NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello, fellow Generalites. In a few days, my class will hold a debate about capitalism versus communism. I will be arguing the communist side. Will those of you who are communists kindly tell me your perspectives on the advantages of communism and the flaws of capitalism and/or provide useful links? Thanks, I appreciate it!

All of your questions could be answered here....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/

Also a little thing here...
Here is what most of your capitalists will say to communism.
1."What incentive does a person have to work for, when they will get the same results whether they work harder or less, its creates lazyness!"

What incentive do people have for working hard or less now? If you work hard in your office or factory job, you get the same wage from your boss as before and now the boss always expects you to maintain and even increase that level of productivity. The only incentive for not working less, generally, is so that your boss dosn't get mad at you or fire you... this is a negative incentive.

Think about capitalism and socialism as a fishing boat:

On a capitalist fishing boat you have one captain (boss) and you and 4 other fishermen. The ship sails into the bay for 8 hours a day no matter how many fish you catch. What's your incentive to work harder than you have to? You are alienated from the results of your labor, so if you catch 20 fish or 200, you get paid the same wage whereas your boss has just increased his profits by 180 fish. If you don't catch at least 20 fish, then you get fired. If everyone is catching 200 fish, then maybe the market gets saturated and the boss decides he only needs 3 fishermen to catch enough fish to make money when he sells them at the fish market; so 2 of you get fired so that your boss can save on labor costs.

A communist fishing boat would be more like 5 of your friends going out on a boat you all owned. So since you would all benifit from the combined efforts, you would have an incentive to do a good job. If everyone was catching 200 fish, and you only needed 500 to have enough for people in your town, you could stop and go home early when you reached 500 fish. You would also want to divide up chores on the boat equally since a clean boat would make all of your lives easier aestetically and in your ability to catch fish.

2.Who will do the dirty work? People are greedy!

This is a tough one, I would suggest people divide the "dirty" work up.

It also seems people don't have a clue what communism really is.

Communism is a hypothetical social order in which there are no classes and consequently no state as an organ of class rule.

It is postulated that such a society will have little in the way of public authorities or "government" and that whatever is found to be useful will be "ultra-democratic" and rely heavily on internet referendums (direct democracy). These public authorities will almost exclusively be concerned with the large-scale co-ordination of production and distribution of goods and services, and most of their "decisions" are likely to be suggestive rather than compulsive.

There will be no formal "nation states" in a communist world, though many of the names may persist as geographic designations.

There will be no production of "commodities" -- goods and services produced for sale -- instead goods and services will be produced for use -- either by the producers themselves or freely given to those who will make good use of them.

There will be no "currency" as such; no money...though old currency units may be used for record-keeping purposes, they will have no independent utility.

Individual compensation will vary little, and that according to "need"...the ability to actually use what is appropriated from the public total.

People will have the freedom to gravitate to the "work" that they find most intrinsically rewarding for its own sake. But there will be considerable informal pressure to "work" at something useful. The stereotypical "lazy bum" will be an object of scorn and/or pity. Work that is so "bad" that no one wishes to do it will either be automated, shared out in some collective fashion so that no one has to do very much of it, or simply dispensed with altogether.

The social life of a communist society will be extraordinally libertarian; very few of the taboos and and even fewer of the regulations that presently exist will still survive. Religion, if it survives at all, will be in the nature of a hobby, without the power to influence people's lives in any significant way.

Prestige in a communist society will come from competence and reliability...the highest respect will go to those who've demonstrated their ability to perform especially useful work that many will want to emulate.

The most utterly detested crime in communist society will be the attempt to "hire" wage-labor for the purpose of producing a "commodity". This will be regarded in the same way that we currently regard human sacrifice or chattel slavery...as an unspeakable horror and an attempt to "bring back" an old and disgustingly inhumane social order, namely capitalism.

Thus, the hypothetical features of a communist society, as extrapolated from the ideas of Marx and Engels.

Since such a social order has never existed for any significant period of time, we presently have no way of "knowing" if it will actually "work". More importantly, it is really unknown what kinds of things must be done and must be avoided to successfully manage the transition from capitalism to communism...although there are many theories about this. It seems likely that there will be several centuries of "trial and error" before the human species manages this transition successfully.

Also greed isn't a part of human nature. Just look at New Orleans, when people HAD water they never were "greedy with it" but when it was short they did become "greedy" with it. Greed is not based upon human nature, but upon supply of something.



I believe in Che´s theory of the "Socialist Man"

It is an unselfish person who makes daily sacrifices for the common good of the people; not for greed, not for money, not for more land and titles, but for a better future for everyone against imperialism. You work harder because you want to create a better world for your people. If money is on your mind, then you can move to the United States and exploit other nations for your god (money).

