NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you guys think about communism. Is it bad? Good? So and so? I'm especially interested in knowing if you have personally experienced communism and still think it's a good ideology.

Up with the gates!

looks bad on paper and works even worse in practice?

Communism, in it's purest form, is a relatively good system.

When you introduce humans, it gets screwed over.

Communism is absurd.

Communism, in it's purest form, is a relatively good system.

When you introduce humans, it gets screwed over.


Couldn't have said it better myself.

...But I don't agree with Communist ways.

Communism, in it's purest form, is a relatively good system.

When you introduce humans, it gets screwed over.
This should have been an option.

I like communism, except for the type espoused by Karl Marx.

Communism, in it's purest form, is a relatively good system.

When you introduce humans, it gets screwed over.
Um, actually that means it's not a relatively good system, because a relatively good system would be one that operates within the parameters of reality. How can it be a good theory about how humans should operate when the introduction of humans 'screws it over?'

Um, actually that means it's not a relatively good system, because a relatively good system would be one that operates within the parameters of reality. How can it be a good theory about how humans should operate when the introduction of humans 'screws it over?'


If humans weren't corrupt, greedy, etc. Then it would work how it's planned. But humans are not perfect.

The problem with communism is not that it is evil as some would have you believe but simply that it does not work.

Communism was a historical failure and the one of the greatest mistakes ever made by humanity.

Ah great a poll. Worse than Nazism yep that was me. I'll qualify. Nazism is a terribly bad idea that is so reviled I doubt anyone will ever get the chancce to try it again. Communism is almost as bad and still not so reviled that people don't still think we should give it another shot. Case in point look around these forums. "How many times do you see people saying But if we tried real Nazism not the twisted version Hitler used!' Nope I don't see it eather.

If humans weren't corrupt, greedy, etc. Then it would work how it's planned. But humans are not perfect.
I know what he means, thanks. That's pretty much just the implication of the statement I just challenged. Trust me, I'm smarter than I look. Honest.

Communism, in theory and on paper, can work. Communism in practice cannot.

Ah great a poll. Worse than Nazism yep that was me. I'll qualify. Nazism is a terribly bad idea that is so reviled I doubt anyone will ever get the chancce to try it again. Communism is almost as bad and still not so reviled that people don't still think we should give it another shot. Case in point look around these forums. "How many times do you see people saying But if we tried real Nazism not the twisted version Hitler used!' Nope I don't see it eather.
:confused: that might be because REAL nazism IS what Hitler did, what he derived it from was facism, which some on this forum have said should be given another try.

Um, actually that means it's not a relatively good system, because a relatively good system would be one that operates within the parameters of reality. How can it be a good theory about how humans should operate when the introduction of humans 'screws it over?'

That's true as well.

It's a good theory on paper, then, with it's creators being shocking naive to human nature?

I would try and expand on that, but it's late and my thoughts are slow and not working currently.

By the way, I'm a she. ;)

Communism as a theoretical movement and inspiration for worker's rights, labour unions and all the rest of it?
Good Idea.

Communism as a theoretical construct?
Somewhat flawed, but interesting.

Communism as a political system introduced in countries throughout the 20th century?
Bad - For most. I don't share people's absolute black/white view of the issue, and I have spoken to a number of East Germans who had never been a part of the Government apparatus, yet still think that it was better then, than it is now.
And who are absolutely apalled when you tell them about systems even further to the right than West Germany's Social Democracy.

What should I vote? Well, I guess I'll go with "not so bad", although that isn't accurately what I think about the issue.

I agree, on paper communism works (given very large amounts of paper).

I also agree with the idea that once you introduce humans and their beliefs, faults, emotions etc it falls apart.

As for communism, it is very closely related to socialism, which in itself is a very good idea to a point, certain things like universal health care and things like the Danish government-run apartment policy have been proven to work effectively.

Think of all the "versions" of communism...all these are failings of a twisted communistic ideology. Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, the list goes on.

It ranges from great to horrid, depending on which form.

That's true as well.

It's a good theory on paper, then, with it's creators being shocking naive to human nature?

I would try and expand on that, but it's late and my thoughts are slow and not working currently.

By the way, I'm a she. ;)
Thanks for the clarification.

But anyway, I would argue that it's a bad theory because its creators were apparently ignorant of basic human nature; why I dont think I'll ever know. I think Communism as an ideology is precisely as appalling on paper as it is in practice.

That said, Marx was not a stupid man. He always held that Communism was an economic theory first and a philosophy second, although it's kind of sad that modern philosophers have clung to the idea like a dying leech on a fat pig's ass. To my knowledge, he was heard to say [later in life]: "I am not a Marxist!"

What do you guys think about communism. Is it bad? Good? So and so? I'm especially interested in knowing if you have personally experienced communism and still think it's a good ideology.
The only thing any of us really need to know about communism is that the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" never, ever "withers away," and neither does the State.

Moderated communsim (social democracy) can be pretty good. Pure communism is itself impossible to practice, unless you steal 10000 babies, bring them on a desert island and teach them nothing else than communism.

Center or center-left ideologies can work out pretty well though, if coming from a progressive transition from the right.

The only thing any of us really need to know about communism is that the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" never, ever "withers away," and neither does the State.
I guess this is the first time we can agree on something, Eutrusca.

I guess this is the first time we can agree on something, Eutrusca.
:D

Well if it's a good idea and people screw it up then it's a bad idea. Given that it's a socio-economic system and as such is supposed to be applied to gobs of humans. I mean if I invent a wrench and I tell you it's a brilliant wrench unless you use it on anything mechanical........

Apparently no one here has heard of Spain's Anarchist Revolution of 1936, which brought about true economic and political democracy until the fascists won the civil war. There is also the Italian workers' councils that existed after WWI, and the Paris Commune.

Well if it's a good idea and people screw it up then it's a bad idea. Given that it's a socio-economic system and as such is supposed to be applied to gobs of humans. I mean if I invent a wrench and I tell you it's a brilliant wrench unless you use it on anything mechanical........
Exactly.

Communism can't work on such a large scale, in my opinion. It has usually been coupled with a political dictatorship, and that just can't make it work. I don't see how you can have government for the people, if the government isn't also by and of the people.

On a small scale, within a limited community, communism can be practiced effectively. Attempts to practice it on a national level have always failed, though.

I don't 20th century 'Communism' was a bad as people in the west like to make out sometimes. I've spoken to Russians who even say that, in many ways, the Soviet Union was better than the state that Russia is in now. Granted, I don't know a huge number of Russians, though, and there as many opinions as there are people.

As many have said Communism, in theory, is great. But I disagree with "in practice, it's not". The fact is, we've never seen it in practice. If you know anything about what Communism is, you'll know that the states that claimed 'communism' in the last century (and some that continue to) are not actually 'communist' at all. People are too willing to be led, so noble attempts to construct something better have ended up as simple totalitarian regimes years later.

I tend to think that human beings just aren't ready for anything resembling Communism just yet. People are still too caught up in looking out for Number One and still too willing to exploit their fellow humans. Having a dominant system that actually encourages and facilitates that doesn't help, but maybe in the future we'll be ready for something better.

The reason communism doesn't work is practical. Communism is brought by strong leaders, who lead the revolution. Strong leaders don't like to leave office.

I don't believe revolution can bring communism, unless the leaders are so ideological that they leave office before they die, setting it up for the people. But its unlikely.

What needs to happen is a slow transition from capitalism, to socialism, to communism.

I tend to think that human beings just aren't ready for anything resembling Communism just yet. People are still too caught up in looking out for Number One and still too willing to exploit their fellow humans. Having a dominant system that actually encourages and facilitates that doesn't help, but maybe in the future we'll be ready for something better.

That is why we need a revolution that not only aims to change the dominant political and economic systems, but culture and kinship as well. There won't ever be voluntary regional workers' councils in someplace like the United States because people are raised to "look out for Number One."

Communism, in it's purest form, is a relatively good system.

When you introduce humans, it gets screwed over.
And the more people you add to it the worse it gets.

Humanity+ = Communist worse

A family household runs on a Communist system. Think about it.

Everyone 'usually' (Execpt for families with lazy teens) shares in the labor, the food is divided among everyone relativly equally, money is spend for the good of the whole. But you can't run a town that way, much less a country.

I think it's because around one out of five people are greedy.

Capitalism kills hundreds of thousands every year. Millions starve in Africa and Asia, poverty is rife in Latin America and the Middle East, poverty is begginning to seep into Russia and the USA... this is thanks to capitalism.

Capitalism has intentionally killed millions more than Stalinism. In one decade in capitalist India, more died than under Stalin. Stalinists (who betrayed communism... most of the people in gulags in the 30's, 40's and 50's were the communists who had originally been in the revolution or communist party) kill people with bullets, but capitalists kill people with poverty, when they could easily solve world poverty in less than one year. They don't do it because they want to keep prices high in 1st world countries. The Maoists were Stalinists, and China was thus never communist. It is now a capitalist dictatorship, proving that capitalism can thrive without democracy.

I would prefer Cuban or Venezuelan communism any second to capitalism. New Orleans has proved that capitalism shapes people to barbaric and individualism (while the Cubans, just a few kilometres away, evactuated 14 million people from hurricane affected areas before the hurricanes hit).

Workers of all countries, unite!
Socialism or barbarism!

The reason communism doesn't work is practical. Communism is brought by strong leaders, who lead the revolution. Strong leaders don't like to leave office.

I don't believe revolution can bring communism, unless the leaders are so ideological that they leave office before they die, setting it up for the people. But its unlikely.

What needs to happen is a slow transition from capitalism, to socialism, to communism.

There does not neccessarily need to be a revolution with leaders who take up some kind of office. The Situationist Revolution of May 1968 had no Fidel Castro or Mao Tse-Tsung, and yet two-thirds of the workforce and countless students almost changed all of France, and inspired other minor revolutions across the globe.

The egalitariansim of it all deters me, the belief that all people deserve the same. How are you suppose to determine greatness within a communist society? Who can produce the most? Who can produce the best? Who is the most willing to share?
And that silly dream of eliminating all human suffering, as if that would be desirable! Humans love suffering, not only to see others suffer (just watch TV, good horror flick, or tragedy and you'll understand) but themselves love to suffer. Just look at the zealous asceticism of the past 2000 years. Without that inner strife humans would be empty.
In any case, attacking communism on a 'good' or 'bad' basis does not suit me. It has some high points, as most ideologies do.

One gang of totalitarian scum is pretty much like another. The evil is inherent within the ideology itself.

This thread has left me with one opinion greatly reinforced.

You people are unspeakably stupid and ill-educated.

I just can't... oh... dear fricking... ow... why bother posting if you're that wildly ignorant? I... ow..ow..have to lie down.

And the more people you add to it the worse it gets.

Humanity+ = Communist worse

A family household runs on a Communist system. Think about it.

Everyone 'usually' (Execpt for families with lazy teens) shares in the labor, the food is divided among everyone relativly equally, money is spend for the good of the whole. But you can't run a town that way, much less a country.

I think it's because around one out of five people are greedy.
No, one out of one people are greedy, in point of fact; just to varying degrees. Some have tricked themselves into thinking that they really do care about other people more than they care about themselves, but they all still eat dinner as opposed to shipping it off to Ethiopia. Survival requires a certain amount of 'greed' in the normal state of nature.

At any rate, I will always hold to the belief that Socialism/Communism works best with two people, and grows progressively more nightmarish when more people are added to the equation. The happenings in Russia and China should speak for themselves as testament to this theory, as opposed to, say, household dynamics.

That is why we need a revolution that not only aims to change the dominant political and economic systems, but culture and kinship as well. There won't ever be voluntary regional workers' councils in someplace like the United States because people are raised to "look out for Number One."

As Chellis said above, I'm really not sure how effective a revolution can be, unless the people are just as willing to pull down the charismatic leaders they were following when they pulled down the corrupt system that was there before if they don't step down voluntarily.

But you're right about needing to change the culture and people's ideas about kinship and community.

This thread has left me with one opinion greatly reinforced.

You people are unspeakably stupid and ill-educated.

I just can't... oh... dear fricking... ow... why bother posting if you're that wildly ignorant? I... ow..ow..have to lie down.
Umm... how about not trolling?

I don't 20th century 'Communism' was a bad as people in the west like to make out sometimes. I've spoken to Russians who even say that, in many ways, the Soviet Union was better than the state that Russia is in now. Granted, I don't know a huge number of Russians, though, and there as many opinions as there are people.
Maybe they live so bad now because Communism as an economical system failed and the states suppoting it collapsed in 1989/91. The main problem with Communism's stance on economy is that you can't treat all people equally. If everybody earns the same income, regardless of their efficiency, where is the incentive for working harder? Also, if you own a company, you'll certainly work hard to insure its profitability, but if the state is the owner, that drive decreases. That's the human nature.

As many have said Communism, in theory, is great. But I disagree with "in practice, it's not". The fact is, we've never seen it in practice... I tend to think that human beings just aren't ready for anything resembling Communism just yet.
I think humans simply aren't genetically 'programmed' for Communism (or for a number of other ideologies). So 'true' Communism on a large scale will remain an impossible dream, which will invariably turn into a nightmare whenever we'll try to bring it to life.

The egalitariansim of it all deters me, the belief that all people deserve the same. How are you suppose to determine greatness within a communist society? Who can produce the most? Who can produce the best? Who is the most willing to share?
You wouldn't agree that every person derserves certain basic necessities?
And that silly dream of eliminating all human suffering, as if that would be desirable!
Movements like communism do not dream of eliminating suffering in all its forms. Of course there will always be loneliness, broken hearts, etc., they just think that there is certain unnecessary suffering (starvation, hypothermia, and such).

Capitalism kills hundreds of thousands every year. Millions starve in Africa and Asia, poverty is rife in Latin America and the Middle East, poverty is begginning to seep into Russia and the USA... this is thanks to capitalism.

Capitalism has intentionally killed millions more than Stalinism. In one decade in capitalist India, more died than under Stalin. Stalinists (who betrayed communism... most of the people in gulags in the 30's, 40's and 50's were the communists who had originally been in the revolution or communist party) kill people with bullets, but capitalists kill people with poverty, when they could easily solve world poverty in less than one year.
Have you ever heard about the famine in Ucraine in 1932-33? Or did you just speak without thinking?

I would prefer Cuban or Venezuelan communism any second to capitalism.
Emigration is always an option. I'm sure you'd be wecomed there.

New Orleans has proved that capitalism shapes people to barbaric and individualism (while the Cubans, just a few kilometres away, evactuated 14 million people from hurricane affected areas before the hurricanes hit).
:confused: Are you aware that there aren't 14 million people in all of Cuba?

As you can see from my sig, I am from Saskatchewan. Does that mean I can vote for one of the "I’m from a communist/former communist country" options? (Ignoring the fact that Saskatchewan is a province)

No, one out of one people are greedy, in point of fact; just to varying degrees. Some have tricked themselves into thinking that they really do care about other people more than they care about themselves, but they all still eat dinner as opposed to shipping it off to Ethiopia. Survival requires a certain amount of 'greed' in the normal state of nature.

I think that's true to a certain extent. Resources are limited and wants are infinite. Merely by choosing to continue to eat so that you may live, you are choosing your life over another's.

However, we are talking about degrees and so it is certainly possible that people can and do excercise a higher degree of altruism than self-interest. If that is so, then is it really fair to characterize the person who is more altruistic than self-interested as greedy? I don't think so.

At any rate, I will always hold to the belief that Socialism/Communism works best with two people, and grows progressively more nightmarish when more people are added to the equation. The happenings in Russia and China should speak for themselves as testament to this theory, as opposed to, say, household dynamics.

I don't agree with the number, but I think there is a lot of truth in that statement. Primative societies can be considered functionally communist/socialist and so we have evidence that those economic models do work. The problem is as society becomes bigger and more complex the cost to organize the economy becomes much higher, so that eventually the most efficient method to organize the economy is through free markets.

Modern computation and communication technology along with increasingly accurate economic modeling could change all of that though.

I think humans simply aren't genetically 'programmed' for Communism (or for a number of other ideologies). So 'true' Communism on a large scale will remain an impossible dream, which will invariably turn into a nightmare whenever we'll try to bring it to life.

I don't think humans are really 'genetically programmed' for any particular brand of society. Usually 'human nature' and 'genetic programming' are just used as convenient excuses by people who are too jaded to try changing things, are too lazy, or are already profiting heavily from exploiting other people and see nothing wrong with that.

As I said, I don't think people are ready for anything like Communism yet, but I would say it's more for cultural reasons than genetic ones. People are indoctrinated with the idea that you have to step on other people to get to the top all their lives. It will take a major culture shift for things to change, and that change is a very slow, hard process.

You wouldn't agree that every person derserves certain basic necessities?

I wouldn't agree that some lazy SOB whos spends all of his time masturbating deserves the same amount of material as worthy and admirable leader. And if you do not work for your necessities you don't deserve them, unlike Marx's "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Marx believes in giving everyone basic neccessities despite how willingly they contribute.

Movements like communism do not dream of eliminating suffering in all its forms. Of course there will always be loneliness, broken hearts, etc., they just think that there is certain unnecessary suffering (starvation, hypothermia, and such).

Please, people will willingly starve temselves and be happy with it. Fasting? Disease is so necessary to the individual, from it we learn the first rule of nature, the elimination of all things non-self. How do you think white blood cells work? So must the individual. To say "we must eliminate all disease" is to deny humanity a crucial step not in becoming happy, but in becoming complete. Without complaining about this suffering these people would be incomplete!
And again, this is what we want! Even when our empathy brings us to tears it does not stir us enough to help, at least for the majority.
Look at the products we buy, the games we play. How many games do you play about peace? How many about war and conflict? Enough said, communists are more enthusiastic about the violence of the revolution, the means of the revolution than the ends.

I wouldn't agree that some lazy SOB whos spends all of his time masturbating deserves the same amount of material as worthy and admirable leader.
...says the guy on the internet forum. :D

At any rate, you need to send a telegram to a guy called "Vittos Ordination" outlining why you think in capitalism being lazy is immoral. I'm sure he'll love to hear about it! ;)

Have you ever heard about the famine in Ucraine in 1932-33? Or did you just speak without thinking?


Emigration is always an option. I'm sure you'd be wecomed there.


:confused: Are you aware that there aren't 14 million people in all of Cuba?

Oops you are right. Sorry, I meant a quarter of the Cuban population.

Soviet Union was not a communist country in '32-'33. It was a Stalinist (state-capitalist) country.

...says the guy on the internet forum. :D

I never said I was a great and admirable leader. I'm saying the better people deserve more. Who they are I never mentioned.
And I wouldn't say in capitalism it is immoral to be lazy, since capitalism has no morality.

And I wouldn't say in capitalism it is immoral to be lazy, since capitalism has no morality.
Why do you believe in punishing them then?

Why do you believe in punishing them then?

*sigh* not punishment, giving people what they deserve. If not getting what you don't deserve is a punishment, then so be it call it punishment. I'm not coming from a capitalist POV with my interpretation of communism.

*sigh* not punishment, giving people what they deserve. If not getting what you don't deserve is a punishment, then so be it call it punishment. I'm not coming from a capitalist POV with my interpretation of communism.
Neither am I...I'm just stuck in an argument at the moment about whether Capitalism peddles its morality just like Socialism or Communism does.

I'm thinking that in theory it's morality-free in the sense that it lets everyone do what they want, free of moral judgement, but in practice you'll see that laziness is despised, greenies are ignored/made fun off, and money becomes the central value people admire and adhere to.
So I thought your "lazy people don't deserve X" is a good example.

State-capitalism in USSR started in 1956, thanks to that skripach Khruschev! Learn your history, kid. During Stalin's era, soviet economy was truly socialist. And I guess that I don't have to explain you about Ukrainian Famine, which was caused by rich gulags who burned hundreds of square kilometers of fields and butchered their cattle in order to prevent other people to get some food!

And one more thing. Why every yankee kid here think that communism has existed? IT HAS NOT! COMMUNISM IS THE FINAL FORM OF SOCIALISM! READ MARX AND LENIN, KIDS! EDUCATE YOURSELVES!

The reason communism doesn't work is practical. Communism is brought by strong leaders, who lead the revolution. Strong leaders don't like to leave office.

I don't believe revolution can bring communism, unless the leaders are so ideological that they leave office before they die, setting it up for the people. But its unlikely.

What needs to happen is a slow transition from capitalism, to socialism, to communism.I agree. The only proper way of instituting communism is through the democratic process. Of course, saying "democratic communism" is redundant, but I suppose it's necessary to say anyway.

That is why we need a revolution If by revolution, you mean in a way that I and the poster described above, then yes. If you mean something violent, then no. There's no excuse to use violence in a democratic or even moderately functioning democracy in order to bring about communism. In countries that aren't democracies...well, violent change might be necessary then. But not in democratic countries.

Capitalism kills hundreds of thousands every year. Millions starve in Africa and Asia, poverty is rife in Latin America and the Middle East, poverty is begginning to seep into Russia and the USA... this is thanks to capitalism. Now, now, let's be fair. This isn't from capitalism, but rather capitalism in practice. (Here's to hoping the irony in this is noticed.)

The egalitariansim of it all deters me, the belief that all people deserve the same. How are you suppose to determine greatness within a communist society?Those two sentences contradict each other.

One gang of totalitarian scum is pretty much like another. The evil is inherent within the ideology itself.Except, of course, for the fact that there's nothing within communism that says that it must be totalitarian.

If everybody earns the same income, regardless of their efficiency, where is the incentive for working harder?When people name their reasons for taking a particular job, money is usually not at the top, or even near the top of the list. So clearly, there are other incentives for working that they have.

Communism was an utter failure as an economic system both in reality and theoretically for the simple reason that it misunderstood the nature of how humans interact. Basically it ignores the single most fundamental law of economics, and that is that people will do what is in their interests.

Any economic model which is so inherently flawed has no business being taken seriously by anyone.

Then of course there is the fact that states with Communist ideologies have commited horrendous suffering far outstriping what the Nazis ever did...

now I'm a socialist

I believe in international socialism

however I would not call any of the countrys that you would say were under communism to be socialist or communist, i'd call them state capitalist

socialism when it has been able to work (i.e. not often as people generally invade and so on) it works very well.

for example under the trotskyite militias in parts of spain there was voluntary colectivisation of agriculture, on the whole people wern't forced to take part, they took part when they could see how it helped them.

if you are a small landowner/farmer you might want a piece of equipment that would make your work easier and more productive (such as a tractor or such like) you individually can't afford it (either because you haven't the money or because it wouldn't pay for it self as you haven't enough land) but if you bought it with your neighbours then you'd all reap the benifits.

this increased help and the fact they were now able to used more modern (and so expensive) methods allowed them to increase productivity across the region by 150%

everyone was happy (well except for the rich landowners but as they supported the faciests during the civil war they wouldn't support the republican militias no matter whathtey did) and the system worked well

doctors/mechanics/artisans would provide their services in return for being supported by the local populace, kind of a primitive welfare state.

eventually the republicans were crushed but this was due to military failings rather then society/economic failings (the fact that the faciests were being supported by germany and italy, the republic was blockaded by various nationalitys ships (british, france germany, italy and I think the usa), and the usa and britain stopped any supplies even if not linked to the war, and the fact that france who wanted to help (the government at least) but was unable to with out the risk of having the same confrontation with its own right)

really its increadable the republic lasted as long as it did

what with its main allys being mexico and the USSR (though that was a bit half harted (they didn't care if the republic won or lost just wanted to test weapons)) compared to germany and italy

and the fact the communists (under stalin) basicly tried to eliminate the trotskyite/anarchist/trade union forces (and I mean gun battles between them) and the fact the republican government refused to do what was necessary to win.

