers who thought of a world where human are free and equal which should be, and human are noble enough to look beyond the material bounds, in a world where there is no religion, nor economy, nor government.

Being in comfort in materialistic goods in a capitalistic society is really an illusion. Sure your food may be caught from distant waters and cooked with 56 varieties of sauces and spices, but in the end what you are doing is no different from the chipmunk eating the nut in the garden. And yet people in capitalistic nations are content with their ignorance that there are millions of people around the world or even in their own nation who suffers so they, the few rich, could have a pool in their backyard, watch their plasma tv with the 500 channels, food are plenty and varied, and when they couldn't finish, just throw it in the trash. None paying any attention to all the rest the people who shares the Earth. The rich and the poor gap ever more widely and little attention is paid to them. Where the rich fat capitalistic CEO of Halliburton gets elected Vice President and earns millions with the stroke of his pen, while the less fortunate poor single mother of four barely eek out a living with food stamps. How can you bare keep flipping through those tv channels, and ordering those delivery pizzas, and just simply get fat, are you just ignorant or you simply don't care for all those poor? You do realise that most of the population of "developped nations" are poor, and that most of the world's population are barely making it to see the sunrise. Or have you drowned in the illusion of a sleek silver audi, food that arrives with a short phonecall, a nice big house that has room to house 10 but you would rather live alone. A nice garden with a beautiful lawn that someone else mows?

If it was that easy to get a good job and "rise from the poor", wouldn't you think everyone would be rich now? Or do you simply think that all poor people are all either stupid, crazy, lazy or ignorant? Creating more jobs only gives more opportunities to those who can afford a good education, those who can afford a good education depends on their parents, and if their parents can afford it, most probably they are rich already. While the poor have to work much harder to get not a quarter of what the rich earns. In other words, the rich become the CEOs and stay rich, the poor become the janitors and stay poor. Occasionally you do get the success stories of a poor rising to the rich, but these occasional success stories is no way to solve the problem hindering the potential of the masses who are poor. True communism means that everything is free, starting with education and healthcare. Until about 20 years ago this was true in China. Where you end up in univeristy depends on your grades compared with your classmates' grades. Both the rich and the poor are human, they have the same anatomy, same healthcare. Afterall are you saying the rich have different anatomies as the poor? Rather the amount of treatment should depend on the seriousness of your disease. You have a serious illness, you get more healthcare. In true capitalism, the rich gets a stomach ache and calls for an appointment with the doctor, while the poor having lung cancer can't get any help at all. Sometimes it isn't even a stomach ache, sometimes it's just "I don't like the way my nose is shaped", "I think I need liposuction, I don't feel attractive"... Why? This is because being a plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills fixing noses earns you money, being a chief of surgery in a poor neighbourhood saving lives and easing pains doesn't get you much money! That is capitalism for you.

The problem with the jam bottle not having a rubber neck, are you kidding me? This is an easily solved problem, at the most a little change in the production method, and all is well.

Well sorry I ran off topic, and thanks for reading, I hope it was worth your time!


-the Community of Espes-