People in my area just are not all there.

:sniper: :mp5: Go get them comrade.

Excellent! Well obviously Communism has the Unbreakable shield of the Moral Aim. Who can disagree with Equality? Also,i would like to point out that MOST communist supporters nowadays would probobly benefit more from the capitalist ways, but feel a deep guilt or urge to help the less fortunate :) i myself am Middle Class but would gladly give up all my wealth to ensure Equality

Hello, fellow Generalites. In a few days, my class will hold a debate about capitalism versus communism. I will be arguing the communist side. Will those of you who are communists kindly tell me your perspectives on the advantages of communism and the flaws of capitalism and/or provide useful links? Thanks, I appreciate it!

Your teacher forgot an important third: anarchism
It has played an important role throughout history and is not just another version of socialism or liberalism, you should look up some stuff about it, and let your teacher know about it. It's allways fun to point out teacher's mistakes.:p

Speaking in a russian accent through the entire debate will only lend believability to your arguement.who knows more about communism that the russians?

Oh yeh and If any capitalist makes reference to Russia in there arguement against communism they obviously dont know enough to have an opinion and obviously are effected by propaganda.

Speaking in a russian accent through the entire debate will only lend believability to your arguement.who knows more about communism that the russians?

The Chinese?

The Mongolians?

The Koreans?

The Vietnamese?

The Cambodians?

Cubans too

I didn't know the Mongolians were communist :confused:

Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon.

-- Winston Churchill

The Chinese?

The Mongolians?

The Koreans?

The Vietnamese?

The Cambodians?

russia is the stereotypical communist country.theres a better words for that,but i cant remember,might be archetypal.my point is that russia is the communist country everyone knows about.

why am i even explaining myself,it was a joke

Speaking in a russian accent through the entire debate will only lend believability to your arguement.who knows more about communism that the russians?
All the third world countries who practice communism.

If someone brings up past communist dictators, remind them that those were not indeed true communists, but fascist socialists. Explain to your class that communism is a very democratic system because it's giving power to the working class majority.

Your teacher forgot an important third: anarchism
It has played an important role throughout history and is not just another version of socialism or liberalism, you should look up some stuff about it, and let your teacher know about it. It's allways fun to point out teacher's mistakes.:p
You're telling me. I do that all the time. :p

Teachers hate me for it, too.

@ the OP, I won't say much on Communism, because I don't believe in it. I'm a libertarian leaning slightly to the left, supporting some economic regulation but not too much.... oh, and I don't believe in abortion. It's got nothing to do with religion actually. One day I ought to explain that, I guess...

Communism Revisited
*visits*

Nope, still rips the soul out of the hearts of everyone.

*leaves*

*is dragged back in*

Oh yeh and If any capitalist makes reference to Russia in there arguement against communism they obviously dont know enough to have an opinion and obviously are effected by propaganda.
If anyone uses Russia as an arguement against Communism, use Russia as an arguement against Capitalism. Communist Russia=First World Superpower; Capitalist Russia=Second World Craphole.

Communist Russia=First World Superpower; Capitalist Russia=Second World Craphole.
Actualy, First World was Nato and it's allies, Second World was the communist block, and Third world were non alighed socialist and capitalists (whom were mostly developing nations). Hence the steriotype of a "Third World" nation being an undeveloped nation.

Not to be the politicaly correct policeman, but a better wording is that The United Soviet Socialist Republics (=/= Russia) was a superpower, and Russia ("Sucsessor" to the USSR, and Capitalist) is indeed an underdeveloped craphole ravenged with street crime and poverty.

Something else you should prepare for is a response to what criticisms they might have about Stalin's dictatorship (not communist, but the west has portrayed him that way).


Edit: I'd also suggest reading up on trotskyist Communism (fourth international)

Actualy, First World was Nato and it's allies, Second World was the communist block, and Third world were non alighed socialist and capitalists (whom were mostly developing nations). Hence the steriotype of a "Third World" nation being an undeveloped nation.

Not to be the politicaly correct policeman, but a better wording is that The United Soviet Socialist Republics (=/= Russia) was a superpower, and Russia ("Sucsessor" to the USSR, and Capitalist) is indeed an underdeveloped craphole ravenged with street crime and poverty.
Your wording is much better. Say that in the debate.

If someone brings up past communist dictators, remind them that those were not indeed true communists, but fascist socialists. Explain to your class that communism is a very democratic system because it's giving power to the working class majority.

The working middle class have the power here in the US. Unfortuantly, people in the last few decades have forgotten it. A lot of us have given up our abilities to make informed choices and instead base weak arguments on 7 second sound bites. We are told every day that we should feel guilty if we make it in life.