Pure communism has never been used in practice. All excuses for communism so far, Leninism, Maoism etc have been an interpretation of communism which is basically state capitalism. Communism is meant to be meritological but obviously in reality it is executed by corrupt individuals as is any ideology. :sniper:
The evils of Chairman Mao or the USSR are not any worse than the evils of the US government which has only mascaraded as the epitmoy of freedom while ensuring most of the world is ran by dictators and not giving its own citizens the freedom of information which might make them reconsider their opinon about just how free their country is. Although the USSR was never really true communism, obviously the capitalist havens were delighted to portray it as communism in their propaganda because it makes communism so much easier to detest.
Of course communism limits freedom, but, it doesnt have to be in a way that makes quality of life any poorer for its people. For example, there were no prostitutes or drug addicts in communist Czechoslavakia but the 'free' Czech Republic is laden with these problems.
I've been to Moscow and everyone there seemed pretty fed up now that they are free.
I think the poll suggests that not a lot of people on here are from former communist states and that people are arent from communist states dont know a lot about communism.

Basically it ignores the single most fundamental law of economics, and that is that people will do what is in their interests.
So then society should be organized in such a way that equality of income, (as well as certain other things that go along with it if society is organized properly) is what is in a person's interest.

So then society should be organized in such a way that equality of income, (as well as certain other things that go along with it if society is organized properly) is what is in a person's interest.

The problem with this is that you can't merely reorganise society so that "equality of income" is in an individual's best interests. You can no more create an altruistic society then you can create a society where murder does not exist. Only in your mind where you can invent your own universe is this possible, not in the real world.

You can't change human nature by inventing a new ideology. Humans will always seek to maximise their own utility, it's unavoidable. It is the observation that we notice in aggregate in economcis in all systems. In all Communist states markets naturally arose. To not realise this is Communism's greatest theoretical failure.

Besides, I think there is something decidedly insidious about an ideology which presumes to tell others how they should act, how they should think.

To all Communists
Join my region Communists United!

Please, even just a few of you :fluffle:

What if you live in a Communist Country now?

To all Communists
Join my region Communists United!

Please, even just a few of you :fluffle:
To all Anti Communist Nations help me destroy this nation!

Socialism in it's true form is what is best and needede for all. GOD bless!

The problem with this is that you can't merely reorganise society so that "equality of income" is in an individual's best interests. Of course you can. To give one rather lengthy, flawed, but interesting example, let's look at worker-owned cooperatives. These are essentially miniature communist societies. There is not completely equal income in all co-ops, but then again not all communists believe in equality of income. Anyway, if you compare co-ops to traditional businesses, you notice a few things. Traditional businesses tend to do better than co-ops in times of economic boom. However, co-ops tend to do better than traditional businesses in times of economic downturn. There are many reasons for this which may or may not have anything to do with my example, so I'll move forward.

If this example can be extrapolated into the world on a large scale, what you would see is, when more capitalistic societies are hit recessions, people moving over to more socialistic societies.

Certainly, as I said, there are many reasons why this might not happen, but it's an interesting example. And there are also other reasons why equality of income would be in a person's best interest.


You can no more create an altruistic society then you can create a society where murder does not exist. Only in your mind where you can invent your own universe is this possible, not in the real world.
Equality of income does not necessarily equal altruism.


You can't change human nature by inventing a new ideology. Humans will always seek to maximise their own utility, it's unavoidable. It is the observation that we notice in aggregate in economcis in all systems. In all Communist states markets naturally arose. To not realise this is Communism's greatest theoretical failure.What we call human nature is in actuality human habit.

under a true socialist state the would be perfect democracy as the state would be the people.

note not acting on behalf of the people or for the best intersts of the people

it would be the people

the way would be to have soviets (workers councils) which would be elected with instant recall (this prevents the council from doing anything the people who elected them don't want and allows them to change their position depending on events)

now I believe that being able to decide who represents you and the fact you can kick them out of office if they screw you around is better then electing someone who you kinda agree with a bit every 5 years.....

also you really wouldn't need equality of pay

as that would become completely outdated as a concept

the simple matter would be if you can work (i.e. you are physically able and there are jobs you can do) but choose not to then you don't eat simple as that....

communism is one of those things that sound good and look good and I am all for it, but history has proven that communism just doesn't work in the 20th and 21st century, you can't invest so puch power in one man (e.g. Stalin, Zedong) without him becoming greedy and turns his back on democracy.

Communism is a great idea but it can't be done.

also you really wouldn't need equality of pay

as that would become completely outdated as a conceptI agreed with most of your post, but disagree with this part. While I am aware that not all socialists agree with equality of pay, I do. I view it as necessary to democracy. In capitalism, money is power. I fail to see why this wouldn't be the same in any society with unequal income. Buying power = political power.

first of all true communism/socialism doesn't have one man one vote (and that man was stalin.....) it is very democratic

stalinist russia was as capitalist as america....

perhaps even more so

also what i'm talking about is that the concept of money would eventually go (probbably) not that we shouldn't be equal, if you can work, there is work and your doing it or your not able to work (as you can't physically do it or there isn't any available to you) then you should have everything you need

if you can work but arn't (i.e. you are being lazy) then you shouldn't be supported by society.........

so all the rich people now who don't do anything usefull would be in this lazy catergory unless they went' out and tried to get jobs (i'm sure they could sweep streets and so on if they work hard and keep their noses clean....)

Communism isn't a good system, at all. People blame it's failing on human greed, but that's just stupid. Why should I work my ass off as a doctor to earn the same amount of money as the slob next door who does nothing.

so all the rich people now who don't do anything usefull would be in this lazy catergory unless they went' out and tried to get jobs (i'm sure they could sweep streets and so on if they work hard and keep their noses clean....)

And to bring about this vision of a great workers’ utopia? Brutal forced collectivisation of wealth? Liquidation of the bourgeois class and intelligentsia? This was where a huge amount of the mass murder of Communist regimes occurred.

My only real understandings of communism are the lovely fluffy view that everyone is equal, coupled with their ridiculous running of the planned economy. Unless we can work out a way to know the future a planned economy won't work. But what would i know, i'm from the land of Oz. We had a leader of a political party elected to parliament whose solution to running out of money was to PRINT MORE OF IT!!!

Of course you can. To give one rather lengthy, flawed, but interesting example, let's look at worker-owned cooperatives. These are essentially miniature communist societies.
I think this is more than a little oversimplification, you can't apply this to an industry or an economy or to a state.

Equality of income does not necessarily equal altruism.
Maybe, but altruism is necessary for it to exist.

What we call human nature is in actuality human habit.
And neither is necessarily changeable, which is what Communism would need before it could be feasible.

Communism, in theory and on paper, can work. Communism in practice cannot.

Yeah, on paper it seems to work, but if we wanted to apply it succesfully into the political system we would need an instantaneously global revolution, which seems impossible.

Partial revolution is a failure that empovered the communist block; the only way to avoid it is everybody-at-once, so disequality between "richer" and "poorer" countries wouldn't appear.

Also, if it ever happened again; there should be a vigilant mechanism, to avoid a new Stalin...

But, IMO, Communism is the real effort-for-success society.

communism is socialism gone wrong. Total governmental control of economic as well as human resources in the name of alleged equality (when the gov't heads invariably profit) that places everyone in the trenches because there's no true incentive to do anything other than find a way inside the oppressive gov't.

For that matter, pure socialism (as well as pure capitalism) would create an unstable economic environment that would rapidly devolve into communist or fascist regimes. An effective and practical economy needs its capitalist extremes held in check, while the working public needs to remain motivated to fuel the economy by keeping its socialist tendencies balanced.

I don't think we should confuse Socialism with Communism. Socialism is a fine ideology, a vehicle for addressing the income inequalities present in society by various means such as transfer payments. Communism is much more extreme, the end of private ownership and collectivisation of property to form some "worker's paradise" with a command economy.

you should be a doctor because you want to help people not because of the pay

also i'd want more doctors so I'd change the system so you don't have to work such stupid hours

under true socialism that slob next door if there was work he could do wouldn't have his house or his food untill he tried (he wouldn't be allowed to starve but not much else)

socialism has never had a chance to show its full potential

the main reason is that as soon as any body gets close it gets thumped by capitalist/state capitalist

also to have a true socialist state you need to have a world revolution

while you wouldn't need everycountry to adopt it (if luxembourg and andora were not socialist I don't think there would be a huge threat from a counter revolutionary force) but it would have to be wide spread.

true capitalism doesn't work

in britain they have privitised the cleaning services in hospitals

as a result huge numbers of people die from infections caught in hospitals

this is because the government want it cheap and the companies want a profit so they are spending very little and screwing over the work force to do it.

I know this from facts as several people I know have gone into hospital and either died from infections or been seriously ill from them.

if the cleaning was done to be a good cleaning service rather then for the money then this wouldn't be happerning (well it would a bit because of the antibiotic resistant bacteria but it would help as they may be antibiotic resistant but they still die when bleeched)

I don't think we should confuse Socialism with Communism. Socialism is a fine ideology, a vehicle for addressing the income inequalities present in society by various means such as transfer payments. Communism is much more extreme, the end of private ownership and collectivisation of property to form some "worker's paradise" with a command economy.

Socialism isn't an ideology. It's an economic system. Major difference. Libertarianism, progressivism, neo-conservatism... those are ideologies, while communism, fascism, anarchism, republicanism, and democracy are governmental systems.

socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat

i.e. the workers in charge

what your talking about is social reformers

they are not 'true' socialists

they are just more left wing members of the establishment

they want to make our lives less shit

revolutianary socialists want to make our lives better

you can't change a system totaly from within

Socialism isn't an ideology. It's an economic system. Major difference. Libertarianism, progressivism, neo-conservatism... those are ideologies, while communism, fascism, anarchism, republicanism, and democracy are governmental systems.

Surely you can call it an economic ideology?

Communism is more an economic ideology than a political one though.

you can't change a system totaly from within

That assumes we want to change the system totaly, or that this is desirable, which social democrats like me most certainly do not believe.

revolutianary socialists want to make our lives better

By revolutionary socialists you really mean Communists though, don't you? They don't so much as "want to make our lives better" as make a utopia for workers (no matter how unfeasible such a dream is, or how misguided their implementation of it). Those with the means to production, for example, they don't want to make their lives better.

thats why your not socialists

your reformers

my argument is that the system makes people unequal

everyone able to change the system doesn't want to due to the fact that they are part of the sytem and it benifits them

all real change in britain (e.g. the welfare state) was brought about because of mass political action (we'd have got the same from the conservatives as well as labour as otherwise we'd have given them revolution) after both world wars

universal sufferage brought about by mass action

changes to the political system that make it approach what we can call a democracy due to the fact that mass action and the threat of force was used (in fact there was actually a chartist rebellion in wales called the newport rising (it took place in newport hense the name))

when we go on the streets en mass the politicians have to give us what we want......

or we will take it from them by force

no world can be a utopia (and if you've read about what utopia actually was then you would'nt want it (it was a tudor philosophers idea)) but it can be a hell of a lot better then it is now

the fairest system would be those that make the wealth should have the wealth.........

or are you saying that its right that most people work for 35-40 (ish) hours a week when all their living costs are earned in a few hours........

For what it's worth, I live in China. I'm not from here, thank the Lords of Kobol, but I've been living here for quite a long time.

This place has a reputation for being a Communist nation - that is very far from the truth. However, this nation has used Communism as an excuse to carry out the most brutal and repressive campaigns in the history of history. It continues to do so to this day, regardless of what the Economist magazine might say. Former Chairman Mao Zedong goes into the history books for being by far the biggest mass murderer of all time - worse than Hitler or Stalin could have dreamed of. The current Chairman is known by his nickname, the Butcher of Lhasa. Even today, there are tens of millions of innocent people in slave labour camps, producing export goods for the West to purchase with hard currency (said currency is then spent with Russian arms manufacturers)

Communism itself may or may not be a flawed ideology, but what has been done by Communist governments around the world (and continues to be done here in China) is plain and simply evil.

Commies ain't cool. :sniper:

Communism, in it's purest form, is a relatively good system.

When you introduce humans, it gets screwed over.

Exactly... Lovely theory, unrealistic in practise.

Moderated communsim (social democracy) can be pretty good. Pure communism is itself impossible to practice, unless you steal 10000 babies, bring them on a desert island and teach them nothing else than communism.

Center or center-left ideologies can work out pretty well though, if coming from a progressive transition from the right.
i'm sure you could just buy the babies? I'm intigued.. tell us more about your plan...

For what it's worth, I live in China. I'm not from here, thank the Lords of Kobol, but I've been living here for quite a long time.

This place has a reputation for being a Communist nation - that is very far from the truth. However, this nation has used Communism as an excuse to carry out the most brutal and repressive campaigns in the history of history. It continues to do so to this day, regardless of what the Economist magazine might say. Former Chairman Mao Zedong goes into the history books for being by far the biggest mass murderer of all time - worse than Hitler or Stalin could have dreamed of. The current Chairman is known by his nickname, the Butcher of Lhasa. Even today, there are tens of millions of innocent people in slave labour camps, producing export goods for the West to purchase with hard currency (said currency is then spent with Russian arms manufacturers)

Communism itself may or may not be a flawed ideology, but what has been done by Communist governments around the world (and continues to be done here in China) is plain and simply evil.

Commies ain't cool. :sniper:
here in china?

Yes, here in China. Today.

Communism:
- cultural revolution
- Mao
-Stalin
-100 million cumulative deaths
-gulags
-purges
-oppression of the upper classes
-derison of religion
-mediocrity for all
-economic recession

My word, I do believe Karl Marx was the least talented, most deplorable individual to lay any pretence to be a political theorist since Oliver Cromwell.

oliver cromwell wasn't all bad..........

not all good either

yes but the communist manifesto writen by karl marx and fredrich engels has been taken and adapted

We don't just take what they've said and spit it back up onto the world we look at what has worked and what we think would work and use that to addapt the theroys

I personally am a member of the working class

just because i'm a scientist and so am labouring with my brain rather then my muscles I'm still working for a living.

If I stopped working then I'd have nothing very quickly

that is the true definition of being working class

you are working class if you have to work for a living

you are middle class if you tell people to work for a living

you are ruling class if you own stuff and so have money

What do you guys think about communism. Is it bad? Good? So and so? I'm especially interested in knowing if you have personally experienced communism and still think it's a good ideology.
I am not from a communist or former communist country, yet I think that Communism has handled some social issues better than capitalist countries. The problem with Communism is that it became a religion.

Once we humans believe that they have the 'truth' about anything, we seek to impose that 'truth' on the rest of humanity. While we now concentrate on the human rights violations by communist régimes (and they were often serious and detrimental to many people), we forget the education and health programs, etc. that were beneficial. If I had to give a rating of success to Communism, I would probably say 20-30%. No country can afford a single party system!

I have not lived it. I think it's a great concept but unfortunately I don't believe humans are capable of properly implementing it. We are hardwired for survival (like every other species) and in our case, that means a certain amount of greed, jealousy and dishonesty. The system won't work because it is inherintly prone to corruption.

no if you think about it socialism is a great system exactly as it plays on peoples baser instincts

who hasn't wished that they had as good stuff as such and such......

under socialism admitadly no one would be a millionare

but your chances of becomming one under capitalism is much smaller then your chances of becoming a homeless tramp.......

I'd rather go for the safe option.......

where I have everything I need and don't have to work too hard........

oliver cromwell wasn't all bad..........

not all good either

yes but the communist manifesto writen by karl marx and fredrich engels has been taken and adapted

We don't just take what they've said and spit it back up onto the world we look at what has worked and what we think would work and use that to addapt the theroys

I personally am a member of the working class

just because i'm a scientist and so am labouring with my brain rather then my muscles I'm still working for a living.

If I stopped working then I'd have nothing very quickly

that is the true definition of being working class

you are working class if you have to work for a living

you are middle class if you tell people to work for a living

you are ruling class if you own stuff and so have money

Depends, personally I think Cromwell was a misguided, purtianical, sanctimonious and thoroughly deplorable fool. And granted, the inherent philanthropy of communism is admirable, however, it si utterly untenable, since it requires those who possess the emans of production to cede them to those who do not, and accept mediocrity and equality in place of superiority and dominance.

the people with the means of production......

isn't that the workers......

the people running the new state.........

you seem to have been mixed up

I admit cromwell could be quite shitty

but he did a lot of good as well

and he tried

I don't agree with him he was a religious radical not a political radical

I'd have been on his side during the war

though on the levellers and diggers side after it

Capitalism works because it merely describes what happens naturally. It doesn't have to be implemented it just has to be allowed to exist. It is based on people working hard to better their own lives and the lives of their loved ones. Socialism and Communism take from the upper and middle class to make the lower class' filth more comfortable. S & C operate under the belief that these people, left to themselves, would always be poor, while capitalism says that if they make themselves valuable they can succeed. Capitalism says "You are what you make yourself" S&C say, "Your not good enough to do it on your own."

I'm from Odessa, I despise the USSR, but it was more "stalinist" than "communist" , and never went beyond authoritarian socialism anyhow, afterall in Marx' theory the state goes away, in the USSR exactly the opposite happned. Show me a real communist country and then I'll tell you.

I'd rather go for the safe option.......

where I have everything I need and don't have to work too hard........

With an attitude like that yes you would have a better chance of being a homeless tramp than a millionaire. This makes my point that only capitalism as a system ENCOURAGES hard wark and self betterment.

but millions of people work increadably long hours all over the world and are barely making ends meet......

but the people who own their factorys don't work and have lots of money.....

Communism is evil.

but millions of people work increadably long hours all over the world and are barely making ends meet......

but the people who own their factorys don't work and have lots of money.....

They don't work? Define for me "work," sir. The people working minum wage jobs are there because they didn't make themselves valuable. They choose what education they would get, they choose what trade they would learn, stop operating under the premise that they never had the ability to be anything greater than what they are.

I'd like to compare a few aspects of the Nazi and Communist regimes. I won't talk about the ideologies now, because an ideology has to be implemented by people. As far as I'm concerned, I'm more interested in how an actual ideology works in the real world - and so how it can affect me - than how it is conceived be ideally. Let's begin:

1) Dictatorship. Both ideologies can only exist if there's no real opposition to the system.

2) Methods for treating the dissenters. The Nazis had the Gestapo, the Communists had the NKVD (later the KGB). Both services routinely used torture as a means of obtaining information from the victims.

3) 'Undesirable' categories of people. The Nazis had a thing against the Jews and exterminated them. The Communists had something against the intelectuals and the so-called 'burgeois-landowner' class. They exterminated them too. The only difference is that the Nazi discriminated on the basis of your race, while the Communists did it on the basis of your class.

So far, the two regimes are equal in 'evilness'. Let's see some more aspects of Communism and Nazism.

4) Economy. The Nazi economy was a - relatively - free economy. The Communists were in favor of an extremely centralized economy. No free enterprise allowed, everything is state owned and ruled from the center. The result: more ineffiency in the system.

5) Standard of living. I expect a higher standard of living in a Nazi dictatorship than in Communist dictatorship, since the Nazi economy was more efficient.

6) The ulimate outcome of a Communist or Nazi society. A Communist state is destined to collapse because of its extremely inefficient economy, or reform its economy along Western lines, thus no longer being Communist (for all practical purposes, China is no longer a Communist state; it remains a dictatorhip, certainly, but it's a Communist dictatorship in name only). The Nazis' economy was, at least in my oppinion, viable. I believe a Nazi state would simply return to democracy after the death of its original founder (examples: Spain and Portugal in the 1970's; they were not Nazi states, 'just' fascist, but they are the closest possible example). Why do I believe that? The Nazis didn't exterminate their intelectual elite.

I think the last three points show some aspects in which the Communists were worse than the Nazis. As you can see, I hold Communism and the Communists in a very low regard. :p

the people with the means of production......

isn't that the workers......

the people running the new state.........

you seem to have been mixed up

I admit cromwell could be quite shitty

but he did a lot of good as well

and he tried

I don't agree with him he was a religious radical not a political radical

I'd have been on his side during the war

though on the levellers and diggers side after it

The means of production, prior to the epoch of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist revolution, are controlled by the bourgoise, the middle classes, that is indeed the defining facte of capitalism. And in comparison to the protestantism instituted by Cromwell, frankly renaissance catholicism seems considerably more amiable and uplifting, and considerably less depressing. Personally, I would ahve supported Charles, and ensured he had won and upheld the imperial crown.

I'm from Odessa, I despise the USSR, but it was more "stalinist" than "communist" , and never went beyond authoritarian socialism anyhow, afterall in Marx' theory the state goes away, in the USSR exactly the opposite happned. Show me a real communist country and then I'll tell you.
My father is from Odessa. :)

As for me--communism at it was practised in the USSR was one grossly inefficient system bound to collapse.

Now I'll tell you why I believe a Communist economy is destined to be inefficient.

Let's say Mike and I both go to school. I work hard, learn something, go to university and eventually become a doctor. Mike skips the classes and plays football all the time. After highschool, he is hired as a janitor by our school.

Because we live in Communist society, we both earn the same. The difference is that I work longer hours - which is a necesity (Somebody said something about changing the doctors' program, but if a guy is hit by a car at 3 a.m., he can't wait until 9 when I come to work); I have a more stressfull job and I worked more to get it. Believe me, after a few months, I'd ask Mike if they don't need another janitor. And if I'll have a child, I'll tell him to go play football instead of doing his homework because the school needs a janitor.

I'm from a non-communist country. Communism is worse than Nazism.

Communism:
- cultural revolution
- Mao
-Stalin
-100 million cumulative deaths
-gulags
-purges
-oppression of the upper classes
-derison of religion
-mediocrity for all
-economic recession


May I make a correction?

100 million dead is a very optimistic figure. The Great Leap Forward alone killed 43 million. Tibetans killed by Chinese since the annexation is between 1.2 and 2 million. 3 million killed in the revolution. Rural and Urban purges 6 million plus. Cultural Revolution 7 to 20 million. Slave labour camps (laogai) 20 million (but possibly far higher). Landlords 1 to 2 million plus. Korean War 1 million.

That's near enough 100 million from China alone, never minding how many died abroad as a result of the revolutions they fomented in Asia and Africa (Khmer Rouge, anyone?). Add plenty more for the former Soviet Union and their escapades around the planet, and what we have is the worst diease ever known - Communism in Barbaric Societies.

May I make a correction?

100 million dead is a very optimistic figure. The Great Leap Forward alone killed 43 million. Tibetans killed by Chinese since the annexation is between 1.2 and 2 million. 3 million killed in the revolution. Rural and Urban purges 6 million plus. Cultural Revolution 7 to 20 million. Slave labour camps (laogai) 20 million (but possibly far higher). Landlords 1 to 2 million plus. Korean War 1 million.

That's near enough 100 million from China alone, never minding how many died abroad as a result of the revolutions they fomented in Asia and Africa (Khmer Rouge, anyone?). Add plenty more for the former Soviet Union and their escapades around the planet, and what we have is the worst diease ever known - Communism in Barbaric Societies.