Fortunatly, there are a lot of us that still reject these ideas

If someone brings up past communist dictators, remind them that those were not indeed true communists, but fascist socialists. Explain to your class that communism is a very democratic system because it's giving power to the working class majority.

Nonsense, not only did these countries practice the various policies advocated by Marx, but the failures and crimes resulting from that were the result of communism.

Frankly, I can't see how anyone intelligent could be convinced by the revisionist crap on offer here.

The Mongolians were part of the Soviet sphere of influence.

the failures and crimes resulting from that were the result of communism.

Because there is no blood on the hands of capitalists. From Pinochet to Francisco Franco, there are alot more deaths caused by greed, nationalism, and personal gain, aspects of capitalism

If anyone uses Russia as an arguement against Communism, use Russia as an arguement against Capitalism. Communist Russia=First World Superpower; Capitalist Russia=Second World Craphole.

Lol, Russia was a craphole under communism, too, entirely dependent on Western trade for its survival. Hell, it had to import huge quantities of grain to prevent mass starvation.

Lol, Russia was a craphole under communism, too, entirely dependent on Western trade for its survival. Hell, it had to import huge quantities of grain to prevent mass starvation.
Meanwile the US imports almost everything it gets. The US is less self sufficient then the USSR was.

Because there is no blood on the hands of capitalists. From Pinochet to Francisco Franco, there are alot more deaths caused by greed, nationalism, and personal gain, aspects of capitalism

And benovolant communist leaders like Stalin and Kim Jong Ill have never caused anyone any harm to stay in power.

These arguments on both sides are weak at best, idiotic at worst.

Meanwile the US imports almost everything it gets. The US is less self sufficient then the USSR was.

Yes, but we don't require aid from other countries to keep a huge percentage of our population from starving.

*visits*

Nope, still rips the soul out of the hearts of everyone.

*leaves*

*is dragged back in*
http://www.luhring-design.com/photography/series/shut-up/shut-up-laces.jpg

http://www.luhring-design.com/photography/series/shut-up/shut-up-tied.gif

http://www.luhring-design.com/photography/series/shut-up/shut-up-pins.gif

Must. Not. Speak......

Because there is no blood on the hands of capitalists. From Pinochet to Francisco Franco, there are alot more deaths caused by greed, nationalism, and personal gain, aspects of capitalism

Franco was never a capitalist. He was socialist.

Anyway, you haven't engaged with any of my arguments.

Socialism is responsible for at least 170 million deaths.

-Snip-
Heh...That's...cute...

Socialism is responsible for at least 170 million deaths.
Which is utterly irrelevant for a guy that is supposed to argue for communism.

Here is a nice little thing for any debate to bring up: Peaceful, Non-Coercive Socialism really existed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

I can't believe people still support this failed Economic model!

Soivet Union- dead

Eastern Europe- Only Belarius is still Communist... Sorta

China- Communist in name only (swiched from Communism to Capitalist economy, now an Authoritative State)

North Korea- Still Communist, Still a Hell-hole, Still an Imploded... Everything (but the leaders live like KINGS!!!)

Cuba- A trainwrech that will abandon Communism as soon as Castro dies.

That pretty much sums it up.

Allow me to engage you
"Franco was never a capitalist. He was socialist."
Sorry, he was a Fascist who lead a military coup against the Spanish government. He was opposed by many groups, from the liberal government, to the Communist party (basically an offshoot of Stalin's USSR), the Marxists (more Trotskyist), and the Anarchists.

"Socialism is responsible for at least 170 million deaths."
You're likely referring to Stalin's purges, Mao's reform efforts, and the Cambodian dictator Pol-pot. Yes, they all had weak points. Stalin was what is known as a state capitalist (being that he had the same hierarchy and inequality but all within the state without money and with rank, as opposed to the same inequalities with money outside of a 'communist' state). He was no communist, he just happened to take control of a communist state. Mao's land reforms, while disastrous in many occasions, took China who had been previously still in the middle ages, and made it into an industrialised nation. Pol-pot lead a revolution trying to establish a feudal society of peasants and thus could be called 'Maoist' were it not for the fact that it's a feudalistic society, not a socialist one.

Also keep in mind that somewhere around 170 million deaths were arguably caused by people who called themselves communists, but how many deaths have been caused by capitalism, dog eat dog, one person winning and nine losing. All the wars fought to get to the top of the pyramid, all of the starvation while some overindulged themselves, the assimilation of cultures and genocides. Also keep in mind all of the efforts taken to stop communism.

Capitalism actively damages our world, through poverty, conflict, and oppression. I won't lie to everyone and say that communists havn't partook in violence, inequality or causing starvation, but socialists and anarchists aim to improve it, while capitalism is happy with a deadly status quo.

...socialists and anarchists aim to improve it (the world), while capitalism is happy with a deadly status quo.

Riiiight... Tell that to the people in the Soviet Gulags, or the victims of Mao's Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, or Pol Pot's four year rule of Cambodia that left a third of his country DEAD, and I haven't even MENTIONED Cuba or North Korea or any of the Eastern Europe countries (example: the Romanian Communists wound up infecting millions of their own CHILDREN with AIDS with tainted blood transfusions).

I can't believe people still support this failed Economic model!
Soivet Union- dead
Eastern Europe- Only Belarius is still Communist... Sorta
China- Communist in name only (swiched from Communism to Capitalist economy, now an Authoritative State)
North Korea- Still Communist, Still a Hell-hole, Still an Imploded... Everything (but the leaders live like KINGS!!!)
Cuba- A trainwrech that will abandon Communism as soon as Castro dies.
That pretty much sums it up.

What about Sweden, Norway, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, Cuba (bring up proof that it will abandon communism), and Venezuela ?

As long as there is inequality, there will be those who wish to bring justice.

What about Sweden, Norway, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, Cuba (bring up proof that it will abandon communism), and Venezuela ?

As long as there is inequality, there will be those who wish to bring justice.
Do you mean that you believe Sweden and Norway are socialist countries?
By the same standard people argue about the definition of "real" communism, those countries are capitalist welfare states, at best. :rolleyes:

Riiiight... Tell that to the people in the Soviet Gulags, or the victims of Mao's Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, or Pol Pot's four year rule of Cambodia that left a third of his country DEAD, and I haven't even MENTIONED Cuba or North Korea or any of the Eastern Europe countries (example: the Romanian Communists wound up infecting millions of their own CHILDREN with AIDS with tainted blood transfusions).

Also, you keep bringing up state capitalists, North Korea, Romania, Cambodia, not communists. Someone can justify their actions in the name of communism, but actions speak louder than words. Those leaders weren't communists.

Also, what great blasphemy has Cuba apparently committed?

What about Sweden, Norway, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, Cuba (bring up proof that it will abandon communism), and Venezuela ?

As long as there is inequality, there will be those who wish to bring justice.

Venezuela will only stay afloat because they have access to oil. That is the only reason.

Sweeden and Norway are having to role back some of their Universal Welfare benefits because it's becomming to costly to give everyone everything for free.

Vietnam is yet another Communist hellhole that has abandoned large parts of Communism in favor of Capitalism in order to have a working economy.

There you go.

Of the scandinavian countries, they are actually capitalist but they hold strong socialist views and socialist programs.

I don't like the dog eat dog of capitalism, and the inherent superficial being it creates, but it is more as to how you look at it, and there are plenty of situations better suited.
e.g, the boat. or perhaps two scientists competing for the better of the world, is not in the scope of community, the two working together for the same good, or even as such, they may as well join forces?

My still running issue though is why does it seem the overbearing of capitalism is that 'life is tough, there's no easy route, competition is key' ?

Sorry, he was a Fascist who lead a military coup against the Spanish government. He was opposed by many groups, from the liberal government, to the Communist party (basically an offshoot of Stalin's USSR), the Marxists (more Trotskyist), and the Anarchists.

Fascist=socialist. Besides, you haven't refuted anything. You've merely placed the Spanish Civil War as a fight between different socialists.

You're likely referring to Stalin's purges, Mao's reform efforts, and the Cambodian dictator Pol-pot. Yes, they all had weak points. Stalin was what is known as a state capitalist (being that he had the same hierarchy and inequality but all within the state without money and with rank, as opposed to the same inequalities with money outside of a 'communist' state). He was no communist, he just happened to take control of a communist state. Mao's land reforms, while disastrous in many occasions, took China who had been previously still in the middle ages, and made it into an industrialised nation. Pol-pot lead a revolution trying to establish a feudal society of peasants and thus could be called 'Maoist' were it not for the fact that it's a feudalistic society, not a socialist one.

There is no objective difference between state capitalism and socialism.

Pol-pot was the ultimate communist.

As I have explained, frequently on the Opinions on Communism thread, the crimes and failures of socialism are the result of socialism.

Also keep in mind that somewhere around 170 million deaths were arguably caused by people who called themselves communists, but how many deaths have been caused by capitalism, dog eat dog, one person winning and nine losing. All the wars fought to get to the top of the pyramid, all of the starvation while some overindulged themselves, the assimilation of cultures and genocides. Also keep in mind all of the efforts taken to stop communism.

You should learn what capitalism is, rather than pose silly characitures.

I almost forgot Nepal.

Anyhow, the Scandinavian countries are doing their best to keep socialism going.

Vietnam, while not the best example, still tries to hold onto socialist ideas to create a better world.