Works for me, I heard 100 million as a minimum figure, and used it since generally the left on the forum take offence to opposition. :p

Marx' theory the state goes away,

Marx failed to explain why an all-powerful state, led by men with total power over all the people, would simply go away at a particular moment.

Just the sort of ommission one would expect from a third-rate 'thinker' like Marx.

Let's examine Mar'x program for a communist state, rather than people's individual notions of communism (which are inevitably coloured by prejudice, pro-communists will define anything bad done by communists as non-communist, anti-communist will describe anything bad done by communists are inherintly communist)

The first section of The Communist Manifesto is a long-winded, repetitive, hackneyed rant about the evils of capitalism, or rather, the false characiture of capitalism he paints.

The second part takes his collection of strawmen, and places his model of communism as 'better'. It includes such ridiculous fluff as "they [The communist party] have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole".

He then lists his 10 commandments, the program of a communist state, which is what should be evaluated.

1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes

-Total seizure of property removes incentive to work, obviously. Another point, of one owns a piece of land, one did something to get the resources to exchange for the land. What right has the state to seize this when they did nothing for it?

2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax

-Seizure of salary removes incentive to work, obviously.

3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance

-Removing the ability to leave something to one's family removes an incentive to work. It is also, quite simply, grave-robbing.

4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

-The possibility that people will leave a government's jurisdiction is one of the factors that improves government, and will tend to force governments to refrain from placing excessive restrictions of the citizens, and to refrain from over-taxing them. An example of which was the Bjelke-Petersen Government in Queensland abolishing death-taxes in 1978, which drew old people to Queensland so they could kick the bucket, and leave all their stuff to their families. By 1981, every other state in Australia had abolished death taxes.

Confiscating the property of anyone who attempts to leave a state gives a powerful inducement to stay. A communist society is excessively governed, imposing intolerable restrictions on the people, and any contact with capitalist societies will contaminate the communist society by showing the prosperity that can be provided under a more free system. The talented in a communist society, who are treated no better than the idle and ignorant, seeing the better life under a capitalist system will want to go.

As for rebels, how do you target 'rebels' specially. In free societies, the only time people who oppose the government are targetted is when they break other laws, detonating bombs, or hijacking aircraft etc. Being a rebel in this context is not what the free society punishes, it is the specific actions of bombing or hijacking. What Marx means by 'rebels' is anyone who disagrees with communism. .

5) Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly

-Monopolies are always destructive.

6) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state

-State ownership of all communcations means one can only say what the state approves of, state ownership of all transport means one can only go where the state permits one. Can't have the workers in the "worker's paradise" saying anything that might disuade people, and certainly can't allow them to escape.

7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan

-Redundant, according to previous points, the state already controls all lands and industries. Also, a monopoly, (even a state-monopoly) is basically inefficient.

8) Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture

- Marx knew that there is no incentive to work under his system, so people must be forced to work on pain of anything from a spell in the gulag to death.

9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country

-See "Great Leap Forward" in communist China.

10) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc

-This is a commonly misunderstood component of Marx. Some think it stands for a publically funded education system. They however neglect the phrase "Combination of education with industrial production", the meaning of this is clear: as an 'education', children are to be torn from their parents (Marx also advocated the breakdown of the traditional family), and sent into the factories, farms, and mines.

Marx fails to explain why the state will be more efficient than competative private enterprise (another glaring ommission from this charlatan)

Communism is a brutal, inhuman system. In Marx's program is the reason for almost all the 100 million+ deaths that occurred under communist regimes, from brutal repressions, to massive famines, Marx ordained it all. Even the deaths caused in wars of communist expansionism.

No matter how much neo-Marxist scum try to whitewash it, they advocate a set of ideas that left a trail of blood longer than national socialists ever comtemplated.

Communism can work. As soon as people prefer working to making money. :)

Basically, when you read the papers of Marx, you'll realize that the Star Trek Federation works by a communist principle.

worst idea since anarchy

Marx failed to explain why an all-powerful state, led by men with total power over all the people, would simply go away at a particular moment.

Just the sort of ommission one would expect from a third-rate 'thinker' like Marx.

Let's examine Mar'x program for a communist state, rather than people's individual notions of communism (which are inevitably coloured by prejudice, pro-communists will define anything bad done by communists as non-communist, anti-communist will describe anything bad done by communists are inherintly communist)

The first section of The Communist Manifesto is a long-winded, repetitive, hackneyed rant about the evils of capitalism, or rather, the false characiture of capitalism he paints.

The second part takes his collection of strawmen, and places his model of communism as 'better'. It includes such ridiculous fluff as "they [The communist party] have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole".

He then lists his 10 commandments, the program of a communist state, which is what should be evaluated.

1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes

-Total seizure of property removes incentive to work, obviously. Another point, of one owns a piece of land, one did something to get the resources to exchange for the land. What right has the state to seize this when they did nothing for it?

2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax

-Seizure of salary removes incentive to work, obviously.

3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance

-Removing the ability to leave something to one's family removes an incentive to work. It is also, quite simply, grave-robbing.

4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

-The possibility that people will leave a government's jurisdiction is one of the factors that improves government, and will tend to force governments to refrain from placing excessive restrictions of the citizens, and to refrain from over-taxing them. An example of which was the Bjelke-Petersen Government in Queensland abolishing death-taxes in 1978, which drew old people to Queensland so they could kick the bucket, and leave all their stuff to their families. By 1981, every other state in Australia had abolished death taxes.

Confiscating the property of anyone who attempts to leave a state gives a powerful inducement to stay. A communist society is excessively governed, imposing intolerable restrictions on the people, and any contact with capitalist societies will contaminate the communist society by showing the prosperity that can be provided under a more free system. The talented in a communist society, who are treated no better than the idle and ignorant, seeing the better life under a capitalist system will want to go.

As for rebels, how do you target 'rebels' specially. In free societies, the only time people who oppose the government are targetted is when they break other laws, detonating bombs, or hijacking aircraft etc. Being a rebel in this context is not what the free society punishes, it is the specific actions of bombing or hijacking. What Marx means by 'rebels' is anyone who disagrees with communism. .

5) Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly

-Monopolies are always destructive.

6) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state

-State ownership of all communcations means one can only say what the state approves of, state ownership of all transport means one can only go where the state permits one. Can't have the workers in the "worker's paradise" saying anything that might disuade people, and certainly can't allow them to escape.

7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan

-Redundant, according to previous points, the state already controls all lands and industries. Also, a monopoly, (even a state-monopoly) is basically inefficient.

8) Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture

- Marx knew that there is no incentive to work under his system, so people must be forced to work on pain of anything from a spell in the gulag to death.

9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country

-See "Great Leap Forward" in communist China.

10) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc

-This is a commonly misunderstood component of Marx. Some think it stands for a publically funded education system. They however neglect the phrase "Combination of education with industrial production", the meaning of this is clear: as an 'education', children are to be torn from their parents (Marx also advocated the breakdown of the traditional family), and sent into the factories, farms, and mines.

Marx fails to explain why the state will be more efficient than competative private enterprise (another glaring ommission from this charlatan)

Communism is a brutal, inhuman system. In Marx's program is the reason for almost all the 100 million+ deaths that occurred under communist regimes, from brutal repressions, to massive famines, Marx ordained it all. Even the deaths caused in wars of communist expansionism.

No matter how much neo-Marxist scum try to whitewash it, they advocate a set of ideas that left a trail of blood longer than national socialists ever comtemplated.

Couldn't have said it better myself, my friend. :)

*Hands Disraeliland a cookie*

The problem is not Communism per se, it's more the kind of societies that use it. They tend to be societies that never had the benefit of a rennaissance. In China, for example, the rulers were essentially Legalist (this has a specific, Chinese, meaning). They were true barbarians, then and now.

There is nothing I've ever encountered or indeed, even heard about, that comes close to the barbarism of these 'people'.

Marx was no great thinker, it is true. However, in fairness to the man, what he said was based on what he knew at the time to be convential wisdom. We can't blame him for what these animals did with his ideas.

communism= scum of the earth

communism= scum of the earth

You're officially now one of my best friends. :)

Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko, author of Time of Stalin: Portrait of a Tyranny (and the son of Vladimir Antonov-Ovseyenko, a famous Soviet military leader who led the storming of the Winter Palace in 1917), calculates the number of people the Soviets killed at 100,000,000.

I am going to say this once, and this is just my humble opinion.

Communims is really good...on paper. Hell, look at my Compass scores, and I say I would be communist if it worked.

There is one fundimental flaw with communism. Or rather, one fundimental flaw in the people implementing communism. Humans. We are selfish. We will work and invent only if it benefits us mostly. We do not have the moral fortitude to implement true Marxism. The closest we can come is Stalinism or Maoism. Perhaps Troskyism. But that's it.

We humans are to corrupt and selfish for communism to work.

communism sucks. it marginalizes talent and financial/vocational freedom, which leads to:

1)huge working castes that are hard to get out of (you're pretty much stuck in your job)

2)you have almost no upward mobility in your job

3)entrepreneurialism is severely inhibited... which leads to a crappy economy, crappy products for the people of the communist country, crappy trade (nobody from a competitive/free enterprise country will want much of what a communist country has to offer), etc.

it is a system that rewards averageness at the expense of greatness, and in so doing hurts the masses by allowing only a few of the freedoms most of us enjoy. It is forced equality at the expense of freedom.

Those two sentences contradict each other.


No they don't egalitarianism=equality of all people
greatness=something (or someone) being better than another.
Communism has not way to show who's better than others.

communism sucks. it marginalizes talent and financial/vocational freedom, which leads to:

1)huge working castes that are hard to get out of (you're pretty much stuck in your job)

2)you have almost no upward mobility in your job

3)entrepreneurialism is severely inhibited... which leads to a crappy economy, crappy products for the people of the communist country, crappy trade (nobody from a competitive/free enterprise country will want much of what a communist country has to offer), etc.

it is a system that rewards averageness at the expense of greatness, and in so doing hurts the masses by allowing only a few of the freedoms most of us enjoy. It is forced equality at the expense of freedom.


*Gives Frangland a cookie*

Is it just me, or are people not getting the point?

Communism is not something you want for your families.

For those who think the system in question has benefits... Come and visit for a while. I live in China, and would be delighted to give you a tour that isn't on the government itinery.

Point of Clarification:

Are we talking about Communist Theory (the writings of Marx and Engles), or communist implementation (China, ex-Soviet Union, Mongolia)?

Ah great a poll. Worse than Nazism yep that was me. I'll qualify. Nazism is a terribly bad idea that is so reviled I doubt anyone will ever get the chancce to try it again. Communism is almost as bad and still not so reviled that people don't still think we should give it another shot. Case in point look around these forums. "How many times do you see people saying But if we tried real Nazism not the twisted version Hitler used!' Nope I don't see it eather.

That's because Marx never wrote "Kill all Jews, Homosexuals, Alcoholics, anyone with disabilites, purify the aryan race." Hitler did. Stalin did it. But Marx never told anyone to do that. Stalin was an evil man who pretty much buried marxist ideology in the USSR. Stalin was as bad as, if not worse, than Hitler, and they both are equally evil men. But saying that Communism is worse than Nazism isn't true. Stalinism is, communism isn't.

Is it just me, or are people not getting the point?

Communism is not something you want for your families.

For those who think the system in question has benefits... Come and visit for a while. I live in China, and would be delighted to give you a tour that isn't on the government itinery.

how long do you have to wait in line to get a loaf of bread?

i think a lot of western europe is in love with communism because they see some of its policies in their countries' laws (like advanced degrees of welfare)... and assume that since those policies work and/or are necessary, that communism/socialism must not be so bad.

but what they may not understand is that straight socialism/communism, unchecked by a mostly free-market economy, sucks donkey balls. You can take a few of the more necessary elements of socialism and combine them with free enterprise and have a nice country with a strong economy and enough welfare to help those who need it. but do NOT allow yourself to think that full-fledged communism/socialism could possibly come close to bringing about a prosperity that you now enjoy in most of europe and the united states. a few pieces of soc/com might be necessary, but by and large free enterprise is a far better way.

The problem is not Communism per se, it's more the kind of societies that use it. They tend to be societies that never had the benefit of a rennaissance. In China, for example, the rulers were essentially Legalist (this has a specific, Chinese, meaning). They were true barbarians, then and now.

There is nothing I've ever encountered or indeed, even heard about, that comes close to the barbarism of these 'people'.

Marx was no great thinker, it is true. However, in fairness to the man, what he said was based on what he knew at the time to be convential wisdom. We can't blame him for what these animals did with his ideas.

Yet another whitewash. All the crimes that happened under communist regimes have their root in Marx.

The famines have their root in his ideas about land ownership, industry, and the erosion of distinctions between country and city through decentralising industrial production (Great Leap Forward), the repressions stem from the fact that communism is always imposed, and it must be imposed because people will not willingly submit to the idiocy, and immorality of Marxism. They resist, and nothing can be allowed to get in the way of communism. Marx also holds that it is the duty of communists, once in control of a state, to export communism, from this we get the millions slaughtered in communist expansionist wars (mostly innocent).

Communims is really good...on paper.

You should read my previous post, an evaluation of communism on paper. Unless you are the sort of pro-communist who defines anything bad in a communist regime as non-communist, or flawed implementation of a great theory. The type of sophistry so transparantly idiotic as to make one wonder who anyone would bother with it.

We humans are to corrupt and selfish for communism to work.

Rubbish. We humans are too intelligent to want it. For the most part, anyway. Communism cannot survive resistance, or contact with non-communist societies. Capitalist, democratic systems thrive in environments where communism always fails, they have inbuilt mechanisms to deal with resistance, indeed, they turn it into an advantage. They thrive on contact with different societies because contact with different societies enlarges markets, and brings new goods to existing markets. These commercial operations create good relations because of the mutually beneficial exchanges that take place, and the opportunities to demonstrate trust, and justify the trust of others.

Communist societes are incapable of having meaningful relations with outsiders. They are always heirarchical contacts, or they are intended to undermine the other party. They simply cannot co-exist as equals. They cannot form partnerships.

Yet another whitewash. All the crimes that happened under communist regimes have their root in Marx.

The famines have their root in his ideas about land ownership, industry, and the erosion of distinctions between country and city through decentralising industrial production (Great Leap Forward), the repressions stem from the fact that communism is always imposed, and it must be imposed because people will not willingly submit to the idiocy, and immorality of Marxism. They resist, and nothing can be allowed to get in the way of communism. Marx also holds that it is the duty of communists, once in control of a state, to export communism, from this we get the millions slaughtered in communist expansionist wars (mostly innocent).



You should read my previous post, an evaluation of communism on paper. Unless you are the sort of pro-communist who defines anything bad in a communist regime as non-communist, or flawed implementation of a great theory. The type of sophistry so transparantly idiotic as to make one wonder who anyone would bother with it.



Rubbish. We humans are too intelligent to want it. For the most part, anyway. Communism cannot survive resistance, or contact with non-communist societies. Capitalist, democratic systems thrive in environments where communism always fails, they have inbuilt mechanisms to deal with resistance, indeed, they turn it into an advantage. They thrive on contact with different societies because contact with different societies enlarges markets, and brings new goods to existing markets. These commercial operations create good relations because of the mutually beneficial exchanges that take place, and the opportunities to demonstrate trust, and justify the trust of others.

Communist societes are incapable of having meaningful relations with outsiders. They are always heirarchical contacts, or they are intended to undermine the other party. They simply cannot co-exist as equals. They cannot form partnerships.

bakes a huge chocolate-chip cookie for Disraeliland and FedExes it to him

Point of Clarification:

Are we talking about Communist Theory (the writings of Marx and Engles), or communist implementation (China, ex-Soviet Union, Mongolia)?

Some points of communist theory are not worth considering (at least not for serious people), such as Marx's failure to explain key elements of theory like why a state monopoly will perform better in providing peoples' needs than a competative free-market system, or why an all powerful state, led by people who enjoy wielding such power will simply disappear at the appropriate moment.

When such points are discarded as worthless, what remains is the same as communist implementation, the only variations being differences in zealotry, efficiency, and circumstances.

I support anarcho-communism, but not Marxism.

I support anarcho-communism, but not Marxism.

booooo! hisssss!

Disraeliland: Just so we understand one another, we are are on the same page.

You'll go a long way before you find another person who hates Communism as much as I do - I've been seeing it first-hand for quite a few years now, and there ain't a single thing about it I like.

I just don't want to blame Marx for being a third-rate thinker, it's better to lay the blame squarely at the doorstep of the animals that decided to kill a few hundred million people, to further their agendas, and used his 'writings' as the excuse.

Disraeliland: Just so we understand one another, we are are on the same page.

You'll go a long way before you find another person who hates Communism as much as I do - I've been seeing it first-hand for quite a few years now, and there ain't a single thing about it I like.

I just don't want to blame Marx for being a third-rate thinker, it's better to lay the blame squarely at the doorstep of the animals that decided to kill a few hundred million people, to further their agendas, and used his 'writings' as the excuse.

I hate communism more than you. I'm the most anticommunist person that ever lived.

Marx for theoretical consideration only?

Sorry, I don't buy it. No one writes political philosophy, even one as sloppy as The Communist Manifesto, without a view to it being implemented. Marx wanted to see his program implemented, and it was (to the best ability of those who did so, anyway)

For the record, the dictators didn't just use Marx to justify a power grab. Marx's writings are the source of the killings.

Possibly in Russia, yes you are correct. China is a different story: Marx was pre-dated by many years (since the Spring and Autumn Period). His forerunners called themselves 'Legalists', and Communism is a natural successor to them.

They were bad then, and worse now.

Like all such systems, the scum floats to the top.

Like everyone else I am from a non communist country since communism has never existed in any country. I consider myself to be a communist and believe it is the only system that can guarantee the continued existence of humanity and improve the lives of everyone.

this forum bores me, i have not read one half intelligent argument. by that i mean one that comes to a conclusion and gives coherrant reasons how that conclusion has been reached. for one thing, who are we to say what human nature is, i believe human nature knows what it grows up in meaning that all things we associate with human nature come from a capitalist enviroment.
China is not a communist country, how can it be when it has a private sector? Communism died in china with chairman mao. and btw marxism is not a variation on communism it is communism. Karl marx founded communism, his writing are marxism. but that just me being pedantic. peace outX

That's because Marx never wrote "Kill all Jews, Homosexuals, Alcoholics, anyone with disabilites, purify the aryan race." Hitler did. Stalin did it. But Marx never told anyone to do that. Stalin was an evil man who pretty much buried marxist ideology in the USSR. Stalin was as bad as, if not worse, than Hitler, and they both are equally evil men. But saying that Communism is worse than Nazism isn't true. Stalinism is, communism isn't.

Stalinism is the inevitable outcome of Communism. Marx never clarified the means by which capitalist society would be destroyed, he talked in vague generalities about "smashing the state" and embarking upon a series of revolutions which would culminate in true communism. So he sets out to destroy all means of law, order, structure and justice in a society in an attempt to establish some intangible eutopia without properly explaining the transition process. Can anyone really be surprised therefore that the vacuum of power that is created is filled by oppressive tyrannical rule.

this forum bores me, i have not read one half intelligent argument. by that i mean one that comes to a conclusion and gives coherrant reasons how that conclusion has been reached. for one thing, who are we to say what human nature is, i believe human nature knows what it grows up in meaning that all things we associate with human nature come from a capitalist enviroment.
China is not a communist country, how can it be when it has a private sector? Communism died in china with chairman mao. and btw marxism is not a variation on communism it is communism. Karl marx founded communism, his writing are marxism. but that just me being pedantic. peace outX

Before you claim the monopoly on intelligence you might wish to make your spelling more coherent - lol.

Communism, in theory and on paper, can work. Communism in practice cannot.

Sounds like Homer Simpson.

Like everyone else I am from a non communist country since communism has never existed in any country. I consider myself to be a communist and believe it is the only system that can guarantee the continued existence of humanity and improve the lives of everyone.

Unsubstantiated balderdash. Also, a pretty glib whitewash for over 100 million deaths.

Sounds like Homer Simpson.


quite sad that a cartoon character is able to grasp the idea but many millions of people still cant

Unsubstantiated balderdash. Also, a pretty glib whitewash for over 100 million deaths.
These crimes were committed by Stalinism and not communism although the figure of 100 million is a ridiculous exaggeration and is only a fraction of those killed by capitalism.

These crimes were committed by Stalinism and not communism although the figure of 100 million is a ridiculous exaggeration and is only a fraction of those killed by capitalism.

Welcome to my ignore list, troll.

"Communism" needs to be separated from "totalitarianism" because the two are not synonymous, any more than "democracy" and "capitalism" are synonymous.

Communism is an economic system, not a form of government, although the government is heavily involved in that economic system. This is why you will often find communism operating on a small scale (the kibbutz communities in Israel, for example, are very small-scale communism, in terms of their economics and distribution of goods and responsibilities for work). Rarely will you find communism working on a large scale (if ever) because a system that relies heavily on government control will eventually fall prey to the waste and corruption that plagues large governments. And, of course, if the government is put in control of so much of the economy, it will inevitably attempt (and often succeed) to control many if not all other aspects of life in that nation.

Theoretically it is possible that a nation could implement a communist economy without devolving into a totalitarian state, but as others note, that is only in theory. The human factors of greed and self-interest and power-grabbing will inevitably corrupt such a system.

Not that corruption doesn't occur in other systems. It's just that some systems are better at hiding corruption than others. In systems where corruption is more easily exposed, there is likely to be less of it, and also better means of correcting such problems.

I've already pointed out how the crimes of communist regimes have their roots in Marx's writings. You, on the other hand expect me to buy into what is nothing more than generalisations without a shred of coroboration.

I've already pointed out how the crimes of communist regimes have their roots in Marx's writings. You, on the other hand expect me to buy into what is nothing more than generalisations without a shred of coroboration.

Just ignore him, he's a moron and a troll.

On paper communism is perfect, in reality it is awful.

Possibly in Russia, yes you are correct. China is a different story: Marx was pre-dated by many years (since the Spring and Autumn Period). His forerunners called themselves 'Legalists', and Communism is a natural successor to them.

They were bad then, and worse now.

Like all such systems, the scum floats to the top.

Edgewood Dirk

I'm currently reading a book titled Mandarin, and i'm not sure if it's based on Chinese history, so i figured i'd give a few major highlights of the book and let you tell me if they happened or not:

1)Chinese civil war between imperial Manchus and Chinese Heavenly Kingdom based in Nanking, beginning in approximately 1855 AD.

2)Tung Chih Manchu emperor (Ching dynasty?)

3)Hsien Feng Manchu emperor before Tung Chih

4)French and British helping the Imperial (Manchu) side. Manchus ruled from the Northern Capital (Beijing/Peking).

5)The Heavenly Kingdom, the rebels, followed a terribly Communistic dogma allowing almost no personal freedom for its followers. Also, their leader seems to have been a quack who thought himself Jesus' brother... a Son of God.

Is this historically accurate so far? Did these things actually happen?

Danke.

I'd also like to point out that "capitalism" never killed anyone. Capitalism is an economic system, not a political one.

Theoretically it is possible that a nation could implement a communist economy without devolving into a totalitarian state, but as others note, that is only in theory. The human factors of greed and self-interest and power-grabbing will inevitably corrupt such a system.