Most evolutionary theory believes that things that work continue to survive and that life improves as certain things get engraved into the human psyche. It is to argue against evolution to argue against socialism in the long run. To argue against it is to say that things won't ever get any better, people won't get any less greedy, people will always be this stupid.

All of your questions could be answered here....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/

Also a little thing here...
Here is what most of your capitalists will say to communism.
1."What incentive does a person have to work for, when they will get the same results whether they work harder or less, its creates lazyness!"

What incentive do people have for working hard or less now? If you work hard in your office or factory job, you get the same wage from your boss as before and now the boss always expects you to maintain and even increase that level of productivity. The only incentive for not working less, generally, is so that your boss dosn't get mad at you or fire you... this is a negative incentive.

Think about capitalism and socialism as a fishing boat:

On a capitalist fishing boat you have one captain (boss) and you and 4 other fishermen. The ship sails into the bay for 8 hours a day no matter how many fish you catch. What's your incentive to work harder than you have to? You are alienated from the results of your labor, so if you catch 20 fish or 200, you get paid the same wage whereas your boss has just increased his profits by 180 fish. If you don't catch at least 20 fish, then you get fired. If everyone is catching 200 fish, then maybe the market gets saturated and the boss decides he only needs 3 fishermen to catch enough fish to make money when he sells them at the fish market; so 2 of you get fired so that your boss can save on labor costs.

A communist fishing boat would be more like 5 of your friends going out on a boat you all owned. So since you would all benifit from the combined efforts, you would have an incentive to do a good job. If everyone was catching 200 fish, and you only needed 500 to have enough for people in your town, you could stop and go home early when you reached 500 fish. You would also want to divide up chores on the boat equally since a clean boat would make all of your lives easier aestetically and in your ability to catch fish.

I stopped reading here, since I was like "WTF IS THIS GUY SMOKING (or injecting, or sniffing or ingesting or any combination of the above)?"

I don't know what planet you grow up on, but using fishermen as an example is one of the worst ones you could have chosen especially since fishermen are paid for how much they haul in. If you have no fish to sell you don't get any money. If you get 500 fish you get paid the amount you worked. Not only that, in the capitalist system, you can move up.

Last time I worked hard, I got a raise :), and it was definately a capitalist system and I'm pretty sure many other people who have worked hard have gotten raises to. And even then, at least I can get a raise if lucky enough.

Unlike a Communist society. Where chances are, you're not getting a raise anytime within your lifetime.

People have always been greedy.

People have always been stupid.

Have you even MET the average man? This is the basic definition of a human being, withou these two qualities you don't have a human, you have something else.

Unlike a Communist society. Where chances are, you're not getting a raise anytime within your lifetime.
This thread os about a kid who has to argue in a debate pro Communism.

So don't confuse him by using the wrong words - under Communism, you wouldn't even get a wage.
You're talking about Socialism.

Fascist=socialist. Besides, you haven't refuted anything. You've merely placed the Spanish Civil War as a fight between different socialists.
There is no objective difference between state capitalism and socialism.
Pol-pot was the ultimate communist.
As I have explained, frequently on the Opinions on Communism thread, the crimes and failures of socialism are the result of socialism.
You should learn what capitalism is, rather than pose silly characitures.

Fascism isn't socialism. Nazis called themselves 'nationalist socialists', however in practice they weren't socialists. Fascists actively quell labour power and socialists believe it holy. Pol-Pot was delusional, yet happened to be a communist, what are you gonna do about it? He didn't know how to lead.
Socialism has problems in certain areas, but so does capitalism, so it's a trade off.

Laissez-faire Capitalism is free trade, complete competition, trade whatever to whoever. I'm familiar and I assume you are too. My argument is that it is innately undemocratic, because democracy means an equal voice for everyone, and capitalism certainly isn't about equality, so they innately contradict one another.

People have always been greedy.
People have always been stupid.
Have you even MET the average man? This is the basic definition of a human being, withou these two qualities you don't have a human, you have something else.

Yes, I go to public high school. However I have taken classes in psychology and I know enough to be able to say that people's actions are based off of their environment, cause and effect. In capitalism, it makes sense to be greedy, in capitalism, people really don't care about the education of others (unless they're rich).

Have people always tried to read? Have people always been able to do math in their heads? Have people always wanted democracy? Evolution occurs in stages, and socialism is the stage that will lead to communism.

Laissez-faire Capitalism is free trade, complete competition, trade whatever to whoever. I'm familiar and I assume you are too. My argument is that it is innately undemocratic, because democracy means an equal voice for everyone, and capitalism certainly isn't about equality, so they innately contradict one another.
Oh my. You really believe freedom of speech="equal voice"? :p

Oh my. You really believe freedom of speech="equal voice"? :p
No, however it's an improvement on controlled speech. The idea is that people can say what they like as long as it doesn't actively hurt others.
(even if you aren't in the majority. Also don't assume that I think that just because I think X means that I'm just as represented as Y, but I have the liberty to talk about X even though I'm not a majority)

Oh my. You really believe freedom of speech="equal voice"? :p
No, he means democracy = "equal voice". And that is a valid viewpoint which I share.
A pure laissez-faire system will eventually result in a different moral and thus political system, and whatever it will be, it certainly won't include equal representation for those that Capitalism will undoubtedly leave by the wayside.

I've been reading alot over the day.

I've been swayed to and from several ideas over the day.

Though I'd say such a point as 'money=power' is not much of a fair say, and that it does not become the viewpoint of a democracy but in turn a viewpoint of the rulers. Though obviously these rulers may be overthrown if the population is not happy, but this can be a messy process.
These people can ALSO embrace the system and become educated and take part in the system by earning money and power. Though can just anyone? Can one coming from a zone of 'poverty' ameliorate their life with hard work, opposed to one born into it?

You cannot defend wishful systems of 'perfect capitalism' if you're not willing to fight against 'perfect communism'.

For the former,
Communism is just the theory for a situation like this, where the need for an equal voice is dire. The redistribution of wealth as meant in a fair and just manner to a democratic community councils whom select delegates to participate as representative of their communities in a national council, would work.

I think capitalism complicates things to an extreme, what with stocks and such, but this is mostly because i know nothing of the matter.

Fascism isn't socialism. Nazis called themselves 'nationalist socialists', however in practice they weren't socialists. Fascists actively quell labour power and socialists believe it holy. Pol-Pot was delusional, yet happened to be a communist, what are you gonna do about it? He didn't know how to lead.
Socialism has problems in certain areas, but so does capitalism, so it's a trade off.

Socialists believe that economic activity should be driven by a state plan. Fascists do it, communists do it.

The rhetoric of socialists is the same: [Insert favoured group here] is being repressed by [Insert enemy group here], follow us, and we will punish them, and bring you the best life.

Fascists put nationalities in the blanks, nazis put in race, and communists, put in class. There is no real difference. Just a bunch of politicians practicing divide and conquer.

Pol-Pot was quite rational. He knew the only way to make socialism work was to totally reform society, creating dependence and fear of government, eliminate anyone who might question, break up the family to ensure that there is no possibility of a group not controlled by the state, and take children away from their parents to create the new type of person required.

He was not delusional, he clearly understood what socialism requires. In the bloody pantheon of socialists, Pol-Pot stands above them all, because he knew what socialism required, and he would do it.

You have totally misunderstood what evolution is. Evolution isn't some pre-determined process which will lead to a definite conclusion, that is more like intelligent design (or since we are talking socialism, unintelligent-design). Evolution is about adaptation to envrionment. In terms of political/economy, the system which best adapts will propser, the system that produces the best results will go on into the future. Systems that fail to do these will fall. In that sense, it can be predicted that democracy and capitalism will succeed, and go on into the future.

No, however it's an improvement on controlled speech. The idea is that people can say what they like as long as it doesn't actively hurt others.
(even if you aren't in the majority. Also don't assume that I think that just because I think X means that I'm just as represented as Y, but I have the liberty to talk about X even though I'm not a majority)
I'm sorry Cromyr, but you need a translator.

No, he means democracy = "equal voice". And that is a valid viewpoint which I share.
A pure laissez-faire system will eventually result in a different moral and thus political system, and whatever it will be, it certainly won't include equal representation for those that Capitalism will undoubtedly leave by the wayside.
Thanks for helping me out there. The way I see it, you're also framing the issue incorrectly.
Here, you're not discussing "real" capitalism. You're (rightfully so) confusing it with corporatism. The difference is, the latter requires the help of a corrupt leviathan state. Corporatism destroys the spirit of capitalism (the individual) by legislating against small businesses and perverting the concept with corporate welfare and subsidies. This is often completely forgotten when discussing welfare states, and it's a shame that it's overlooked because it's not as sexy as social welfare (but remains more dangerous to the capitalist economic system).

This thread os about a kid who has to argue in a debate pro Communism.

So don't confuse him by using the wrong words - under Communism, you wouldn't even get a wage.
You're talking about Socialism.

lmao, thanks for the information.

Fine then. You're a slave for your entire life. Well, even slaves earned a wage, at least the artisans, so you're even worse than a slave. You're a machine.

What bullshit.

On a positive note, communism is good because A) it's an ideal B) Everyone is 'equal' C) And you never have to think since you never have to do anything new. Sort of like living life in a trance while watching 'The Surreal Life' on VH1. You never have to innovate, and you never have to think. How fun!