Such a theory isn't worth considering. By the by, power-grabbing doesn't undermine communist systems, it is what fuels them.

"Communism" needs to be separated from "totalitarianism" because the two are not synonymous, any more than "democracy" and "capitalism" are synonymous.

Communism can only be separated from totalitarianism where it is separated from reality. On the other hand, democracy and capitalism are difficult to separate because both uphold respect for indivual rights as essential, just as communism and totalitarianism hold the destruction of individual rights as essential.

quite sad that a cartoon character is able to grasp the idea but many millions of people still cant

In truth I think you'd be hard pressed to find very many people that seriously believe that communism can still work on a large scale. Most of the people I ever talk to share the same view - it's good in theory, but terrible in practice.

Not to say there aren't people out there that don't fully believe in communism.

On the other hand, it's a gross lie to call any attempt to better the working and living conditions of common laborers as "communist". Generally, most laborers are very much capitalists, but have to band together in order to gain any kind of recognizable bargaining power when dealing with executives that own and run corporations. Individual laborers have no standing in the eyes of a president, but 100,000 workers do.

I wouldn't agree that some lazy SOB whos spends all of his time masturbating deserves the same amount of material as worthy and admirable leader. And if you do not work for your necessities you don't deserve them, unlike Marx's "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Marx believes in giving everyone basic neccessities despite how willingly they contribute.
I guess we should just agree to disagree on this. I'm afraid I don't share the same negative view on the way people would act in an egalitarian society.
Please, people will willingly starve temselves and be happy with it. Fasting? Disease is so necessary to the individual, from it we learn the first rule of nature, the elimination of all things non-self. How do you think white blood cells work? So must the individual. To say "we must eliminate all disease" is to deny humanity a crucial step not in becoming happy, but in becoming complete. Without complaining about this suffering these people would be incomplete!
And again, this is what we want! Even when our empathy brings us to tears it does not stir us enough to help, at least for the majority.
Look at the products we buy, the games we play. How many games do you play about peace? How many about war and conflict? Enough said, communists are more enthusiastic about the violence of the revolution, the means of the revolution than the ends.
No one would be force to eat or be healthy, they would at least have the choice to live. That's desirable, isn't it?

I'd also like to point out that "capitalism" never killed anyone. Capitalism is an economic system, not a political one.
It may be an economic system but its consequences are the starvation and death of millions of people in the third world every year. To ensure its survival capitalism has also required a number of brutal regimes such as Nazi Germany or Fascist Chile. The endless capitalist pursuit of profit has fuelled European and now American imperialism over hundreds of years and many people have been murdered or enslaved as a result.

Chile wasn't fascist. Fascist countries don't have free markets, they have many assorted wage and price controls, public work projects, etc. Politically Chile was very much fascist, but its economic system was a capitalist one. So technically it wasn't fascist. And while capitalism has inspired slavery and imperialism, the two aren't necessarily tied together, and one can be a capitalist and not an imperialist.

On the other hand, democracy and capitalism are difficult to separate because both uphold respect for indivual rights as essential.

Here I must disagree.

Democracy upholds the rights of individual people, and counts every individual as equal to every other individual in terms of their power in government (ideally anyway). But capitalism does not. Capitalism is a hierarchical system that puts economic power in the hands of those with the most money (hence the name). Those with less money have less power precisely because they have less money. Individuals do not participate in capitalism equally.

It is also a fallacy to say that every individual at least has the opportunity to make gains under capitalism. They do not. Those that have power are reluctant to share such power, and are motivated to prevent more people from gaining wealth because that distributes power to more and more individuals, and takes away some of the power of those with the most. Thus, those at the top in capitalism, actively or passively, try to control the system so that they do not lose power. Capitalsim is basically "king of the mountain".

Bollocks. National Socialist Germany was hardly a market economy. It was under intimate control from the national socialists. Chile, on the other hand was in the real danger of falling to the communists, and the communist track record is far worse than anything Pinochet did.

Also, most of the third world isn't capitalist, it is socialist.

It may be an economic system but its consequences are the starvation and death of millions of people in the third world every year. To ensure its survival capitalism has also required a number of brutal regimes such as Nazi Germany or Fascist Chile. The endless capitalist pursuit of profit has fuelled European and now American imperialism over hundreds of years and many people have been murdered or enslaved as a result.

-providing jobs all over the world (you call it "enslavement"... i ask you: what would these people be doing if they didn't have the 25-cent-an-hour job at the factory?)

-ensuring competition, which leads to better products

-ensuring low barriers to entry, which foments entrepreneurialism, which leads to jobs and investment opportunities.

vs. Communism, which holds down the cream so that the dregs are on the same level... which, of course, leads to a really crappy economy which serves nobody.

Here I must disagree.

Democracy upholds the rights of individual people, and counts every individual as equal to every other individual in terms of their power in government (ideally anyway). But capitalism does not. Capitalism is a hierarchical system that puts economic power in the hands of those with the most money (hence the name). Those with less money have less power precisely because they have less money. Individuals do not participate in capitalism equally.

It is also a fallacy to say that every individual at least has the opportunity to make gains under capitalism. They do not. Those that have power are reluctant to share such power, and are motivated to prevent more people from gaining wealth because that distributes power to more and more individuals, and takes away some of the power of those with the most. Thus, those at the top in capitalism, actively or passively, try to control the system so that they do not lose power. Capitalsim is basically "king of the mountain".

You are confusing entitlements with rights. No one has the right to succeed, merely the right to try.

Democratic systems uphold the individual right to property, meaning the right to acquire, dispose of, keep, and exchange property. This is the foundation of capitalism.

Your fallacy isn't. Anyone with something to trade will gain under capitalism, even if it is only time and physical energy.

In any case, the power games you describe are hardly symptomatic of capitalism, they are symptomatic of human interaction. The difference between capitalism and communism in this arena is that in capitalism millions of dollars are sacrificed, in communism, millions of people.

And while capitalism has inspired slavery and imperialism, the two aren't necessarily tied together, and one can be a capitalist and not an imperialist.

Capitalism didn't inspire slavery, and imperialism, an obnoxious set of cultural and racial attitudes inspired them.

Chile wasn't fascist. Fascist countries don't have free markets, they have many assorted wage and price controls, public work projects, etc. Politically Chile was very much fascist, but its economic system was a capitalist one. So technically it wasn't fascist. And while capitalism has inspired slavery and imperialism, the two aren't necessarily tied together, and one can be a capitalist and not an imperialist.
Every fascist country has had a capitalist economic system and the fascist ideology itself promotes the strengthening of corporate power and an attack on the rights of the working class. Capitalism may not always require slavery and imperialism but it certainly has a far greater responsibility for those evils than communism does for the Gulags.

Bollocks. National Socialist Germany was hardly a market economy. It was under intimate control from the national socialists. Chile, on the other hand was in the real danger of falling to the communists, and the communist track record is far worse than anything Pinochet did.

Also, most of the third world isn't capitalist, it is socialist.
The Nazi Party was supported and funded by the capitalists and once it came into power the profits of big business soared due to the crushing of the trade unions a reduction in wages, and the use of slave labour. The danger for global capitalism in Chile was that people had democratically elected a left of centre government which aimed to carry out a very modest redistribution of wealth. The Communist Party at the time was fairly small and there was no interference from the USSR. Pinochet when brought into power with the support of the CIA destroyed the oldest democracy in Latin America and massacred many thousands of innocent people who opposed his regime. Third world countries are not socialist and many have been forced by the IMF to privatise everything.

-providing jobs all over the world (you call it "enslavement"... i ask you: what would these people be doing if they didn't have the 25-cent-an-hour job at the factory?)

-ensuring competition, which leads to better products

-ensuring low barriers to entry, which foments entrepreneurialism, which leads to jobs and investment opportunities.

vs. Communism, which holds down the cream so that the dregs are on the same level... which, of course, leads to a really crappy economy which serves nobody.
By "enslavement" I was referring to the millions of Africans who were brought to the Americas by the European imperialists and forced to work as slaves al;though it would also be a very appropriate term to describe the way many workers are treated under capitalism. It is totally wrong to give the capitalists any credit for providing employment and a proper democratically run economy could do a far better job while at the same time ensuring that all workers enjoy decent pay and conditions. In many third world countries such as Zambia the opening of the market, due to IMF demands, has destroyed many of the previously state run industries, reducing what was once one of Africa's wealthiest nations into one of the poorest and leaving huge numbers of people without jobs.

Communism, in it's pure, Marxist, form, is the best political system imaginable, but it is impleementing it which is the problem.

Communism, in it's pure, Marxist, form, is the best political system imaginable, but it is impleementing it which is the problem.

The only problem is that Marxism is not compatible with humanity.

Ah great a poll. Worse than Nazism yep that was me. I'll qualify. Nazism is a terribly bad idea that is so reviled I doubt anyone will ever get the chancce to try it again. Communism is almost as bad and still not so reviled that people don't still think we should give it another shot. Case in point look around these forums. "How many times do you see people saying But if we tried real Nazism not the twisted version Hitler used!' Nope I don't see it eather.
Well, Hitler and his friends invented Nazism, so he couldn't really "twist it to evil" since it was his in the first place.

I do see a few posters saying "we should try real fascism, not the twisted type implemented by Hitler", though.

By "enslavement" I was referring to the millions of Africans who were brought to the Americas by the European imperialists and forced to work as slaves al;though it would also be a very appropriate term to describe the way many workers are treated under capitalism. It is totally wrong to give the capitalists any credit for providing employment and a proper democratically run economy could do a far better job while at the same time ensuring that all workers enjoy decent pay and conditions. In many third world countries such as Zambia the opening of the market, due to IMF demands, has destroyed many of the previously state run industries, reducing what was once one of Africa's wealthiest nations into one of the poorest and leaving huge numbers of people without jobs.

do people have to take jobs?

if there were other opportunities for work... and the jobs offered by the multinationals were so bad... could people not forego such terrible jobs and instead find work elsewhere?

where is the responsibility of the individual in all of this? Or are governments to run everyone's life?

if i took a jobh i hated, i would have nobody to blame but myself for working that job... IF I had other options.

if these people have other options and they still are employed in the low-paying jobs offered by multinationals, what would that tell you about the conditions of the other jobs in their countries?

Is it possible that the only jobs available are multinational jobs?

Or, in lieu of the above condition... if people keep working for the multinationals, then those "horrible" jobs must be offering something... some advantage over other employment.

I voted the last one down. Over time in all communist states, more people have been murdered by their own government than Hitlers army killed.

It is a good individual morality that is imposed on the entire society through authoritarian measures. I have no problem with altruism and generosity, just don't force people to behave that way.

If you are so sure that people will want to be communistic, then let them do it with their economic freedom in tact.

While I used to think it was a "good" idea, I now even disprove of the idea itself. It is unrealistic based on human nature and honestly, the idea of government control over pretty much everything and this sort of economic equality do not reward the hard workers, the creative, etc (some may say this applies to modern society too, but at least there is the opportunity). It instead is the masses working to make everyones life decent. While its a "nice" idea, it really isn't.

Communism is the most evil idealogy in the history of humanity. Even as a Non-Aryan, I would rather be living under Nazism than Communism.

Edgewood Dirk

I'm currently reading a book titled Mandarin, and i'm not sure if it's based on Chinese history, so i figured i'd give a few major highlights of the book and let you tell me if they happened or not:

1)Chinese civil war between imperial Manchus and Chinese Heavenly Kingdom based in Nanking, beginning in approximately 1855 AD.

2)Tung Chih Manchu emperor (Ching dynasty?)

3)Hsien Feng Manchu emperor before Tung Chih

4)French and British helping the Imperial (Manchu) side. Manchus ruled from the Northern Capital (Beijing/Peking).

5)The Heavenly Kingdom, the rebels, followed a terribly Communistic dogma allowing almost no personal freedom for its followers. Also, their leader seems to have been a quack who thought himself Jesus' brother... a Son of God.

Is this historically accurate so far? Did these things actually happen?

Danke.


I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this one. The Manchu, although generally regarded by the Chinese as being one of their Dynasties, was in fact a foreign power who kicked the existing Chinese Dynasty off the throne.

The phrase 'Heavenly Kingdom' is how the various Emperors viewed themselves. Literally, it meant that they were God-kings, that no one or thing in existance was higher than them. This feeling of moral and cultural supriority to all non-Han people continues to exist to this day.

There was no Dynasty called 'Ching'. The Manchu were called (by the Chinese) Qing (pronounced 'Ching', pinyin spelling).

The British and French were not really involved in the events that led to the overthrow of the prior Dynasty. There were a very few Westerners in China at the time, and virtually all were restricted to Canton in the south, with the exception of a tiny handful of Jesuits. Westerners were then, and still are now, viewed with much suspicion and distrust (we are considered a lesser race, barbarians).

All Dynasties since the Qin, have viewed themselves as being far above what Jesus was. Jesus was, by the standards of the Chinese, a weak, stupid, gutless fool. He had power, and gave it up. It is accepted fact here (and has been since the Lagalists of the Spring and Autumn Period) that power is the end, not the means. 'Power' must be concentrated in the hands of the emperor, and utterly stripped from the people. This sits very well with Communism, which is why it was so readily acepted here. To this day, the leaders are higher than God, beyond questioning, and hold the power of Life and Death over 1.4 billion people. Their word is Law, and anything you might have heard about China becoming more democratic, more progressive, more liberal... is a complete lie.

Hope this helps.

I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this one. The Manchu, although generally regarded by the Chinese as being one of their Dynasties, was in fact a foreign power who kicked the existing Chinese Dynasty off the throne.

The phrase 'Heavenly Kingdom' is how the various Emperors viewed themselves. Literally, it meant that they were God-kings, that no one or thing in existance was higher than them. This feeling of moral and cultural supriority to all non-Han people continues to exist to this day.

There was no Dynasty called 'Ching'. The Manchu were called (by the Chinese) Qing (pronounced 'Ching', pinyin spelling).

The British and French were not really involved in the events that led to the overthrow of the prior Dynasty. There were a very few Westerners in China at the time, and virtually all were restricted to Canton in the south, with the exception of a tiny handful of Jesuits. Westerners were then, and still are now, viewed with much suspicion and distrust (we are considered a lesser race, barbarians).

All Dynasties since the Qin, have viewed themselves as being far above what Jesus was. Jesus was, by the standards of the Chinese, a weak, stupid, gutless fool. He had power, and gave it up. It is accepted fact here (and has been since the Lagalists of the Spring and Autumn Period) that power is the end, not the means. 'Power' must be concentrated in the hands of the emperor, and utterly stripped from the people. This sits very well with Communism, which is why it was so readily acepted here. To this day, the leaders are higher than God, beyond questioning, and hold the power of Life and Death over 1.4 billion people. Their word is Law, and anything you might have heard about China becoming more democratic, more progressive, more liberal... is a complete lie.

Hope this helps.

But I'd rather trust someone who has lived in China for a great deal of their life aka. me, more then you.

I'm just glad China is westernizing.

Communism is an evil, nationalistic system. They've killed tens of millions more than the Nazis, and deserve to be hunted down and promptly beaten half to death. Then, a group of small school children should beat them exactly half to death, so all the Communists are exactly dead.

Mmmhm.

G-d loves,

The Lonely Jew

Every fascist country has had a capitalist economic system and the fascist ideology itself promotes the strengthening of corporate power and an attack on the rights of the working class. Capitalism may not always require slavery and imperialism but it certainly has a far greater responsibility for those evils than communism does for the Gulags.

You really are a moron, aren't you? Corporatism and capitalism are not the same thing. The economic system run by the Nazis was little different than that of the U.S.S.R. Both had command economies.

Third world countries are not socialist and many have been forced by the IMF to privatise everything.

Privatizing is good. Socialism has been one of the worst things for the Third World. Socialism nearly destroyed Chile under Allende. Socialist Zimbabwe was a Third World basket case reduced to accepting hand-outs, but capitalist Rhodesia was quite prosperous. And look at what privatization did for West Germany after WWII. Its economy grew so explosively the West Germans even coined a new word- Wirtschaffwunder- to describe it. Under Batista, Cuba, a capitalist country, was a First World country. Now look at how poor it is. Also, compare China in the 50's and 60's, when there were massive famines, to China today. Ever since China began privatizing its economy, its economy has grown exponentially.

In many third world countries such as Zambia the opening of the market, due to IMF demands, has destroyed many of the previously state run industries, reducing what was once one of Africa's wealthiest nations into one of the poorest and leaving huge numbers of people without jobs.

Zambia was always one of the poorest countries in Africa. And in many Third World countries that were "privatized," nothing has changed. State-run industries are given to members of the government, which they run as their own private little fiefs. In both cases, the industries were controlled by the government, except after being "privatized," they were controlled by members of the state, rather than the state itself.

Every fascist country has had a capitalist economic system and the fascist ideology itself promotes the strengthening of corporate power and an attack on the rights of the working class. Capitalism may not always require slavery and imperialism but it certainly has a far greater responsibility for those evils than communism does for the Gulags.

Rubbish. Every fascist country has had a socialist economic system, and promoted the subordination of private enterprise to the state.

Capitalism bears no responsibility for slavery, and imperialism, and is in fact better off without them. Communism requires the repressive measures taken by communist leaders because people won't willingly adopt such an inhuman system.

The Nazi Party was supported and funded by the capitalists and once it came into power the profits of big business soared due to the crushing of the trade unions a reduction in wages, and the use of slave labour. The danger for global capitalism in Chile was that people had democratically elected a left of centre government which aimed to carry out a very modest redistribution of wealth. The Communist Party at the time was fairly small and there was no interference from the USSR. Pinochet when brought into power with the support of the CIA destroyed the oldest democracy in Latin America and massacred many thousands of innocent people who opposed his regime. Third world countries are not socialist and many have been forced by the IMF to privatise everything.

The capitalists who supported national socialism were hoodwinked into thinking that the national socialists were substantially different from the communists. Power of appearances.

Allende was not democratically elected. He came to power the exact same way Hitler did. Allende could not form a majority, or a coalition of right of centre parties got together with Allende, and formed a government thinking trhey could control him. Like the German conservatives, they couldn't control him, though Cuba certainly could control him. His party had a moderate platform, though the policies he implemented were anything but moderate (though he had no mandate for them)

Third world economies are run largely by their governments. Private enterprise is rare, and always either market stalls, or foreign companies.

By "enslavement" I was referring to the millions of Africans who were brought to the Americas by the European imperialists and forced to work as slaves al;though it would also be a very appropriate term to describe the way many workers are treated under capitalism. It is totally wrong to give the capitalists any credit for providing employment and a proper democratically run economy could do a far better job while at the same time ensuring that all workers enjoy decent pay and conditions. In many third world countries such as Zambia the opening of the market, due to IMF demands, has destroyed many of the previously state run industries, reducing what was once one of Africa's wealthiest nations into one of the poorest and leaving huge numbers of people without jobs.

Slavery is something for which capitalism bears no responsibility.

It is not an appropriate term for the way some workers are treated under capitalism. It is the only appropriate way to describe workers under a communist system.

Like slaves, workers in communist countries are forced to work, and can own none of the proceeds of such work. Communism is slavery for the workers.

State-run industries can't stand market competition because they are inheriently inefficient because inefficiency can't drive them out of business. Private enterprise is always more efficient. Marx, an exceptionally sloppy writer, never explained why a state monopoly is better than competative private enterprise. Nor have you.

"democratically controlled", you mean "bureaucratically controlled"

It's also funny how Marx, who considered himself the champion of the working man, never did an honest day's work in his life, making him a brazen hypocrite in addition to a complete ignoramus.

do people have to take jobs?

if there were other opportunities for work... and the jobs offered by the multinationals were so bad... could people not forego such terrible jobs and instead find work elsewhere?

where is the responsibility of the individual in all of this? Or are governments to run everyone's life?

if i took a job i hated, i would have nobody to blame but myself for working that job... IF I had other options.

if these people have other options and they still are employed in the low-paying jobs offered by multinationals, what would that tell you about the conditions of the other jobs in their countries?

Is it possible that the only jobs available are multinational jobs?

Or, in lieu of the above condition... if people keep working for the multinationals, then those "horrible" jobs must be offering something... some advantage over other employment.
The capitalists like to talk about "self responsibility" but no worker under capitalism can be responsible for themselves when they are slaves to the free market. It is very easy to say that anyone can leave a job they don't like but if they're living in extreme poverty and can't find any alternative employment then it is highly unlikely that anyone would consider doing so. The reason why conditions for other jobs in the third world are so poor is also because of a global capitalism system which in agriculture leaves the farmers with almost nothing for their products and as I said before destroys any industry either run by the state or owned within the nation.

Communism is an evil, nationalistic system. They've killed tens of millions more than the Nazis, and deserve to be hunted down and promptly beaten half to death. Then, a group of small school children should beat them exactly half to death, so all the Communists are exactly dead.
How exactly is Communism nationalistic when Karl Marx stated in the Communist Maneifesto that:

"The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

"National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

"The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

"In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end."

In regards to communism killing more than the Nazis then that is a lie and the communist ideology has never killed anyone. If you are referring to Stalinism then that indeed led to many deaths but the commonly quoted figures of over 20 million are most likely to be a clear exaggeration.

The capitalists like to talk about "self responsibility" but no worker under capitalism can be responsible for themselves when they are slaves to the free market. It is very easy to say that anyone can leave a job they don't like but if they're living in extreme poverty and can't find any alternative employment then it is highly unlikely that anyone would consider doing so. The reason why conditions for other jobs in the third world are so poor is also because of a global capitalism system which in agriculture leaves the farmers with almost nothing for their products and as I said before destroys any industry either run by the state or owned within the nation.


How exactly is Communism nationalistic when Karl Marx stated in the Communist Maneifesto that:

"The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

"National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

"The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

"In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end."

In regards to communism killing more than the Nazis then that is a lie and the communist ideology has never killed anyone. If you are referring to Stalinism then that indeed led to many deaths but the commonly quoted figures of over 20 million are most likely to be a clear exaggeration.

Did you even read Disraeliland's older post?

And yes, communism has killed a lot more than communism. Nazism killed, at most, 20-25 million. Communism killed at least four times that number. You do the math.

And where IS a communist country...I would like to see that. This pool is odd, there are/have never been any communist nations. Should I even bother taking the poll thwn half of it is wrong? :headbang:

OK. Let's get something straight. COMMUNISM NEVER KILLED ANYONE!

You really are a moron, aren't you? Corporatism and capitalism are not the same thing. The economic system run by the Nazis was little different than that of the U.S.S.R. Both had command economies.
Not one company was ever nationalised by the Nazis.

Privatizing is good. Socialism has been one of the worst things for the Third World. Socialism nearly destroyed Chile under Allende. Socialist Zimbabwe was a Third World basket case reduced to accepting hand-outs, but capitalist Rhodesia was quite prosperous. And look at what privatization did for West Germany after WWII. Its economy grew so explosively the West Germans even coined a new word- Wirtschaffwunder- to describe it. Under Batista, Cuba, a capitalist country, was a First World country. Now look at how poor it is. Also, compare China in the 50's and 60's, when there were massive famines, to China today. Ever since China began privatizing its economy, its economy has grown exponentially.
That seems a strange thing to say since the disparities between the developed and third world has greatly increased since the implementation of neoliberal policies. After the war nothing was privatised in West Germany and there were considerable regulations to protect worker's rights but what did help the economy was a huge amount of aid which was used to rebuild the country. Your example of Batista's Cuba is ridiculous since infant mortality and deaths from tropical diseases were ten times as high before the revolution and the life expectancy was less than 60 compared to 77 today. China's economy may be growing due to a number of factors but recent figures actually showed that the number of people in poverty is beginning to grow for the first time in many years.

Zambia was always one of the poorest countries in Africa. And in many Third World countries that were "privatized," nothing has changed. State-run industries are given to members of the government, which they run as their own private little fiefs. In both cases, the industries were controlled by the government, except after being "privatized," they were controlled by members of the state, rather than the state itself.
Zambia was in the past one of Africa's wealthiest countries although everything changed once they began to implement the insane neoliberal demands of the IMF. Almost all privatisations have taken place as part of these demands and most companies and services are therefore offered to western corporations.

Rubbish. Every fascist country has had a socialist economic system, and promoted the subordination of private enterprise to the state.
The Nazis never tried to take over any private enterprises and under their rule the profits of big business soared which is why Germany's capitalist establishment was responsible for the rise of the Nazi Party.

The capitalists who supported national socialism were hoodwinked into thinking that the national socialists were substantially different from the communists. Power of appearances.
The capitalists had good reason to support the Nazis and were not disappointed by their rule.

Allende was not democratically elected. He came to power the exact same way Hitler did. Allende could not form a majority, or a coalition of right of centre parties got together with Allende, and formed a government thinking trhey could control him. Like the German conservatives, they couldn't control him, though Cuba certainly could control him. His party had a moderate platform, though the policies he implemented were anything but moderate (though he had no mandate for them)
Allende came to power because he had the highest percentage of the vote and according to Chilean democratic traditions it was the candidate with the most votes that was almost always appointed as President. He had no more or less a mandate than any other President, although a lot more than Pinochet, to carry out his policies over the maximum 6 year term. These policies were not particularly radical and had to be done in order to improve living standards for the poor in what was one of the world's most unequal countries.

Slavery is something for which capitalism bears no responsibility.

It is not an appropriate term for the way some workers are treated under capitalism. It is the only appropriate way to describe workers under a communist system.

Like slaves, workers in communist countries are forced to work, and can own none of the proceeds of such work. Communism is slavery for the workers.
It was in the interests of European and American capitalists at the time to use slave labour as it reduced their costs, one of the main aims of big business. The way you attempt to describe communsim makes it clear that you have no understanding of what it actually means.

State-run industries can't stand market competition because they are inheriently inefficient because inefficiency can't drive them out of business. Private enterprise is always more efficient. Marx, an exceptionally sloppy writer, never explained why a state monopoly is better than competative private enterprise. Nor have you.

"democratically controlled", you mean "bureaucratically controlled"
I do not believe state run industries are particularly efficient, neither are are those privately run, but since communism requires the abolition of the state then there won't be a state to run anything. I do however support democratic control which means that the economy will be run directly by the worker's themselves, not through any bureaucracy.

Naziism as an ideology, is obviously racist and promoted genocide. Communism however, as an ideiology, doesn't say murder, murder murder, it just so happene that the psychopaths who have claimmed to be communist governments have been murderers. I live in China where the government murders (executes - whatever) its citizens for fun all the time. They are not communists, just because they call themselves the communist party. It's like calling Tony Blair a socialist!
If we talk about numbers killed, how many have died in the name of capitalism? Not that many in direct warfare but millions in economically deprived states where the mortality rate is so high because they are governments who care more about making money than the health of their citizens.

gar reds?

Not one company was ever nationalised by the Nazis.

Untrue, and entirely irrelevant. Ownership matters less than control, and with regulation, the national socialists controlled all enterprise in Germany, they just didn't nationalise much (though Jewish concerns were)

That seems a strange thing to say since the disparities between the developed and third world has greatly increased since the implementation of neoliberal policies. After the war nothing was privatised in West Germany and there were considerable regulations to protect worker's rights but what did help the economy was a huge amount of aid which was used to rebuild the country. Your example of Batista's Cuba is ridiculous since infant mortality and deaths from tropical diseases were ten times as high before the revolution and the life expectancy was less than 60 compared to 77 today. China's economy may be growing due to a number of factors but recent figures actually showed that the number of people in poverty is beginning to grow for the first time in many years.

Rubbish. The disparaties developed as a result of socialism. The aid to Germany did little except keep them from starving in the first few years. Germany got itself on its feet, and onwards to the top.

In Cuba, that life expectency is considerably reduced if you express disagreement with Killer Kommie Kastro. KKK can reduce it to seconds, as he has for thousands.

Zambia was in the past one of Africa's wealthiest countries although everything changed once they began to implement the insane neoliberal demands of the IMF. Almost all privatisations have taken place as part of these demands and most companies and services are therefore offered to western corporations.

Evidence that sane economic policy was ever implemented, and evidence that it had the effects you claim it has, please.

The Nazis never tried to take over any private enterprises and under their rule the profits of big business soared which is why Germany's capitalist establishment was responsible for the rise of the Nazi Party.

Those profits soared straight into the treasury.

The capitalists had good reason to support the Nazis and were not disappointed by their rule.

Yes they were. Some, like Theyssen left Germany before things got too bad, but the National Socialists were a socialist party.

Allende came to power because he had the highest percentage of the vote and according to Chilean democratic traditions it was the candidate with the most votes that was almost always appointed as President. He had no more or less a mandate than any other President, although a lot more than Pinochet, to carry out his policies over the maximum 6 year term. These policies were not particularly radical and had to be done in order to improve living standards for the poor in what was one of the world's most unequal countries.

Allende had no majority, and the policies which he campaigned were not the policies he carried out, and he is responsible for the near collapse of Chile.

Leave the neo-Marxist pap for those stupid enough to believe it.

It was in the interests of European and American capitalists at the time to use slave labour as it reduced their costs, one of the main aims of big business..

Prove that slave labour is cheaper than non-slave labour. If anything, the costs would be higher than hiring someone due to all the middle-men that must be paid for a slave in addition to the costs of security, food, accomodation, and clothing.

Explain this: since the ending of slavery in the West, the West has gotten infinitely richer.

The way you attempt to describe communsim makes it clear that you have no understanding of what it actually means

Can you read, bonehead. I am the only person in this thread who has quoted Marx. Any normal person with a usable brain-cell would think that The Communist Manifesto had something to do with Communism.

Allow me to quote his rubbish again "Equal obligation of all to work" sounds like forced to work to me, and dare I say it, anyone else who can read English. Of course, "obligation ... to work" sounds better than "work or get shot", but it is effectively the same thing.

"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes ... A heavy progressive or graduated income tax ... Abolition of all rights of inheritance"

Sounds like they can't keep the proceeds of their work, the state nicks it all.

Looks like my original statement that "Like slaves, workers in communist countries are forced to work, and can own none of the proceeds of such work. Communism is slavery for the workers." is correct after all.

You have made no attempt to argue otherwise.

I do not believe state run industries are particularly efficient, neither are are those privately run,

Lets look at some facts, if you are brave enough to. Let us then take cars as an example. State-run industries gave East-Germans, or at least the ones the government allowed, the Trabant, a car that splutters masses of black smoke, is made of pressed cardboard, and can't be disposed of by fire or burial because of the poisonous substances in the body work. Noisy, unreliable piece of rubbish. Contrast that to another make of German cars, BMW, superb engineering all around, certainly no need for me to make that point.

Why the difference, because BMW will go out of business unless it makes what people want and make it as good as they possibly can. If BMW don't meet market needs, their competitors will. Their is a reason to succeed. The East Germans could turn out Trabants by the thousand, assured in the knowledge that no matter how bad it is, people will be forced to accept it because there was no competition.

Competition gives a reason for success, state-run enterprises don't have to compete, they don't have to meet the people's needs because they cannot go out of business by not doing it.

but since communism requires the abolition of the state then there won't be a state to run anything.

Did you learn to read?

I have explained several times that this particular part of Marx's writing is not relevant to a discussion of communism because he never explained how a state which is all powerful, run by men who enjoy that power, will be abolished.

I do however support democratic control which means that the economy will be run directly by the worker's themselves, not through any bureaucracy.

Idiotic fantasy. There will always be some sort of government, some sort of bureaucracy. If a firm is sold to its workers, that doesn't mean the firm doesn't have a board, or a management. It merely means the workers play a part in appointing the board.

Your idea of democratic control is not democratic because it refuses to respect individual rights. I'll leave you to work out what that means.

But I'd rather trust someone who has lived in China for a great deal of their life aka. me, more then you.

I'm just glad China is westernizing.

FYI: I live in China now, and have done for a long time.

I loathe communism utterly and fully.
My skin crawls when someone says, “Well, you have to admit, real communism would be great.”
No I don't and no it wouldn't. I like owning stuff.

Communism, at least in the sense of the stateless, classless society cannot work in the real world because Marx made an erroneous assumption. He assumed people were basically good. We're not. People are greedy, selfish bastards who would resort to cannibalism if they thought they could get away with it.

I loathe communism utterly and fully.
My skin crawls when someone says, “Well, you have to admit, real communism would be great.”
No I don't and no it wouldn't. I like owning stuff.


Do you also enjoy other people not owning stuff?

if communism wasnt so easy to corrput i would prefer it to Democracy i like thet thought of everyone being equal everybody gets a job and unions have more power it's great system if it is in the right hands.

Do you also enjoy other people not owning stuff?
It doesn’t effect me one way or the other.

Communism, at least in the sense of the stateless, classless society cannot work in the real world because Marx made an erroneous assumption. He assumed people were basically good. We're not. People are greedy, selfish bastards who would resort to cannibalism if they thought they could get away with it.

In papua new guniea most tribes practise cannibalism and i agree like i said in my last post if communism was in the right hands it would be wonderful but it isint most leaders of these countries are corrupt but otherwise it's a interesting system.

In papua new guniea most tribes practise cannibalism and i agree like i said in my last post if communism was in the right hands it would be wonderful but it isint most leaders of these countries are corrupt but otherwise it's a interesting system.


I agree with you. It would be nice, but human nature prevents it from ever working.

What do you guys think about communism. Is it bad? Good? So and so? I'm especially interested in knowing if you have personally experienced communism and still think it's a good ideology.


LOL i mean what the hell is the big difference between comi sh** and capitalist sh**? The only difference i see is the economic believes and policys but the rest is all the same, believe in racial equality and one world, one love "peacefull" :rolleyes: human brothahood. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :sniper: :gundge:

Leaders of communism:
"If everyone does their best, we'll create more than enough for everyone!"

Followers of communism:
"Since everyone is doing their best, I can take it easy. There's more than enough for everyone after all."

Leaders of communism:
"If everyone does their best, we'll create more than enough for everyone!"

Followers of communism:
"Since everyone is doing their best, I can take it easy. There's more than enough for everyone after all."
Precisely, which is why when people say that studies have shown that my generation works better in groups, I don’t go the tool rout and think “Ah, everybody is getting along.” I realize it just means that my generation is too fucking lazy to do anything on their own.

if communism wasnt so easy to corrput i would prefer it to Democracy i like thet thought of everyone being equal everybody gets a job and unions have more power it's great system if it is in the right hands.


Communism and Democracy are not opposites. Communism is an economic system; its opposite is Capitalism. Democracy is a political system; its opposite is Dictatorship.

Just out of intrest and curiosity I would love to know who are the nations that voted they are from a communist or former communist nation and think
communism is good?

Since even fellow NS nation persons who believe in communism agree that no so-called communist nation has practiced communism as it should be, as it was ment to be.

And in the case of Cuba my favorite subject on NS, many of those nations also agree that so called communist Cuba is a dictatorship government.

A relative of mine who just recently emigrated legally from Cuba a few months ago. Her husband is an electrician so they are making a good
decent living in the USA, and she works at a McDonald's restaurant,
she says it is a lot of work we are always busy, but going back to Cuba
with Fidel Castro, ni loca (litterally translated) not even crazy.

That is why I love public polls, when we vote on something we take a stand.

And in the case of Cuba my favorite subject on NS, many of those nations also agree that so called communist Cuba is a dictatorship government.
.[/QUOTE]

Cuba is obviously a dictatorship but that doesn't mean it's not communist. Cuba is probably the closest theres been to Marx style communism. Communism in it's nature would always be a dictatorship, or at least a very limited democracy. It would be meritological so the leader would have to be the best communist leader. The leader would have to be chosen by other communists and those who are considered intelligent enough make such an important decision.
Platonic communism would divide society into 3 groups to suit their natural talents, the manual workers, the enforcers who would police the state and the philosophers who are the most intelligent people would govern. It would be a dictatorship or apartheid regime but many would agree it's a logic idea. Imagine if in the USA stupid people weren't allowed to vote. There'd be no republican party!

Anyway Castro is a dictator but only semantically and out of necessity, if he gives up power his successor might not be as good a communist leader and his people might end up being raped by capitalism (some would say thats inevitable)

Does anyone remember the 80's when Nicaragua was governed by the stricly socialist Sandinistas?
They won vast regonition internationally for being the healthiest and most literate third world country. That was until George Bush, Reagan and co armed the contras with the money they made selling wepaons to Iran.
It's funny how people forget about this example of socialism working only to be forced out of power due to corrupt capitalist activity.
Oh but they sided with cuba and the soviets blah blah blah. Same old rightwing rhetorric that's all that need to be said for people to turn a blind eye to the USA's constant acts of genocide in central america just so they can install a leader who'll build a Pepsi factory and let the poor rot.

if you think communism breads laziness and you think thats an awesome argument agaisnt the ideology then get a brain.
In the UK there are lazy people. A LOT of them. In Australia there are lazy people. A lot there too. Of course you get the hard wokrer here and there and they build themselves up with national pride over just how hardworking they are.
On the other hand the UK is being inundated with workers from former communist states seeking a half decent living doing all the jobs that british people are too lazy to do.

Communism is doomed to fail in any current society for the simple reason that the human culture is unable to imagine a win-win exchange. It is very difficult for people to imagine a exchange of goods, ideas etc in which one side doesn't lose. We see winning as causing someone to lose. This is the inherent attitude in the human species that causes socialism/communism to "look great on paper but terrible in practice". Also the modern western society has convinced people that there cannot be greatness without recognition. I have read multiple posts about how you cannot assess value in a communist system, as if somehow these individuals have proved some great value in this one. In America (my current place of residence) most people are statistics, except for those who wield great economic or political power. And still, so many of these people defend this system of assigning value rabidly, as if their life would collapse and they would lose all worth if the system was abolished. It is mystifying how people can be made to believe such dreams of grandeur to be something they are a part of, when they are the ones losing in reality.
Also, communism doesn't try to abolish human suffering, it just attempts to curb the suffering we inflict upon each other. There will still be millions of other ways to suffer, so those amongst you that wish to suffer, shouldn't dread communism either.
Overall, communism is the next step towards utopia, but it is not a utopia itself.

Anyway Castro is a dictator but only semantically and out of necessity, if he gives up power his successor might not be as good a communist leader and his people might end up being raped by capitalism (some would say thats inevitable)

Castro is a dictator because he likes it. There can be no other explaination for someone holding a single job for over 46 years (of pain, suffering, destitution, impoverishment, and death)

"Raped by capitalism"?! What neo-Marxist bullshit.

if you think communism breads laziness and you think thats an awesome argument agaisnt the ideology then get a brain.

No one thinks that. Stop building strawmen, and make a real argument (its not suprising that a Marxist would create strawmen, Marx did exactly the same in The Communist Manifesto)

Communism doesn't breed laziness, but it doesn't provide incentive to work. People only work under a communist system if they've been brainwashed by communist propaganda, or they are forced/threatened.

Does anyone remember the 80's when Nicaragua was governed by the stricly [communist] Sandinistas?
They won vast regonition internationally for being the healthiest and most literate third world country.

I remember how they slaughtered almost all the nation's native populatioln in a death march. I remember how they repressed, and murdered anyone who disagreed with them.

One might be quite healthy in a communist state, providing one says nothing against communism. Then one's health tends to suffer.

No communist country achieved anything in literacy. They might have taught people to read, but they couldn't read, supression of free speech renders any achievement on teaching people to read irrelevant. Of course it did mean that peasents could read the rule books so they know what to do to aviod being shot, or sent to the gulag.

In a free society, an increase in the literacy rate is something to be celebrated because more people can appreciate great literature, and write about whatever they want. In a communist state, any increase in literacy must be greeted with "meh".

Of course, that's assuming that the Sandinista regime was telling the truth, and there's no reason to believe a dictatorship.

Oh but they sided with cuba and the soviets blah blah blah. Same old rightwing rhetorric that's all that need to be said for people to turn a blind eye to the USA's constant acts of genocide in central america just so they can install a leader who'll build a Pepsi factory and let the poor rot.

Proof of constant acts of genocide, please. I know you won't provide it, you commies never do.

And where IS a communist country...I would like to see that. This pool is odd, there are/have never been any communist nations. Should I even bother taking the poll thwn half of it is wrong? :headbang:

Ehm ehm ehm. Communism never existed as you low-mind-profile-easy-truth-believers think that the "paper-communism" could apply differently from the "flesh-communism".

--------------------------------

The only truth is that the Nature rules everything. And that the communism is the most unnatural human thought in History.

We in italy say: Dog does not eat Dog.
This is untrue.
The right statement is: Big fish eats smaller fish (provided in English by FB)


All the communists I found in my life, those who raise the left fist in thousands, those who appriciate bombs against americans (here happened much before 9/11), were sunday-fashion-time-communists.

They push the idea that communism is "natural" saying that the lion does not kill anyone if he is not hungry, or that private property is a human construct.
False. Also if you don't know much about animals, you must have seen some documentary at tv. The lion pisses on the trees, on the stones to mark he fukkin territory. The same thing that do your stupid dogs or cats at home.

Territory. Piece of land, of its own competence. Food, females ... etc.

Now, the human istinct is to fuck.
That's a fact.
Male try to inseminate the largest number of female (uthero with woman around).
Female try to evaluate and choose the best father for their little bastards (rich, nice, reliable).

All the rest is culture, the human tendency to build theory over nothing to keep the mind working in winter.

So, this istinct to moltiplicate (to satisfy the first rule of nature, that is to try to stay alive as long as possible as specie) produces a conseguence, that drives ALL the human history into battles, fights, matches, etc.

The COMPETITION.

You can imagine the end of the story.

Humans are not collaborative by nature.
We are competitive.

And we can try to make corners smoother using mind, using governments to help the poor etc etc.
But underneath we will always be driven by COMPETITION.

This causes every attempt to escape from the competition itself much more expensive the farer we get from it.
Like an elastic. At a certain point, your force will be not enough to pull more, and it will go again in it's original position.

---------------------------------

Conclusion.

Communism is bad in reality, but is NOT better on paper.
Communism on paper is someway better because does not oppress anyone directly.

And, most of all, CAN'T BE GOOD.
Because it's an Uthopia. And like all the Uthopias nothing can be done to make them real.

Live in the real world. Fight for your food, don't wait someone to give it to you.
Capitalism is nature. If you are not smart, not good, not lucky enough, you DIE.
I am sorry dude. That's it.

-----------------------------------------

ps. The poll is not relistic, becuse you can't really compare the former-communist opinion with the non-communist.

They should be weighted on the subgroup.

Felix

Disraeliland, nothing personal, but majority of what you wrote is utter bull****.
Nazi Germany did nationalize Jewish assets. They did not nationalize almost any other industries, however. Manufacturers did thrive and would've gained more than you think if Germany had won. Unfortunately for them, they didn't.

"Explain this: since the ending of slavery in the West, the West has gotten infinitely richer."
Industrialization maybe? Come on that's the lamest attempt at an argument I've seen...

"Can you read, bonehead. I am the only person in this thread who has quoted Marx. Any normal person with a usable brain-cell would think that The Communist Manifesto had something to do with Communism."

It doesn't take a lot of brains to quote a book. Taking select passages from a work to make it look like it says something that it doesn't also doesn't take a lot of brains. It just takes some prejudice and work.


"Allow me to quote his rubbish again "Equal obligation of all to work" sounds like forced to work to me, and dare I say it, anyone else who can read English. Of course, "obligation ... to work" sounds better than "work or get shot", but it is effectively the same thing."

Work or get shot? Get shot by whom? Do you have ANY idea how communist societies are supposed to work?

"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes ... A heavy progressive or graduated income tax ... Abolition of all rights of inheritance"

Sounds like they can't keep the proceeds of their work, the state nicks it all.

Looks like my original statement that "Like slaves, workers in communist countries are forced to work, and can own none of the proceeds of such work. Communism is slavery for the workers." is correct after all."

Yes except that communism also aims to provide you with the highest standard of living that is available under the conditions in the country without discriminating against anyone else who contributes to the country/society. But wait, you arrogant dipshit wouldn't understand that concept, since you can't see past what you think your worth is.

"Idiotic fantasy. There will always be some sort of government, some sort of bureaucracy. If a firm is sold to its workers, that doesn't mean the firm doesn't have a board, or a management. It merely means the workers play a part in appointing the board."

Yes, there will be a board ar a management, but who will be able to fire them? Oh, wait, it's the workers! Who keeps the profits from the company? Oh, wait it's the damn workers again!

"Your idea of democratic control is not democratic because it refuses to respect individual rights. I'll leave you to work out what that means."

Wait are you sure you realize what that means? Individual rights such as the right not to die from starvation while there is tons of food thrown away every day? Or perhaps you mean the right not to die from some stupid disease like the flu while there is surplus medication sitting on the shelves collecting dust?
Don't you quote individual rights.

And here's my question to you. You are so quick to bash communism and insult all those who have a "naive" belief in it. What do YOU believe in? What is the system that you propose that is so much superior to poor old communism?

Communism is doomed to fail in any current society for the simple reason that the human culture is unable to imagine a win-win exchange. It is very difficult for people to imagine a exchange of goods, ideas etc in which one side doesn't lose. We see winning as causing someone to lose. This is the inherent attitude in the human species that causes socialism/communism to "look great on paper but terrible in practice".

I think I'll start calling myself "The Garbage Collector". I certainly pick up enough garbage from people who won't read the rest of the thread before they post.

It is easy for anyone with a brain to conceive of a win-win exchange. Most exchanges occur because both parties believe they will benefit, and on almost all occasions, they are justified in that belief.

Let us take a simple case. You have some money. You need milk. So, you go to the shop, and you hand the shopkeeper some money, he gives you some milk.

A win-win exchange. You wanted milk more than cash, the shopkeeper wanted cash more than milk, and now you have milk, and he has cash. After the exchange, you have something you value more than what you had before, therefore you have both gained.

Also the modern western society has convinced people that there cannot be greatness without recognition.

[QUOTE]I have read multiple posts about how you cannot assess value in a communist system, as if somehow these individuals have proved some great value in this one.

In America (my current place of residence) most people are statistics, except for those who wield great economic or political power. And still, so many of these people defend this system of assigning value rabidly, as if their life would collapse and they would lose all worth if the system was abolished. It is mystifying how people can be made to believe such dreams of grandeur to be something they are a part of, when they are the ones losing in reality.

People will always seek recognition for achievement. People will always accept recognition for achievement. Perhaps you haven't heard of the award called "Hero of the Soviet Union"?

At least in free societies, one can be recognised, and acquire value for doind things that people find useful, and to their liking, as opposed to the communist system where service to the dictatorship is the only thing recognised, and power over life and death the only value.