Here, you're not discussing "real" capitalism. You're (rightfully so) confusing it with corporatism. The difference is, the latter requires the help of a corrupt leviathan state.
Two points I would make in response to that.

1) Anarcho-Capitalism is an unrealistic theoretical model that makes Communism look positively practical. There is always a need for someone to define and protect property rights in the first place, and unless you really want to leave that up to people with their private defense forces, you will need an independent arbiter - namely the state.

2) Ever read any Galbraith? It is a fact that there can be no independent arbiter when there are corporations around - and regardless of what you call them, they will be. Large groups of people, with a leadership caste, who work together in order to combine their skills to make money.

Fine then. You're a slave for your entire life. Well, even slaves earned a wage, at least the artisans, so you're even worse than a slave. You're a machine.
Calm down - there is a meaningful difference between the two concepts.

In Socialism, whatever you produce is taken by the state (which is controlled by the workers) and then distributed to everyone according to people's needs.

Because everyone loves that system, and feels such a strong connection to their fellow proletarians, productivity goes up and eventually scarcity is eliminated, leaving more stuff being made than anyone can possibly ever want. So the problem of how to distribute things is solved.

That is when Communism comes in. When the only reason for the state to exist - namely distribution - fades away, the state itself would wither away, as had Feudalism before it when castles and serfdom where no longer a technological and security necessity.

And then you'd live in an Utopian society where everyone could do whatever they wanted (work would be for fun), there'd be no money, no state, no oppression - just bliss.

So much for the theory....:rolleyes:

Two points I would make in response to that.

1) Anarcho-Capitalism is an unrealistic theoretical model that makes Communism look positively practical. There is always a need for someone to define and protect property rights in the first place, and unless you really want to leave that up to people with their private defense forces, you will need an independent arbiter - namely the state.

2) Ever read any Galbraith? It is a fact that there can be no independent arbiter when there are corporations around - and regardless of what you call them, they will be. Large groups of people, with a leadership caste, who work together in order to combine their skills to make money.
I've never been so misunderstood by another poster. I'm far from being an anarcho-capitalist. Didn't you notice yet that I'm a an out-in-the-open libertarian? I'm not comfortable with a system that doesn't assume natural rights. I support a constitutional republic with the power to protect our basic rights. Anarcho-capitalists believe in a sytem of extreme-sports capitalism that I find somewhat frightening.
I have no problems with corporations, either. I have a problem with perverted markets and government interference of such that inevitably results in unfair favoritist legislation and competition-killing subsidizing.

I have a problem with perverted markets and government interference of such that inevitably results in unfair favoritist legislation and competition-killing subsidizing.
And abolishing that would give "real capitalism"? You haven't actually said what real capitalism is to you...and these days everyone seems to have a different vision of it. So I appologise if I misinterpreted you.

Hello, fellow Generalites. In a few days, my class will hold a debate about capitalism versus communism. I will be arguing the communist side. Will those of you who are communists kindly tell me your perspectives on the advantages of communism and the flaws of capitalism and/or provide useful links? Thanks, I appreciate it!

I would try to find a way to defend the labor theory of value, that's the fundamental flaw in communism, as well as classical economics in general.

Fascist=socialist. Besides, you haven't refuted anything. You've merely placed the Spanish Civil War as a fight between different socialists.

You are almost the only person that believes this.

Fascism - "Fascism generally attracted political support from big business, landowners, and patriotic, traditionalist, conservative, far-right, populist and reactionary individuals and groups." - Wikipedia (I generally try to avoid using wiki. lol)

How does that sound Socialist? I can understand that fascism has some leftist aspects, however it is still largely a right-wing movement.

snip

Can you define for me “socialism” please, without looking it up? Also, you haven’t refuted my democracy and capitalism are contradictory argument. My stance remains the same; Pol pot wasn’t a socialist, because actions speak louder than words.

Also, politicians use promising ‘a better life’ universally, nobody claims to be leading people to their dooms unless it’s a cult.

Every action has a cause and effect, give and take. Socialism and Capitalism both have advantages and draw backs. I prefer Socialism. I talk about evolution because it’s evidence that things can change. I criticize capitalism because of it’s inherient inequality and destructiveness, I would prefer to not get all of the fancy things I want in exchange for a just society. Five year plans cannot adapt well, however to claim that all socialist countries use them is silly.

snip

Corporatism is a threat to democracy indeed.

The model of human progress looks like this, while free trade may be popular, it doesn’t mean that it’ll be around forever.

Cavemen -> Feudalism -> Capitalism -> Socialism -> Communism

Socialists believe that economic activity should be driven by a state plan. Fascists do it, communists do it.