Also, communism doesn't try to abolish human suffering,

With at least 100 million deaths, and millions more in fear, and abject poverty, all caused by communism, that would have to be the understatement of the century, and no one in the 95 remaining years of this century will beat it.

It is also the first intelligent thing you've said.

it just attempts to curb the suffering we inflict upon each other.

Whoops, now you blew it. Communism enables suffering.

A set of ideas which says that all people should be forced to work; that their property should be seized; that their families should be broken up, with the children sent into the mines and factories for their 'education'; that anyone who tries to leave, or object to the regime should be punished; that they can only go where the state will take them; that they should live in a state where the government has absolute power over all aspects of their lives can only increase human suffering.

Also, a centrally-planned economy will never meet the needs of the people. Bread-lines, starvation, shortages, queues for everything.

Millions of deaths were caused directly by communist land reform programs, in the Soviet Union, in China, in Vietnam, and now in Zimbabwe.

There will still be millions of other ways to suffer, so those amongst you that wish to suffer, shouldn't dread communism either.

I should not dread a set of political ideas that say if I attempt to leave, everything I own should be taken, or if I say anything against the regime, I should be punished?

I should not dread a political idea that would tear my children away, and send them into the mines and factories as their 'education'?

I should not dread an ideology that advocates taking all my property?

Overall, communism is the next step towards utopia, but it is not a utopia itself.

Absolute f***ing bullshit. Communism is a step towards hell on earth. Anyone who has read critically, and understood Marx must come to that conclusion.

I suggest you read my previous posts in this thread. I am (so far) the only one who has quoted Marx (why are the communists posting here so reluctant to quote their idol?).

I suggest you read my previous posts in this thread. I am (so far) the only one who has quoted Marx (why are the communists posting here so reluctant to quote their idol?).

Perhaps because he isn't my idol?

A win-win exchange. You wanted milk more than cash, the shopkeeper wanted cash more than milk, and now you have milk, and he has cash. After the exchange, you have something you value more than what you had before, therefore you have both gained.

If the exchange was done at face value (I pay the shopkeeper the milk's real value, not the real value + his profit) then you would be correct. As it is I am FORCED to lose money because I cannot possibly produce everything I need and I am at the mercy of those who can. If I wasn't lucky enough to have money I would die of starvation. Win-win you say?

Why do you keep giving me examples from the USSR? I don't have any respect for them so your point is not taken. Now tell me why you value recognition so much. What have you done that has deserved such great recognition?


"With at least 100 million deaths, and millions more in fear, and abject poverty, all caused by communism, that would have to be the understatement of the century, and no one in the 95 remaining years of this century will beat it."

What communism? China? USSR? I don't consider them communist, just like I don't consider Al Qaeda Muslim. Just because they call themselves something doesn't mean they are.

Disraeliland, nothing personal, but majority of what you wrote is utter bull****.

The arguments you use below would tend to discredit that statement

Nazi Germany did nationalize Jewish assets. They did not nationalize almost any other industries, however. Manufacturers did thrive and would've gained more than you think if Germany had won. Unfortunately for them, they didn't.

Only those manufacturers favoured by the state (which controlled energy, and the allocation of raw materials) thrived. No free market system operates that way. Socialist ones do.

Industrialization maybe? Come on that's the lamest attempt at an argument I've seen...

Compared with "industrialisation maybe"? My argument isn't disputable, and you've made no attempt to prove that slavery is less costly than hiring people who want to work and paying them a wage.

It doesn't take a lot of brains to quote a book. Taking select passages from a work to make it look like it says something that it doesn't also doesn't take a lot of brains. It just takes some prejudice and work.

Proof?! Prove where I 'distorted' your 'Bible'! Since you've produced no evidence, it is you who speak from prejudice.


[/QUOTE]Work or get shot? Get shot by whom? Do you have ANY idea how communist societies are supposed to work?[/QUOTE]

I explained it quite clearly. "Equal obligation of all to work" is pretty clear. Communist societies offer no economic incentives to work, so force must be used. People will do no more work than they consider necessary. Free societies create that necessity through market exchange, you exchange your labour for cash which you in turn exchange for your needs and wants. Communist societies do not have such mechanisms, they must turn to force, and for the newer generations, indoctrination and force.

Of course, the state is the party that does the shooting. Marx, being the third-rate thinker he is never explained why an all-powerful state, led by men who enjoy wielding that power, will simply abolish itself. No one defending Marx has explained it either. Marx's point about the abolition of the state is therefore irrelevant as Bush talking about a bright new tomorrow.

Clearly you don't read well. I explained all this before.

Yes except that communism also aims to provide you with the highest standard of living that is available under the conditions in the country without discriminating against anyone else who contributes to the country/society. But wait, you arrogant dipshit wouldn't understand that concept, since you can't see past what you think your worth is.

Marxist pap. Leave it for the communist cell meetings.

[/QUOTE]Yes, there will be a board ar a management, but who will be able to fire them? Oh, wait, it's the workers! Who keeps the profits from the company? Oh, wait it's the damn workers again![/QUOTE]

Thanks for making my point. The owners of property should control it, but there will always be leaders appointed and a bureaucracy to carry out their instructions.

Wait are you sure you realize what that means? Individual rights such as the right not to die from starvation while there is tons of food thrown away every day? Or perhaps you mean the right not to die from some stupid disease like the flu while there is surplus medication sitting on the shelves collecting dust?
Don't you quote individual rights.

The right to acquire, own, control, dispose of and exchange property is an individual right that you would take away from people.

Of course, you've never thought about property rights. From property rights come all other rights. You can't have free speech without it, without property rights, your computer can be siezed, along with all other implements of speech. Your land and home, or any place where you call people to hear you can be taken if you've no property rights. Your clothes and shoes can be taken making it impossible for you to go out in public, and of course the money with which you can buy these things can be taken if you've no property rights.

I'll quote whatever I like. Not living in a communist country means I have that right.

And here's my question to you. You are so quick to bash communism and insult all those who have a "naive" belief in it. What do YOU believe in? What is the system that you propose that is so much superior to poor old communism?

Almost everything. My ideal system would be a constitutional federal republic, with clearly defined individual rights, and wide-ranging limitations on what government can do.

Perhaps because he isn't my idol?

Nevertheless, you must agree that Marx's writings have some bearing on defining communism, and therefore evaluating it.



If the exchange was done at face value (I pay the shopkeeper the milk's real value, not the real value + his profit) then you would be correct.

Face value? Face value is what you're prepared to pay for milk. If one shopkeeper charges too much, find another one. Why should the shopkeeper not make a profit? He is offering you something you want. Why should such a good thing as offering you what you want not be rewarded?

As it is I am FORCED to lose money because I cannot possibly produce everything I need and I am at the mercy of those who can. If I wasn't lucky enough to have money I would die of starvation. Win-win you say?

You don't understand very much.

Here's how things work. You have a set of talents which have relevance in terms of a particular vocaton. Perhaps you write well, perhaps you play sports well, perhaps you are skilled at working wood or metals. Likewise, there are things you aren't good at, perhaps writing violin concertos, or designing cathedrals.

The point is that you can't produce all you need, nor should you try. If you did you would not have what you needed.

Society places a value on the skills and talents you have based upon how much it needs or wants them. Value is also influenced by the degree of skill and talent you have.

What you do is produce what you are good at, more than you could possibly use, and sell what you can't use to provide the other things you need.

I'm good at fixing computers, but I couldn't farm, so what I do is fix other peoples' computers in exchange for the goods and services the farmers can provide me (of course I use money as a medium, and frankly, that's a good thing, direct deposit is much easier than walking a side of beef out of work)

As for having enough money, one must find something that society values, and be in a place where it is valued. A gas-light repairman is not that valuable to society, but a teacher is.

Why do you keep giving me examples from the USSR? I don't have any respect for them so your point is not taken. Now tell me why you value recognition so much. What have you done that has deserved such great recognition?

The USSR was the world's first, and longest running experiement in communism. An attempt to implement The Communist Manifesto in the real world is instrumental to a discussion of communism. Whether you like them or not is irrelevant, that they tried to implement Marx's nightmare ideology is.

As for the rest, you show how it is relevant, and I might answer.

What communism? China? USSR? I don't consider them communist, just like I don't consider Al Qaeda Muslim. Just because they call themselves something doesn't mean they are.

What a horrendous steaming pile of sophistry.

The difference between al Qaeda and the Soviet Union is that one can actually show how the Soviet Union followed Marx's vision (which is relevant to a discussion of communism), while the Muslim justificationsfor al Qaeda are hotly disputed by Koranic scholars.

LOL

This thread is so funny.

Because I think (and I can say it because I live in a half-free country, Italy) that this is Capitalistic.
Uh, sorry, I meant Natural.
Because (do you remember my last post?) I think that Capitalism is the natural state of economics (self-balancing, self-evolutive).

This discussion is capitalistic. We are fighting for ideas.
And probably we will feel better after fighting, and will work more, better (mind-free).

I tell you a (not so easy to accept) self-fulfilling profecy.
Humanity will ever fight, in eons.
Half for capitalism (that will always be the natural way, so the best-buy choice), half for something different, trying to smooth capitalism's sharp corners.

The results will always be a capitalism with some helpy (naturally thinking) inefficient construct.

You all have to stop judging the facts as good or evil. This is hard to do.
You have to think about all happenings as experiments of the natural evolution.
And humans are not active characters of the scene. Like the plancton (krill) does not decide in wich directions wants to swim in the ocean, humans always swim, in the mud, in thousands of directions.
None of the directions is right except that the most people are swimming to.
Everyone who goes in another direction will be alone, and after death his descendants will follow the mass.
And if you think this is not right it's your own problem. The world moves always as the mean movement of all.

So communism was an attempt of evolution that failed. There will be other attempts, communist, communist-like, non-communist.
But wins only the best.
Whatever we can think.

And now capitalism rules. So it's the best choice, at the moment.
Stop wondering about fools.

Et de hoc satis.

Felix

I think this is more than a little oversimplification, you can't apply this to an industry or an economy or to a state.Why not? The people who suffer the most during a recession would naturally want something better, right? It seems to me that an economy which equalizes wealth would provide something better for those people who were suffering in the recession.


Maybe, but altruism is necessary for it to exist.To a certain degree, but not for everyone.


And neither is necessarily changeable, which is what Communism would need before it could be feasible.Well, fine, then, we'll go with the idea that there is a human nature. To paraphrase Kropotkin: "Work is not repulsive to human nature. Overwork is." Fortunately Marx wasn't the only communist philosopher.

Why not? The people who suffer the most during a recession would naturally want something better, right? It seems to me that an economy which equalizes wealth would provide something better for those people who were suffering in the recession.

Efforts to guarantee equality have never worked, and have never failed to produce more suffering than they were intended to solve

Well, fine, then, we'll go with the idea that there is a human nature. To paraphrase Kropotkin: "Work is not repulsive to human nature. Overwork is." Fortunately Marx wasn't the only communist philosopher.

No organism, human or otherwise, will do more work than is necessary. There is a basic biological need to conserve energy lest it be needed later.

Efforts to guarantee equality have never worked, and have never failed to produce more suffering than they were intended to solve
Complete equality isn't necessary, only equality of income is.

No organism, human or otherwise, will do more work than is necessary. There is a basic biological need to conserve energy lest it be needed later.How strange. And here I thought people had hobbies and the like.

Complete equality isn't necessary, only equality of income is.

Why? It seems a bad idea. What equality of income means of stealing from the talented, productive, diligent, industrious, and useful to give to the talentless, unproductive, sloppy, slack, and useless.

Not a way to get society out of its problems, merely a way to perpetuate them.

You also ignore questions of indivual rights.

What will help people during a recession is getting the economy back on track, generating wealth, and from that opportunities. The best thing government can do is not steal from those with the abilities and attributes to improve the economy, but to let them get on with it.

How strange. And here I thought people had hobbies and the like.

Lack of comprehension seems to be a common affliction around here. No organism works without a reason. That reason is what is meant by necessity, bonehead.

Even if that reason isn't easily understood by others, or is entirely self-generated, a reason for work is all that's required. No one does anything without a reason.

Why? It seems a bad idea. What equality of income means of stealing from the talented, productive, diligent, industrious, and useful to give to the talentless, unproductive, sloppy, slack, and useless.Indeed. It means creating a fair society where those born with talents aren't favoured over those born without. Also, please try to check your grammar before you post.

It means creating a fair society where those born with talents aren't favoured over those born without.

What, pray tell me, is the correlation between not favouring the talented over the talentless, and a fair society?

Guaranteeing equality of outcomes is a paradigm for an unfair society. It is also a society which, like any communist state, cannot last without extensive repression, and isolation.

Consider a highly talented, industrious person. He is qualified, and experiences in a particular field of immense use to society, a cardiologist perhaps? Yet he is paid exactly the same wage as an idle drunk. Not a happy chappy. Particularly if he sees how cardiologists live in other places. He sees them paid highly, and greatly respected.

He's going to leave, as are all such talented souls. Your society must either shoot anyone attempting to leave, or collapse. East Germany with closed borders lasted nearly 40 years, with open borders it only lasted a few months.

A society can only thrive if it allows those with ability to thrive.

Also, please try to check your grammar before you post.

I don't need grammar tips from people who write single-word sentences.

Does anyone remember the 80's when Nicaragua was governed by the stricly socialist Sandinistas?
They won vast regonition internationally for being the healthiest and most literate third world country. That was until George Bush, Reagan and co armed the contras with the money they made selling wepaons to Iran.
It's funny how people forget about this example of socialism working only to be forced out of power due to corrupt capitalist activity.
Oh but they sided with cuba and the soviets blah blah blah. Same old rightwing rhetorric that's all that need to be said for people to turn a blind eye to the USA's constant acts of genocide in central america just so they can install a leader who'll build a Pepsi factory and let the poor rot.

The Sandinistas were no better than the Contras. They set up concentration camps, persecuted Miskito Indians, imprisoned, tortured, and killed opponents of the regime, and killed as many people in their first year of power as Pinochet did in his 17 years of power.

Not one company was ever nationalised by the Nazis.

A)I never said they were. Learn to read.

B)Yes, they were.

That seems a strange thing to say since the disparities between the developed and third world has greatly increased since the implementation of neoliberal policies. After the war nothing was privatised in West Germany and there were considerable regulations to protect worker's rights but what did help the economy was a huge amount of aid which was used to rebuild the country. Your example of Batista's Cuba is ridiculous since infant mortality and deaths from tropical diseases were ten times as high before the revolution and the life expectancy was less than 60 compared to 77 today. China's economy may be growing due to a number of factors but recent figures actually showed that the number of people in poverty is beginning to grow for the first time in many years.

Read Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant by Humberto Fontova. After the war, almost everything was abolished in West Germany. Virtually all wage and price controls were abolished, etc.

Zambia was in the past one of Africa's wealthiest countries although everything changed once they began to implement the insane neoliberal demands of the IMF. Almost all privatisations have taken place as part of these demands and most companies and services are therefore offered to western corporations.

Zambia was never one of Africa's wealthiest countries.

The capitalists had good reason to support the Nazis and were not disappointed by their rule.

Did they tell you that?

Allende came to power because he had the highest percentage of the vote and according to Chilean democratic traditions it was the candidate with the most votes that was almost always appointed as President. He had no more or less a mandate than any other President, although a lot more than Pinochet, to carry out his policies over the maximum 6 year term. These policies were not particularly radical and had to be done in order to improve living standards for the poor in what was one of the world's most unequal countries.

Under Allende, the inflation rate exceeded 1000%, the treasury was virtually bankrupt, and unemployment skyrocketed. So much for improving living standards.

And Allende was indeed quite radical. He nationalized every industry in the country, allowed thousands of Soviet, East German, and Cuban advisors into the country, and planned to set up a left-wing police state. Pinochet foiled him, however, and set up a right-wing police state (just as bad).

Doesn't that fact that numerous revolutions have been attempted and, ultimately, have failed, show that communism will never actually work in the real world?

One may argue that it was the people in charge who f*cked up the revolution and established a totalitarian regime; however, this only further illustrates that humans are naturally power-hungry and greedy and look out only for their own self-interests.

Well, whatever. I really can't stand it when people try to argue in support of communism. Don't the 100 million+ deaths in the 20th century show that it won't work? It's time to move on.

Doesn't that fact that numerous revolutions have been attempted and, ultimately, have failed, show that communism will never actually work in the real world?

One may argue that it was the people in charge who f*cked up the revolution and established a totalitarian regime; however, this only further illustrates that humans are naturally power-hungry and greedy and look out only for their own self-interests.

Well, whatever. I really can't stand it when people try to argue in support of communism. Don't the 100 million+ deaths in the 20th century show that it won't work? It's time to move on.

Attempts at a communist state don't become totalitarian because the leaders stuffed up, they become totalitarian because it is the only way to implement communism.

Without the Berlin Wall and the shoot-on-sight Border Guards, East Germany would have collapsed, in fact, it did collapse without The Wall.

Does anyone else find it sad that the only way to keep people from ripping each other to shreds, cheating, killing, stealing (while calling it "competing" or "getting ahead") is to have a brutal government that everyone is terrified of? We are a sick, sick, species.

Why? It seems a bad idea. No, equalization of power, or at least making power as equal as it can be is never a bad idea. This is sort of the purpose of democracy.

What equality of income means of stealing from the talented, productive, diligent, industrious, and useful to give to the talentless, unproductive, sloppy, slack, and useless.What equality of income means is accepting the fact that all professions are useful to society, or they wouldn't exist.

Not a way to get society out of its problems, merely a way to perpetuate them.Society's problems all stem from concentrations of power in the hands of the few. How does removing concentrations of power perpetuate problems?

You also ignore questions of indivual rights.It's quite simple. No one has the right to own land that they don't use. There's no interfering with individual rights here.

What will help people during a recession is getting the economy back on track, generating wealth, and from that opportunities. The best thing government can do is not steal from those with the abilities and attributes to improve the economy, but to let them get on with it.The best thing society can do is organize itself in such a way that it utilizes the talents of all and marginalizes none. And society is free to charge its members whatever it wants for the ability to utilize the utility of society, provided that it doesn't charge more than a person would have if they lived outside of society.


Lack of comprehension seems to be a common affliction around here. No organism works without a reason. That reason is what is meant by necessity, bonehead.Hm. I suppose fun could be viewed as a necessity in certain instances, but usually isn't mentioned when people talk about the "necessities of life."

Even if that reason isn't easily understood by others, or is entirely self-generated, a reason for work is all that's required. No one does anything without a reason.I'm aware. And I'm well aware that personal monetary gain isn't at the top of those reasons, for most people.

Stalinism is the inevitable outcome of Communism. Marx never clarified the means by which capitalist society would be destroyed, he talked in vague generalities about "smashing the state" and embarking upon a series of revolutions which would culminate in true communism. So he sets out to destroy all means of law, order, structure and justice in a society in an attempt to establish some intangible eutopia without properly explaining the transition process. Can anyone really be surprised therefore that the vacuum of power that is created is filled by oppressive tyrannical rule.

If Stalinism is the inevitable outcome of communism then would'nt corporatism be the inevitable outcome of capitalism?

"You really are a moron, aren't you? Corporatism and capitalism are not the same thing. The economic system run by the Nazis was little different than that of the U.S.S.R. Both had command economies."

If corportism and capitalism are not the same then odviously stalinism and communism are not the same either. Plus the economy of the USSR although run by the state was quite rightest or fascist.

No, equalization of power, or at least making power as equal as it can be is never a bad idea. This is sort of the purpose of democracy.

You spoke of equalisation of income, not democracy. Don't change the subject.

What equality of income means is accepting the fact that all professions are useful to society, or they wouldn't exist.

That is not what equality of income means. Equality of income means everyone having the same income (an equal income)

Society's problems all stem from concentrations of power in the hands of the few. How does removing concentrations of power perpetuate problems?

Don't change the subject. Who ensures that all incomes are equal, and that no one is earning any "on the side"? Your idea requires total power at the top over all property. Capitalist democratic systems require nothing of the kind.

The best thing society can do is organize itself in such a way that it utilizes the talents of all and marginalizes none. And society is free to charge its members whatever it wants for the ability to utilize the utility of society, provided that it doesn't charge more than a person would have if they lived outside of society.

Why? Each society is different, and has different values. Free markets should decide, instead of bureaucrats as would be required by your price-fixing regime.

Hm. I suppose fun could be viewed as a necessity in certain instances, but usually isn't mentioned when people talk about the "necessities of life."

People do what seems necessary to them. That you can't understand why is irrelevant.

I'm aware. And I'm well aware that personal monetary gain isn't at the top of those reasons, for most people.

Irrelevancies of the world, unite!

If Stalinism is the inevitable outcome of communism then would'nt corporatism be the inevitable outcome of capitalism?

No. Free markets have little to do with corporatism, which requires immense state interference.

If corportism and capitalism are not the same then odviously stalinism and communism are not the same either. Plus the economy of the USSR although run by the state was quite rightest or fascist.

What rubbish. Stalinism and communism are the same. The economy of the USSR was indeed similar to a fascist economy, though not a rightist economy (a free market). Fascists are left-wing.

Does anyone else find it sad that the only way to keep people from ripping each other to shreds, cheating, killing, stealing (while calling it "competing" or "getting ahead") is to have a brutal government that everyone is terrified of? We are a sick, sick, species.
You are wrong. The Northern European countries, for example, don't have brutal governements and yet the people there are quite civilized. The only exception are - some of - the immigrants, but they are not integrated into that society yet.

You spoke of equalisation of income, not democracy. Don't change the subject.And what democracy is is equalization of power. Since money is power, the only way to have equalization of power is to have equalization of money.


That is not what equality of income means. Equality of income means everyone having the same income (an equal income)Yep. And since all jobs are equally useful, all jobs should have equal incomes.


Don't change the subject. Who ensures that all incomes are equal, and that no one is earning any "on the side"? Your idea requires total power at the top over all property. Capitalist democratic systems require nothing of the kind.
Society does. Who said anything about "at the top?"
And while capitalist systems don't require total power at the top, but they inevitably end up that way.


Why? Each society is different, and has different values. Free markets should decide, instead of bureaucrats as would be required by your price-fixing regime.And each society would be deciding for itself what it wishes to import, or manufacture, or which jobs it wishes to support.
Bureaucrats? Fine, I suppose the whole of society could be called bureaucratic, if you'd like.


People do what seems necessary to them. That you can't understand why is irrelevant.I'm well aware that people will do what seems necessary to them. And what you don't seem to understand is that there doesn't have to be a difference between "work" and "fun."


Irrelevancies of the world, unite!Uh...given that one of the biggest arguments that people use against communism is the myth that "if people don't have personal monetary profit, they won't work", the comment is totally relevant.

Fascists are left-wing.Lol. Fascists are, by definition, right wing.

Lol. Fascists are, by definition, right wing.

Yep. Heh, you've gotta be pretty boned to think Fascism is left wing.

Yep. Heh, you've gotta be pretty boned to think Fascism is left wing.I think he's unfamiliar with the two-dimensional way of measurement as described on www.politicalcompass.org
But yes, there are, of course, both authoritarian left-wing and right-wing governments. There are also both libertarian left-wing and right-wing governments.

I think he's unfamiliar with the two-dimensional way of measurement as described on www.politicalcompass.org
But yes, there are, of course, both authoritarian left-wing and right-wing governments. There are also both libertarian left-wing and right-wing governments.

Exactly.

Of course, he could just be throwing that aside to further his arguments, which seems very likely.

And what democracy is is equalization of power. Since money is power, the only way to have equalization of power is to have equalization of money.

And equalisation of money requires total power at the top, and a total lack of property rights, to ensure it. You're just like Marx, you come out with these dramatic statements, but haven't done the thinking to work out how to implement them.

Anyway, you refuse to consider questions of human nature. All people are different, all have different abilities, and value different things. Who should people who are more talented, and more valued have their rightful income taken away to support the talentless, and idle?

Yep. And since all jobs are equally useful, all jobs should have equal incomes.

All jobs are not equally useful. If they were, they would already be paid equally without coercion, but simply by market forces.

If no one in a society wants acupuncture, than the profession of acupuncturist is useless. Conversly, if many people in a society need legal services, the legal profession is highly useful.

If all the members of a cummunity walk, or ride bicycles, then shoemakers and bicycle mechanics are highly useful, and should be well paid. Car mechanics are in such a society, useless, and should try their hand at bikes, or go a place where car mechanics are in demand.

This is a democratic way. Your way of forcing society into shape is nothing of the kind.

Society does. Who said anything about "at the top?"
And while capitalist systems don't require total power at the top, but they inevitably end up that way.

How is total equality of money ensured except by having a group at the top of society making sure no one earn anything on the side, and punishing those who do?

No capitalist system has ended up with a concentration of all power at the top. All communist societies must concentrate all power at the top.

And each society would be deciding for itself what it wishes to import, or manufacture, or which jobs it wishes to support.
Bureaucrats? Fine, I suppose the whole of society could be called bureaucratic, if you'd like.

Of course the people in each society decide. In terms of imports, the decision is a two stage process, 1) what do we want? 2) can we make it more efficiently than others? If the answers are Yes and No respectively, then that society will import. If the answer to the second question is yes, then people in a society will manufacture.

That's not bureaucratic, that's democratic. If people don't want something, they won't buy it, therefore those who would either manufacture it or import it will have to stop. A bureaucratic way is a small group of people at the top deciding which professions are useful, and what people should be paid.

You commit the normal logical fallacy of socialists, you think society is a single entity that can be forced to comply with your ideology. Society is a mass of people, all with different talents, abilities, needs, wants, and wishes. You can't force equality on it because no person is equal to another. You now are not equal to you five hours ago.

I'm well aware that people will do what seems necessary to them. And what you don't seem to understand is that there doesn't have to be a difference between "work" and "fun."

I understand the difference, you don't understand that the difference is irrelevant.

Uh...given that one of the biggest arguments that people use against communism is the myth that "if people don't have personal monetary profit, they won't work", the comment is totally relevant.

If people don't have a reason to work they won't work. The problem with communism is that the only reason to work (apart from reasons generated within the self like hobbies) is force or the threat of force.

If people don't have a reason to work they won't work. The problem with communism is that the only reason to work (apart from reasons generated within the self like hobbies) is force or the threat of force.

http://www.icelandicsheep.com/SheepMasterListPics/STS%20501E.jpg

Oh, look at that. Another person with a hopelessly-skewed idea of what Communism is.

And equalisation of money requires total power at the top, and a total lack of property rights, to ensure it. You're just like Marx, you come out with these dramatic statements, but haven't done the thinking to work out how to implement them.Equalization of money requires that people decide that they will have equalization of money. Nothing more.

Anyway, you refuse to consider questions of human nature. All people are different, all have different abilities, and value different things. Who should people who are more talented, and more valued have their rightful income taken away to support the talentless, and idle?
What their rightful income is is what society decides it is.

All jobs are not equally useful. If they were, they would already be paid equally without coercion, but simply by market forces.Not at all, market forces base upon other things besides how useful the job is, or how well the person does it.


If no one in a society wants acupuncture, than the profession of acupuncturist is useless. Conversly, if many people in a society need legal services, the legal profession is highly useful.Then society would not support an acupuncturist, and the acupuncturist would have to find something else to do that he likes to do that society would support.


If all the members of a cummunity walk, or ride bicycles, then shoemakers and bicycle mechanics are highly useful, and should be well paid. Car mechanics are in such a society, useless, and should try their hand at bikes, or go a place where car mechanics are in demand.Or, a person could come to society declaring the profession they'd like to be in. Society would democratically decide whether or not to support the person in question.


How is total equality of money ensured except by having a group at the top of society making sure no one earn anything on the side, and punishing those who do?By having everyone in society making sure that nobody earns anything on the side, or by having society banning money altogether.


No capitalist system has ended up with a concentration of all power at the top. All communist societies must concentrate all power at the top.False, on the second count. The first part about capitalism is technically true, but irrelevent. If a capitalist society has most of the power concentrated, then it will run roughshod over the rest of the people as it wishes.


Of course the people in each society decide. In terms of imports, the decision is a two stage process, 1) what do we want? 2) can we make it more efficiently than others? If the answers are Yes and No respectively, then that society will import. The society would not choose to import if the society wishes to be self-sufficient, even if it's slightly less "efficient" (what an overused word) to manufacture within the society.

That's not bureaucratic, that's democratic. If people don't want something, they won't buy it, therefore those who would either manufacture it or import it will have to stop. A bureaucratic way is a small group of people at the top deciding which professions are useful, and what people should be paid.I have no intentions of having a small group of people decide anything. Society as a whole should decide most things, and individuals decide the rest.


You commit the normal logical fallacy of socialists, you think society is a single entity that can be forced to comply with your ideology. Society is a mass of people, all with different talents, abilities, needs, wants, and wishes. You can't force equality on it because no person is equal to another. You now are not equal to you five hours ago.As I stated earlier, people don't have to be equal. If everyone was equal, then we wouldn't have the division of labor that we have now. Socialists accept that people have different talents and abilities, which is why we have policies that help people to utilize their talents and abilities.


I understand the difference, you don't understand that the difference is irrelevant.The difference is completely relevant. The biggest reason that people choose their particular careers is because they like doing what they do.


If people don't have a reason to work they won't work. The problem with communism is that the only reason to work (apart from reasons generated within the self like hobbies) is force or the threat of force.No, the reasons to work in communism is that people enjoy working, in certain instances, and also enjoy living comfortably. Communism is the only system which maximizes both aspects of work.

Yep. Heh, you've gotta be pretty boned to think Fascism is left wing.

You've got to be pretty boned to make a statement like that and produce nothing whatsoever to back it up.

The arguments here proving that fascism is right-wing are thunderous in their silence.

Real fascist governments have existed in the following places:

Italy
Spain
Portugal
Vichy France
and several others.

Fascists practice similar economic policies to left-wing regimes. The only real difference is that nationalisation isn't common, and that makes it distinct from only communist regimes, not leftists in general.

In political terms, fascism shares the authoritarian nature of the left.

In social terms, both fascists and other leftists are authoritarian. They differ on what particular aspects they seek to control (Fascists are generally tolerant of religion, while mainstream socialists and communists are utterly opposed to it)

The anti-communism people ascribe to fascists is a rivalry, more than an opposition.

Here are some essays. Read them if you're open-minded enough.

http://geocities.com/jonjayray/musso.html

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

In political terms, fascism shares the authoritarian nature of the left.

This is where I stopped reading.

Fascists practice similar economic policies to left-wing regimes. The only real difference is that nationalisation isn't common, and that makes it distinct from only communist regimes, not leftists in general.Fascism is often described as "hyper capitalism." How is this consistent with left-wing policies?


In social terms, both fascists and other leftists are authoritarian. They differ on what particular aspects they seek to control (Fascists are generally tolerant of religion, while mainstream socialists and communists are utterly opposed to it)Leftists are generally more socially libertarian than rightists, at least in the U.S.[/QUOTE]

Leftists are generally more socially libertarian than rightists, at least in the U.S.

The world over, naturally. But, just as with rightists, there are authoritarian leftists. These aren't nearly in the majority (they're Stalinists, mostly). There are also socially-libertarian rightists, or "Liberals", as they used to be called before American politics fucked the terms up.

Equalization of money requires that people decide that they will have equalization of money. Nothing more.

ROFLMAO. No one with, a law degree for instance will decide that he will only make as much as a janitor. He, like the janitor, will try to make as much money as he can. He will do so because he can exchange that money for what he wants and needs.

Equalisation of income requires enforcement from above, or it can never happen.

Why do you refuse to think about what your ideas will require to put them into practice? Is it because it is unpalettable?

Not at all, market forces base upon other things besides how useful the job is, or how well the person does it.

Are you advocating a free-market economy? Or are you one of these idiots who thinks the bureaucratic planning that is required by communist regimes isn't really necessary?

Then society would not support an acupuncturist, and the acupuncturist would have to find something else to do that he likes to do that society would support.

You said "all professions are equally useful", now you contradict yourself. A profesion whose services that society does not demand is by definition useless.

Or, a person could come to society declaring the profession they'd like to be in. Society would democratically decide whether or not to support the person in question.

Unless you're actually talking about a free market economy, where the people in a society decide what they want and pay for it, its not clear that you're saying anything. People who relocate for professional reasons always (if they're smart) examine the job prospects for their profession in a particular place in deciding where exactly to go, even if they just read the jobs section of the paper. People who want services will make their needs known, if they don't those needs won't get filled.

Are you talking about a free-market economy?

The society would not choose to import if the society wishes to be self-sufficient, even if it's slightly less "efficient" (what an overused word) to manufacture within the society.

So people will decide to pay artificially high prices? Your idea needs fundamental changes in human nature. No one will spend more than they believe they need to. They won't pay $5 for an item that they can get for $3.50.

By having everyone in society making sure that nobody earns anything on the side, or by having society banning money altogether.

See above, and please, do the thinking required to show how your ideas can be put into practive, rather than assuming that real human beings will simply follow your rules. You've gone down the same road as Marx in this respect.

False, on the second count. The first part about capitalism is technically true, but irrelevent. If a capitalist society has most of the power concentrated, then it will run roughshod over the rest of the people as it wishes.

Wrong. No communist society has given its people freedom and remained communist. East Germany gave its people freedom of movement, and lasted a few months.

As for your remarks on capitalism, unsubstantiated hysteria.

I have no intentions of having a small group of people decide anything. Society as a whole should decide most things, and individuals decide the rest.

Define society. The closest anyone has come to a definition is "a group of individuals who live together", so what you're saying is that individuals should decide most things, and individuals should decide the rest. Do you normally speak in tautologies?

Or do you really mean the Government of a society should decide most things. Once again, you refuse to do the basic thinking about what is required to make your ideas work in practice.

As I stated earlier, people don't have to be equal. If everyone was equal, then we wouldn't have the division of labor that we have now. Socialists accept that people have different talents and abilities, which is why we have policies that help people to utilize their talents and abilities.

Then why should their different talents (which are of different levels of use to society) be compensated the same way? Should not the more useful and talented and useful get more, as they better fill the needs of society.

Also, if you treat the doctor the same as the janitor, or the idle drunk, the doctor will simply leave for somewhere he is treated better.

Communists considered these questions, and the Berlin Wall was the result.

As for your remarks on capitalism, unsubstantiated hysteria.

As for your remarks on Communism, unsubstantiated hysteria.

See? I can play the bullshit game, too.

As for your remarks on Communism, unsubstantiated hysteria.

With over 100 million deaths, you're talking out of your arse.

Fascism is often described as "hyper capitalism." How is this consistent with left-wing policies?

State control over the economy is "hyper-capitalism"? What would be "hyper-communism"? Presumably the same as anarcho-capitalism?

Leftists are generally more socially libertarian than rightists, at least in the U.S

Yet they say anyone with faith must be hounded from public office.

This is where I stopped reading.

Presumably because of illiteracy.

The difference is completely relevant. The biggest reason that people choose their particular careers is because they like doing what they do.

My point was that no organism does anything without a reason. Understanding the differences between the reasons is not essential to understand that point.

No, the reasons to work in communism is that people enjoy working, in certain instances, and also enjoy living comfortably. Communism is the only system which maximizes both aspects of work.

You've failed to read my posts.

Communism has never guaranteed the living standard its advocates claim its able to bring. It has always caused living standards to drop. Removing the economic incentive to work means that people must be forced.

If Communism maximises both aspects of work, why are people so keen to leave that they make rafts out of old cars to get away, or brave mines, barbed-wire fences, and AK-toting guards with orders to shoot-on-sight?

Why did the USSR have several famines, and perpetual bread lines, if communism gives comforable living?

ROFLMAO. No one with, a law degree for instance will decide that he will only make as much as a janitor. He, like the janitor, will try to make as much money as he can. He will do so because he can exchange that money for what he wants and needs.People with law degrees do pro bono work all the time. So clearly, as I've stated numerous times, people have other things in mind than income.


Equalisation of income requires enforcement from above, or it can never happen.Are you not reading? There is no "above."


Why do you refuse to think about what your ideas will require to put them into practice? Is it because it is unpalettable?I've thought about what my ideas would require to put them into practice, and it's perfectly palettable. Unless, of course, you don't like democracy.


Are you advocating a free-market economy? Or are you one of these idiots who thinks the bureaucratic planning that is required by communist regimes isn't really necessary?No, I'm saying that the only thing that should matter in a job is that it's necessary, and that the person doing it does it well. Given that the market values other things than those two things, means that the market is ultimately inferior.


You said "all professions are equally useful", now you contradict yourself. A profesion whose services that society does not demand is by definition useless.And therefore that profession would not exist. Which means that my statement "all professions are equally useful" is not a contradiction, because it talks only of things which exist.


Unless you're actually talking about a free market economy, where the people in a society decide what they want and pay for it, its not clear that you're saying anything. People who relocate for professional reasons always (if they're smart) examine the job prospects for their profession in a particular place in deciding where exactly to go, even if they just read the jobs section of the paper. People who want services will make their needs known, if they don't those needs won't get filled.I'm talking about an economy where the people decide what they want and then produce it.


Are you talking about a free-market economy?No, though you have to keep in mind that there are socialists who do support the idea of a market.


So people will decide to pay artificially high prices? Your idea needs fundamental changes in human nature. No one will spend more than they believe they need to. They won't pay $5 for an item that they can get for $3.50.Yes, if they believe that in the long run they will be better off. For instance, many people advocate the idea of the U.S. becoming self-sufficient with regard to oil. This is because importing oil has led to other costs not initially associated with importing the oil.


See above, and please, do the thinking required to show how your ideas can be put into practive, rather than assuming that real human beings will simply follow your rules. You've gone down the same road as Marx in this respect.No, I'm assuming that real human beings will democratically decide what they want to do. If they decide to get together and form a socialist (or any other type of) society, then they should be allowed to do so democratically. I wouldn't force socialism on anyone, but, of course, ultimately after a millennium, everyone would choose socialism if they're willing to put the work into it.


Wrong. No communist society has given its people freedom and remained communist.Ever hear of the Paris Commune?

East Germany gave its people freedom of movement, and lasted a few months.The U.S.S.R. did not decide that it wanted to become authoritarian because it wanted to be communist, it decided to become communist because it felt that that was the best way to implement their authoritarian ideals.


As for your remarks on capitalism, unsubstantiated hysteria.Really? Name one capitalistic society that has been neither militarily not economically imperialistic.


Define society. The closest anyone has come to a definition is "a group of individuals who live together", so what you're saying is that individuals should decide most things, and individuals should decide the rest. Do you normally speak in tautologies?Your definition is half correct. Society is "a group of individuals who live together....for a common interest." Naturally, there will be decisions that an individual may make which don't impact the common interest that society would have.


Or do you really mean the Government of a society should decide most things. Once again, you refuse to do the basic thinking about what is required to make your ideas work in practice.I'm saying that society should decide things via direct democracy. This means either that there is no government, or that society is the government, depending on your viewpoint.


Then why should their different talents (which are of different levels of use to society) be compensated the same way? Should not the more useful and talented and useful get more, as they better fill the needs of society.No, all talents (that society decides it will pay for) are of equal use to society, otherwise society would not decide to pay to support those people.


Also, if you treat the doctor the same as the janitor, or the idle drunk, the doctor will simply leave for somewhere he is treated better.If you have no janitors, then the doctor will have to do some of the work that a janitor would do if they existed. This means that doctors would get to operate, and clean up the pools of blood afterwards. I'd think that a doctor would prefer to simply stick to doctoring.
Doctors, like most other professionals, are doctors because they want to help people. Ever hear of Doctors Without Borders?
And society would not support idle drunks, so I won't mention them.


Communists considered these questions, and the Berlin Wall was the result.I maintain that, aside from a few societies that existed briefly, that Communism hasn't existed on a national scale. The argument here might be that Communism on a national scale is untenable. But to argue that the U.S.S.R., China, etc. were Communist nations when they don't even fit the definition of Communism is rather silly. But do as you wish.

State control over the economy is "hyper-capitalism"? What would be "hyper-communism"? Presumably the same as anarcho-capitalism?Fascism doesn't involve total state control over the economy, only parts of it.


Yet they say anyone with faith must be hounded from public office.Leftists are more tolerant of people of different faiths than rightists usually are. However, leftists recognize the fact that religion has no place in government. People are free to have whichever faith they choose, provided they don't institute a theocracy.


My point was that no organism does anything without a reason. Understanding the differences between the reasons is not essential to understand that point.It is if you try to remove one reason and magnify another. This is illustrated below.


You've failed to read my posts.

Communism has never guaranteed the living standard its advocates claim its able to bring. It has always caused living standards to drop. Because none of the Communist societies that have existed lasted long enough to do so before authoritarians took them over and killed the communists.

Removing the economic incentive to work means that people must be forced.Sigh. You don't dispute that people work for different reasons. You don't dispute that "economic incentive" is not even near the top of the list. So why would removing a reason that people don't even list as a major reason to work mean that people "must" be forced to work?


If Communism maximises both aspects of work, why are people so keen to leave that they make rafts out of old cars to get away, or brave mines, barbed-wire fences, and AK-toting guards with orders to shoot-on-sight?I suppose that they did those things because the Communism that they were escaping was Communism in name only.


Why did the USSR have several famines, and perpetual bread lines, if communism gives comforable living?The first famine which the Bolsheviks exascerbated was to kill the Ukrainians who were trying to institute Communism. The rest were due to the U.S.S.R having a flawed, non-Communist system.

People with law degrees do pro bono work all the time. So clearly, as I've stated numerous times, people have other things in mind than income.

They don't do it all the time. Some lawyers do some pro-bono work some of the time.

Are you not reading? There is no "above."

How do you ensure equality of income? Tell me how its enforced, except by having a government with total powers. You do realise to ensure equality of income, people will have to have many rights removed, their property rights, and right to privacy for starters.

I've thought about what my ideas would require to put them into practice, and it's perfectly palettable. Unless, of course, you don't like democracy.

Claiming to have thought about something, and actually doing so are different things. You've shown no evidence of having thought about your ideas in depth.

No, I'm saying that the only thing that should matter in a job is that it's necessary, and that the person doing it does it well. Given that the market values other things than those two things, means that the market is ultimately inferior.

Wrong, what you see as necessary may not agree with what the market sees as necessary, but all the people participating in a market economy pay for what they as necessary. To suggest anything else is legitimate is to suggest a government-controlled command economy.

And therefore that profession would not exist. Which means that my statement "all professions are equally useful" is not a contradiction, because it talks only of things which exist.

Yes it is. If all professions were equally useful, the market system of supply and demand would ensure that they are already paid equally, the only variations would be scaricity (which would push the price of services up), and efficiency.

I'm talking about an economy where the people decide what they want and then produce it.

A market economy in other words.

No, though you have to keep in mind that there are socialists who do support the idea of a market.

They might think market stalls on a Sunday morning are quaint, but they don't support a market economy.

Yes, if they believe that in the long run they will be better off. For instance, many people advocate the idea of the U.S. becoming self-sufficient with regard to oil. This is because importing oil has led to other costs not initially associated with importing the oil.

Either way, no one does anything without a pay off. In the case of domestic oil, the pay off is the Saudis not having money to finance Islamofascist indoctrination.

No, I'm assuming that real human beings will democratically decide what they want to do. If they decide to get together and form a socialist (or any other type of) society, then they should be allowed to do so democratically.

In that case, you are not talking about democracy, you are talking about mob rule. The difference is that mob rule doesn't respect individual rights, democracy must.

Democratic decision to form a socialist society (unless it can be proven that it is absolutely unanimous) means taking away all property rights for starters. To make it work, freedom of movement must be suppressed or people will just go somewhere else.

I wouldn't force socialism on anyone, but, of course, ultimately after a millennium, everyone would choose socialism if they're willing to put the work into it.

What a pile of propagandistic hogwash.

The U.S.S.R. did not decide that it wanted to become authoritarian because it wanted to be communist, it decided to become communist because it felt that that was the best way to implement their authoritarian ideals.

Authoritarian government is the only way to implement communism. Every attempt to introduce communism has required authoritarian policies, and the relaxtion of those policies (especially in the socio-political fields, or freedom of movement) inevitably leads to the collapse of the state.

Neither you nor anyone else has proven otherwiese.

Really? Name one capitalistic society that has been neither militarily not economically imperialistic.

Define "economically imperialistic". I imagine your definition will boil down to "knows when to invest in something profitable"

Post-war Germany springs to mind.

Your definition is half correct. Society is "a group of individuals who live together....for a common interest."

Common interest? A cursory glance at any Parliament in a nation with free and fair elections will tell you that you're spouting rubbish. If they all had common interests, there's be no conflict, and everyone would vote the same way.

Naturally, there will be decisions that an individual may make which don't impact the common interest that society would have.

But society is a group of individuals, so talking about the so-called "common interest that society would have" means merely that the rights of some individuals are sacrificed for the rights of others.

An individual may make decisions that don't violate the rights of any other individual.

I'm saying that society should decide things via direct democracy. This means either that there is no government, or that society is the government, depending on your viewpoint.

Utopian BS. There will always be a government, and direct democracy is impractical for large groups, and always fails to respect individual rights. Government is necessary to protect the rights of individuals from the ravages of the mob.

Clearly you haven't thought about this.

No, all talents (that society decides it will pay for) are of equal use to society, otherwise society would not decide to pay to support those people.

"Those people"? Which people? The ones whose talents they value. Supply and demand. Some talents are less useful in certain societies at certain times. Talents that relate to keeping horses have become less useful in Western nations because horses aren't used as much.

Scarcity also plays a part in determining the value of a particular person's talent. The talents required to be a janitor are commonplace. Virtually anyone could do it, but the talents required to he a heart surgeon are far more scarce, so the heart surgeon's talents must attract more value than the janitor's. Simple market economics, scarcity drives up price.

If you have no janitors, then the doctor will have to do some of the work that a janitor would do if they existed. This means that doctors would get to operate, and clean up the pools of blood afterwards. I'd think that a doctor would prefer to simply stick to doctoring.

What are you babbling about?

A doctor, under your system, would be paid no more than a janitor as the talents of saving a life through medicine are of the same value as the ability to push a mop. Most doctors would go to another place where their talents are valued more highly.

You would need a Berlin Wall to make your system work, either that or a fundamental change in human nature. Either way, you've shown once again that you haven't thought about what you propose.

Doctors, like most other professionals, are doctors because they want to help people. Ever hear of Doctors Without Borders?
And society would not support idle drunks, so I won't mention them.

Don't jump to conclusions you can't justify.

I maintain that, aside from a few societies that existed briefly, that Communism hasn't existed on a national scale. The argument here might be that Communism on a national scale is untenable. But to argue that the U.S.S.R., China, etc. were Communist nations when they don't even fit the definition of Communism is rather silly. But do as you wish.

You can maintain what you like. The fact is that these nations all tried to implement Marx's ideas (you do remember those, The Communist Manifesto), and all found that to do so they needed to impose harsh repressions on the people.

I have already answered this point before, before you post, could you bloody well read it. I read what you post, return the courtesy.

Fascism doesn't involve total state control over the economy, only parts of it.

Most socialism doesn't invlove total state control over the economy, only communism requires total state control.

Leftists are more tolerant of people of different faiths than rightists usually are.

Propaganda, and a lie.

However, leftists recognize the fact that religion has no place in government. People are free to have whichever faith they choose, provided they don't institute a theocracy.

So, the people have a democratic right to impose socialism, but not theocracy. Why not?

Of course, as you say leftists are tolerant of people of faith.

By the way, while there are religious people in a democratic nation, religion has a place in government because their faith may play a part in deciding how they vote. The only way to completely remove religion from government is to elimimate religion from society, or impose a secular dictatorship.

It is if you try to remove one reason and magnify another.

No, it isn't.

Because none of the Communist societies that have existed lasted long enough to do so before authoritarians took them over and killed the communists.

Rubbish. I have already shown why communism requires authoritarian measures. You refuse to read my posts.

Sigh. You don't dispute that people work for different reasons. You don't dispute that "economic incentive" is not even near the top of the list. So why would removing a reason that people don't even list as a major reason to work mean that people "must" be forced to work?

Are you saying that people go down and clean the sewers because they like it? Some special affinity with standing 18 inches deep in shit? What about checkout chicks? People who work at McDonalds? Most of the latter take the job precisely because it will provide ready cash.

I never said that economic incentive is not near the top of the list. You said that.

I suppose that they did those things because the Communism that they were escaping was Communism in name only.

Rubbish.

The first famine which the Bolsheviks exascerbated was to kill the Ukrainians who were trying to institute Communism. The rest were due to the U.S.S.R having a flawed, non-Communist system.

More rubbish.

On the subject, do rubbish collectors work because they love it? Some might, most wouldn't.

They don't do it all the time. Some lawyers do some pro-bono work some of the time.They do it enough of the time. The reason they don't do it all the time is that if they did, they wouldn't have anything to live on, in a capitalist society.


How do you ensure equality of income? Tell me how its enforced, except by having a government with total powers. You do realise to ensure equality of income, people will have to have many rights removed, their property rights, and right to privacy for starters.Not at all. There is a difference between personal, and private (or commercial) property. Personal property would still be respected. Since there is no moral right to commercial property, there isn't any reason to respect that right.
Society is capable of ensuring that everyone has equality of income.

Wrong, what you see as necessary may not agree with what the market sees as necessary, but all the people participating in a market economy pay for what they as necessary. To suggest anything else is legitimate is to suggest a government-controlled command economy.If what I view as necessary is not held by the majority, then the majority will decide what is necessary. But I highly doubt that the majority would view things totally differently than I do.


Yes it is. If all professions were equally useful, the market system of supply and demand would ensure that they are already paid equally, the only variations would be scaricity (which would push the price of services up), and efficiency.Except that the market system is flawed, for reasons I've already explained.


A market economy in other words.No. Market economies don't determine what people will pay for a good, they determine the minimum that a person will pay for a good. There are other things about market economies that wouldn't apply here, either, such as purchasing or producing on a whim.


They might think market stalls on a Sunday morning are quaint, but they don't support a market economy.If you say so.


Either way, no one does anything without a pay off. In the case of domestic oil, the pay off is the Saudis not having money to finance Islamofascist indoctrination.Yes, in this instance. The idea of being self-sufficient might be to help ensure that other countries don't have undue influence on your policies, such as the example you gave about the Saudis influencing Islamofascist indoctrination.


In that case, you are not talking about democracy, you are talking about mob rule. The difference is that mob rule doesn't respect individual rights, democracy must.It would be mob rule without a Constitution, yes.


Democratic decision to form a socialist society (unless it can be proven that it is absolutely unanimous) means taking away all property rights for starters. To make it work, freedom of movement must be suppressed or people will just go somewhere else.It doesn't have to be unanimous, but the people who would stay there when they don't agree with it would do so because it benefits them.
Freedom of movement wouldn't have to be suppressed for the people who realize that they're better off in the society that I propose. Certainly there are people who wouldn't be, and they're welcome to form whichever societies they like.


What a pile of propagandistic hogwash.Uh huh.


Authoritarian government is the only way to implement communism. Every attempt to introduce communism has required authoritarian policies, and the relaxtion of those policies (especially in the socio-political fields, or freedom of movement) inevitably leads to the collapse of the state.

Neither you nor anyone else has proven otherwiese.Then clearly you've never heard of the Paris Commune. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune


Define "economically imperialistic". I imagine your definition will boil down to "knows when to invest in something profitable"I mean subsidizing your own products and then exporting them with the goals of putting similar industries in other countries out of business.


Post-war Germany springs to mind.You mean Post War Germany that benefitted from the Marshall Plan?


Common interest? A cursory glance at any Parliament in a nation with free and fair elections will tell you that you're spouting rubbish. If they all had common interests, there's be no conflict, and everyone would vote the same way.Uh, I said "A" common interest, not all common interests. In most cases, the common interest is so that people don't have to subsistence farm/hunt/food gather, which is what people would be doing without societies.


But society is a group of individuals, so talking about the so-called "common interest that society would have" means merely that the rights of some individuals are sacrificed for the rights of others.Nope, either everyone would have the right to do something, or nobody would.


An individual may make decisions that don't violate the rights of any other individual.Which is what I meant when I said that there would be individual decisions which wouldn't concern society.


Utopian BS. There will always be a government, and direct democracy is impractical for large groups, and always fails to respect individual rights. Government is necessary to protect the rights of individuals from the ravages of the mob.No, Constitutions are necessary to protect the rights of individuals. Governments haven't exactly done an exemplary job of upholding Constitutions, I don't see how direct democracy could do worse.
And "large groups" is subjective, but groups larger than direct democracy can handle are unnecessary, anyway. Of course, I realize that "unnecessary" is subjective, also.


"Those people"? Which people? The ones whose talents they value. Supply and demand. Some talents are less useful in certain societies at certain times. Talents that relate to keeping horses have become less useful in Western nations because horses aren't used as much.And, thus, people would have to adapt to what society wants.


Scarcity also plays a part in determining the value of a particular person's talent. The talents required to be a janitor are commonplace. Virtually anyone could do it, but the talents required to he a heart surgeon are far more scarce, so the heart surgeon's talents must attract more value than the janitor's. Simple market economics, scarcity drives up price.I'd think that being a janitor would be more undesirable than being a heart surgeon, thus meaning the janitor would need to be paid more than what "simple market economics" would suggest.


A doctor, under your system, would be paid no more than a janitor as the talents of saving a life through medicine are of the same value as the ability to push a mop. Most doctors would go to another place where their talents are valued more highly.Most doctors would go to a place where their talents are needed.


You would need a Berlin Wall to make your system work, either that or a fundamental change in human nature. Either way, you've shown once again that you haven't thought about what you propose.It would need people to realize the fact that the system that I propose is most likely in their best interests.


You can maintain what you like. The fact is that these nations all tried to implement Marx's ideas (you do remember those, The Communist Manifesto), and all found that to do so they needed to impose harsh repressions on the people.Hence the key word: "tried." They failed to do so, therefore they weren't Communist.


Most socialism doesn't invlove total state control over the economy, only communism requires total state control.Eh. People tend to use the words interchangeably.


Propaganda, and a lie.Uh. Are you familiar with the U.S. at all?


So, the people have a democratic right to impose socialism, but not theocracy. Why not?People are welcome to break off from society and form their own theocracy.


Of course, as you say leftists are tolerant of people of faith.More so than a Fundamentalist Christian is of a Fundamentalist Muslim, and neither is usually on the left.


By the way, while there are religious people in a democratic nation, religion has a place in government because their faith may play a part in deciding how they vote. The only way to completely remove religion from government is to elimimate religion from society, or impose a secular dictatorship.It's fine if it influences the way they vote, provided there are also non-religious reasons that they vote that way.


No, it isn't.Interesting. Most market economists would disagree with you. They'd say that the reasons that people do things are important. For instance, someone might want something that is both cheap and convenient. Most things aren't, they're either cheap or convenient. So the reasons that people would choose one or the other would influence further investment into said fields.


Rubbish. I have already shown why communism requires authoritarian measures. You refuse to read my posts.False. You have shown why one man's opinion of Communism requires authoritarian measures. As I have stated, there are other Communist thinkers aside from Marx.


Are you saying that people go down and clean the sewers because they like it? Some special affinity with standing 18 inches deep in shit? What about checkout chicks? People who work at McDonalds? Most of the latter take the job precisely because it will provide ready cash. Yes, because they don't have any other choice. Society isn't structured to provide those people with the ability to do what they would want to for a career. If society was structured in such a way, they wouldn't do those jobs.


I never said that economic incentive is not near the top of the list. You said that.And this is the first time you've disputed it.


Rubbish.Yes, don't let the facts get in your way.


More rubbish.Aww, ignoring history that doesn't agree with your limited viewpoint?

They do it enough of the time. The reason they don't do it all the time is that if they did, they wouldn't have anything to live on, in a capitalist society.

In other words, they have an economic incentive to do essential work.

Not at all. There is a difference between personal, and private (or commercial) property. Personal property would still be respected. Since there is no moral right to commercial property, there isn't any reason to respect that right. Society [the government] is capable of ensuring that everyone has equality of income.

There is no difference in a society where property rights are respected. One aspect of property rights is the right to charge a fee for its use. There is a moral right to commercial property, the generation of income through the property you own is a practice that harms no one, and violates none of their rights, in fact it benefits society because you will have the purchasing power that will stimulate more economic activity.

The government can only ensure equality of income if property and privacy rights are removed. There is no moral basis for ending privacy.

If what I view as necessary is not held by the majority, then the majority will decide what is necessary. But I highly doubt that the majority would view things totally differently than I do.

Really.

Except that the market system is flawed, for reasons I've already explained.

What you mean by that is that other people have different priorities to you, and should be forced into line. Why should people not be able to set their own priorities and act accordingly in the marketplace?

No. Market economies don't determine what people will pay for a good, they determine the minimum that a person will pay for a good. There are other things about market economies that wouldn't apply here, either, such as purchasing or producing on a whim.

In other words, what people are prepared to pay. Generally, people try to get the most gain for the minimum of money, meaning minimum prices. People with different priorities will behave differently, but most of us look for the bargain.

It doesn't have to be unanimous, but the people who would stay there when they don't agree with it would do so because it benefits them.
Freedom of movement wouldn't have to be suppressed for the people who realize that they're better off in the society that I propose. Certainly there are people who wouldn't be, and they're welcome to form whichever societies they like.

It must be unanimous, or it rides roughshod over people's rights.

In other words, you haven't done your homework, and are falling back on the old Marxist fallacy of people falling into your model.

Under your system, the most productive and talented won't be better off, they will be worse off. For their superior qualities, they will receive no greater reward than the idle drunk.

They will seek life elsewhere. For your society to retain its talent, it will have to suppress freedom of movement so they can't go, and control all the flows of information within, and stop information coming in from outside. If you don't, they will see the life outside, they will see that their talents are given the recognition and reward they deserve, and they will resist you.

If your society fails to retain its talented members, it must collapse.

I mean subsidizing your own products and then exporting them with the goals of putting similar industries in other countries out of business.

Not a free market practice. It is state interference in the economy.

You mean Post War Germany that benefitted from the Marshall Plan?

The Marshall Plan kept them alive for the first crucial years. Becoming independent of aid, and creating the Miracle Economy was something they did themselves.

Uh, I said "A" common interest, not all common interests. In most cases, the common interest is so that people don't have to subsistence farm/hunt/food gather, which is what people would be doing without societies.

That's weak, even for you.

Nope, either everyone would have the right to do something, or nobody would.

Clearly you've not read what I said. There is no single entity called society with definable interests. There are only individuals, and each individual has his own interest. Talking about "society's interests" really means sacrificing the rights of some individuals for the interests of others.

Which is what I meant when I said that there would be individual decisions which wouldn't concern society.

No, it isn't. If it was, you would have put it as I did, as my statement contained no ambiguity about the position of an individual.

It would be mob rule without a Constitution, yes.

The Soviet Union had a Constitution. National Socialist Germany had a Constitution.

Then clearly you've never heard of the Paris Commune.

In the Commune, we find evidence of authoritarian measures, such as the Communards stealing the property of the Church, and forcing churches to open themselves to state surveillence.

No, Constitutions are necessary to protect the rights of individuals. Governments haven't exactly done an exemplary job of upholding Constitutions, I don't see how direct democracy could do worse.

A Constitution is a document, it doesn't do anything. Government is required to administer in accordance with the Constitution.

As for "direct democracy", your logic is faulty. Its along the lines of "my cat has four legs. That dog has four legs, therefore it is a cat". In your case "anything else must be better than government, 'direct democracy' is anything else, therefore it must be better"

You are going to have to provide more explaination.

And, thus, people would have to adapt to what society wants.

As in a market economy.

I'd think that being a janitor would be more undesirable than being a heart surgeon, thus meaning the janitor would need to be paid more than what "simple market economics" would suggest.

Nope. They are paid according to how much their services are valued, and according to the scarcity of people who can perform the job.

Most doctors would go to a place where their talents are needed.

Really? You've provided no explaination.

It would need people to realize the fact that the system that I propose is most likely in their best interests

You've proven my point. Your system is fundamentally incapable of tolerating dissent. The East German dictators tried to get people to realise that the communist system was better. People still tried to brave the wall, mines, barbed-wire, and AK-toting guards. You, like Marx, have utterly failed to account for the human equation. Do your homework, then defend your theory.

Hence the key word: "tried." They failed to do so, therefore they weren't Communist.

You don't read well, do you. I explained why the final utopian stage of communism is irrelevant to the discussion. I'll explain it again in big letters.

Marx failed to explain many things in The Communist Manifesto. These included:

Why state owned industries are more efficient than privately owned enterprises;

Why a state monopoly is a good thing, better than private-sector competition;

Why the state, given total powers in his plan, won't abuse these powers;

Why such an all-powerful state, governed by people who enjoy wielding these powers, will simply abolish itself at the appropriate time;

Why we must accept his false dilemma of communism versus his caricature of capitalism

The fifth ommission is the most important. Since he failed to explain it, the utpoian stateless, communist society is irrelevant to a discussion of communism.

All we have to consider that he does explain is his 10 point program, which I quoted, and tore to shread on page 6, or 7

Eh. People tend to use the words interchangeably.

Name five who do.

Uh. Are you familiar with the U.S. at all?

Yup, leftist intolerance of religion is rampant.

People are welcome to break off from society and form their own theocracy.

Why can people democratically impose socialism, but not a theocracy. Surely it is up to them. That is the case you made to me.

It's fine if it influences the way they vote, provided there are also non-religious reasons that they vote that way.

So, you claim to favour democracy, and now you dictate the voters' reason for how they vote.

What you said is totally unacceptable. People can vote for whomsoever they like, for whatever reason they like. If you don't like it, I'll chip in for your move to North Korea. Pack a lunch, people in communist countries tend not to eat well.

Interesting. Most market economists would disagree with you. They'd say that the reasons that people do things are important. For instance, someone might want something that is both cheap and convenient. Most things aren't, they're either cheap or convenient. So the reasons that people would choose one or the other would influence further investment into said fields.

You really didn't read my point, which was that no one does anything without a reason. To accept that point, a discussion of the various reasons isn't important, all that's important to recognise is that reason exists.

False. You have shown why one man's opinion of Communism requires authoritarian measures. As I have stated, there are other Communist thinkers aside from Marx.

And none more important. If you're going to make the implausable argument that communism doesn't require authoritarian measures, then make the argument. Show me why, and in doing so, you must take into account human nature, not simply dismiss it as you have throughout this discussion.

Yes, because they don't have any other choice. Society isn't structured to provide those people with the ability to do what they would want to for a career. If society was structured in such a way, they wouldn't do those jobs.

So, life's tough. There is a demand for those jobs, therefore someone will always be ready to do it, even if it is only Mr. Acne, our 15-year old after some spending money.

And this is the first time you've disputed it.

It is self-evident that economic incentive is a major reason for people to do anything. You only need to walk into McDonalds, or a supermarket to see that. Remove it, and you need something pretty damn compelling to replace it. An AK-47 is pretty damn compelling.

Yes, don't let the facts get in your way.

Given the lack of facts in your posts, I can't fathom what you mean by this.

Aww, ignoring history that doesn't agree with your limited viewpoint?

Given the lack of facts in your posts, I can't fathom what you mean by this.

Ignores the reality of human nature, an ugly and hideously flawed system.

Lets look at the USSR in terms of Marx's 10 points.

1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes: Done

2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax: Done

3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance: Not completed, though inheritance was heavily taxed and controlled

4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels: Done, with the additions of killing those who attempted to leave, and killing, or gaoling those who spoke out against the communist regime

5) Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly: Done

6) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state: Done

7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan: Done, with disasterous results

8) Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture: Done

9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country: Not done, thankfully, though Communist China tried it, see "Great Leap Forward".

10) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc: They didn't get to the stage of sending kids into the coal mines, but they did centralise all education within the state, ensuring that children would be thoroughly indoctrinated on communist thought.

Fascism doesn't involve total state control over the economy, only parts of it.

Either way, that's not capitalism. Capitalism means no government involvement in the economy, i.e. no business regulations, no corporate welfare, free-trade, etc.

Either way, that's not capitalism. Capitalism means no government involvement in the economy, i.e. no business regulations, no corporate welfare, free-trade, etc.

Then the USSR is not communist because in a true communist society the way marx invisioned had no state. Where as the government of the USSR was all-powerful.


Most socialism doesn't invlove total state control over the economy, only communism requires total state control.

socialism requires workers contol ~ not state control. If the state controls it and uses it for profit then its state-capitalism. True communism has no state, if there is no state then how can a state control the economy?

Marx failed to explain many things in The Communist Manifesto. These included:

Why state owned industries are more efficient than privately owned enterprises; State control does not equal socialism. Marx advocated workers control. Example would in a factory. Each worker had an equal 'share' in the factory. Each would get a fair wage( not equal) and all would share the profits. Of course this still lead to abuse.

Why a state monopoly is a good thing, better than private-sector competition;I believe he might have advocated state control of certain sectors(health, education etc) he was more about workers control.

Why the state, given total powers in his plan, won't abuse these powers; If your talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat ~ it is not a ticket for state control. It just means a instead of a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie(rich class) there is a 'dictatorship' of the working class. Of course again dictatorship of the proletariat can lead to misuse( Like Lenin)

Why such an all-powerful state, governed by people who enjoy wielding these powers, will simply abolish itself at the appropriate time; Again ~ the socialist stage is not supposed to be an all-powerful state like the USSR. Its supposed a workers democracy.

Why we must accept his false dilemma of communism versus his caricature of capitalism You & I don't have to accept it.

The fifth ommission is the most important. Since he failed to explain it, the utpoian stateless, communist society is irrelevant to a discussion of communism. He believed that the end goal of socialism would be a stateless, classless society ~ ie communism.

Then the USSR is not communist because in a true communist society the way marx invisioned had no state. Where as the government of the USSR was all-powerful.

Ye gods, can't you read. I already explained why the utopoan stateless aspect of Marxism was irrelevant, because he never explained how it could happen, or why the all-powerful state institutions he proposed would simply abolish themselves.

socialism requires workers contol ~ not state control. If the state controls it and uses it for profit then its state-capitalism. True communism has no state, if there is no state then how can a state control the economy?

Rubbish.

"Workers control" means that the workers appoint the board, and control the government. Those institutions still exist, its just that the workers are supposed to control them. Of course the problem is that the workers never willingly chose Communism, all communist parties have in common a lack of working-class participation, they are the province of the middle-class, and to an extent in the US, upper-class. So a dictatorship must be imposed to bring about communism. This is about the practical requirements of communism. Where Marx's theory meets reality.

Let me quote Marx's 10 point program. This 10 point program was meant to bring a nation to the stage where the state could abolish itself (though he never explained why, or how this would happen).



State control does not equal socialism. Marx advocated workers control. Example would in a factory. Each worker had an equal 'share' in the factory. Each would get a fair wage( not equal) and all would share the profits. Of course this still lead to abuse.

Did you read what Marx wrote, he spoke of centralising all economic activities within the state.

In any case, you, like Marx, fail to consider what is necessary to put the ideas into practice.

I believe he might have advocated state control of certain sectors(health, education etc) he was more about workers control.

You believe?! Have you even read and understood Marx?

Let me make some direct quotations:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Marx advocated total state control.

If your talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat ~ it is not a ticket for state control. It just means a instead of a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie(rich class) there is a 'dictatorship' of the working class. Of course again dictatorship of the proletariat can lead to misuse( Like Lenin)

Meaning workers appoint those who control the state, but there are still people in charge of the state, and Marx advoated total powers for that state, no restraints on that power. All he had to justify his idea that such power would be accepted and justly used is some wishy-washy twaddle along the lines of "The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole." He simply assumes that the people will fall into line, and play by his theoretical rules. An exceptionally stupid assumption, and the mark of a sloppy thinker who refuses to do his homework.

Obvious horseshit, and mere propaganda. Every party claims to be the party that holds the workers best interests to heart, even right of centre parties (who claim it in the context of superior economic policies providing more opportunities for all). No party delivers on its promise.

Again ~ the socialist stage is not supposed to be an all-powerful state like the USSR. Its supposed a workers democracy.

Rubbish, I explained this several times within this very thread. You haven't read it. This shows exceptional contempt, and I do take it personally. I read carefully each post I respond to as a mark of respect to the poster. I ask that the same respect be returned.

Moderators, if a poster shows obvious signs of not having read the thread, is not a bit of deletion in order?

You & I don't have to accept it.

Marx points to two possibilities, his hackneyed, false image of capitalism; and communism. A false dilemma which he thinks we must accept. This false dilemma is yet another mark of a sloppy writer. Why Marx is so revered is beyond me, me makes so many basic ommissions and mistakes, fails to make a full logical explaination of anything, and never takes reality into account. The Communist Manifesto is a simplistic piece of rubbish riddled with errors. There is nothing good to be said for this book.

He believed that the end goal of socialism would be a stateless, classless society ~ ie communism.

Christians believe that those who accept Christ will go to heaven. They don't provide a scientific explaination of how that happens. Nor does Marx provide a real explaination of how this stateless, classless society will happen. Simply (or simplistically) that it will happen.

Compuq, it is difficult to work out why you bothered. You make exactly the same errors as Marx, over a century later. You think people would learn.

I like the idea, but I think it will never work. One of the things that drive me to things, is to simply be better. Also I think that a commie contry, if formed proper would become curroupt over time, much like I think America is starting to do. (Back in the day you had free speech, and now I can't even make sexest jokes or racest jokes [I'm not racest, just some of them are fuckin funny]. I also have a funny feelin that our right to bear arms will be stripped soon)