The rhetoric of socialists is the same: [Insert favoured group here] is being repressed by [Insert enemy group here], follow us, and we will punish them, and bring you the best life.

Fascists put nationalities in the blanks, nazis put in race, and communists, put in class. There is no real difference. Just a bunch of politicians practicing divide and conquer.


Everybody rich in the 1930s in the future fascist European countries from Germany (of course excluding Jews) to Italy wanted fascists over communists because fascists kept the economy going as capatalists and thus the communists lost all their wealth. Also how do you explain Hitler's obsession with trying to destroy the left with his storm troopers for so long if he was leftist? Fascists are the extreme right and Communists/Socialists are the extreme left. Funny how the two are similair

And once the other side of the debate has shot all its bullets, you can simply use Schumpeter to counter them all.

Schumpeter, Capitalism and why it can't work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumpeter#Schumpeter.2C_Capitalism_and_why_it_can.27t_work)

Schumpeter's most popular book is probably Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, published when he was a Professor in Harvard in 1942. This book opens with a good treatment of Karl Marx. Schumpeter with intelligent irony, in the first chapter of the book calls Marx a prophet and communism a religion. Although some might say he is quite sympathetic to Marx's analysis.

Schumpeter concludes capitalism will be replaced by socialism for non-Marxist reasons. It is in this book that Schumpeter characterizes capitalism with the famous phrase "creative destruction" in which old ways of doing things are endogenously destroyed and replaced by the new. Schumpeter thinks that the success of capitalism will lead to a form of corporation and a fostering of values, especially among intellectuals, of hostility to capitalism.

The intellectual and social climate needed to allow entrepreneurship to thrive will not exist in advanced capitalism and it will be succeeded by socialism of some form or another. He said “The function of the entrepreneur is to reform or revolutionize the pattern of production by exploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried technological possibility for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way, opening a new source of supply of materials or a new outlet for products, by reorganizing a new industry.” (Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942)

There will not be a revolution, but merely a trend in parliaments to elect social democratic parties of one stripe or another. Schumpeter emphasizes that he is analyzing trends, not engaging in political advocacy. Some have thought John Kenneth Galbraith was influenced in his The New Industrial State by Schumpeter's views on corporations. His theories could be considered the base for the supply-side theories.

And abolishing that would give "real capitalism"? You haven't actually said what real capitalism is to you...and these days everyone seems to have a different vision of it. So I appologise if I misinterpreted you.
Yes, "real" capitalism requires limited government involvement in the market in order to run successfully. I am using the term "real" here in the same sense that communists and socialists use the term to describe what they consider to be the best representation of these sociopolitical and economic models.
Anyone can change the face of any political model and still claim that it is a valid example of the original system. If we're being purists, than any government interference in the market is statist socialism.
America is a welfare-warfare state that somewhat favors economic handouts over social ones. Either way, it's not in the best interest of capitalism.



The model of human progress looks like this, while free trade may be popular, it doesn’t mean that it’ll be around forever.

Cavemen -> Feudalism -> Capitalism -> Socialism -> Communism
My Buddha! You've just given me the same level of chills I had when I first learned about evolution! And to think, you must have as much empirical evidence to back that up. Can't wait to see what warranted that level of sensationalist hyperbole. :rolleyes:

Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon.

-- Winston Churchill Just like a carriage, capitalism is outdated. Communism is the wave of the future. If people would only read, not only Marx and Lenin, but the Soviet constitution as well. They would know that Soviet Communism was in principle a representitive government with a bill of rights. The problem was that the powers of the secret police became greater than any constitutional protections or limitations. I feel that the United States could end up going down the same path.

Everybody rich in the 1930s in the future fascist European countries from Germany (of course excluding Jews) to Italy wanted fascists over communists because fascists kept the economy going as capatalists and thus the communists lost all their wealth. Also how do you explain Hitler's obsession with trying to destroy the left with his storm troopers for so long if he was leftist? Fascists are the extreme right and Communists/Socialists are the extreme left. Funny how the two are similair

Fascists are not the extreme right.

The reason people favoured fascists over communists is the promise of economic security (which would be gained at the expense of economic liberty), and the fact that they feared the communists, and only the fascists looked strong enough to defeat them.

The reason Hitler went after the communists, and social democrats was simply that they were not Nazis. The KPD (Communist Party of Germany) was the second most popular party in Germany, and therefore the second largest in the Reichstag. This fact alone made it necessary for the Nazis to destroy the communists because the communinsts were the largest and most effective opponents of the nazis.

Fascism - "Fascism generally attracted political support from big business, landowners, and patriotic, traditionalist, conservative, far-right, populist and reactionary individuals and groups." - Wikipedia (I generally try to avoid using wiki. lol)

How does that sound Socialist? I can understand that fascism has some leftist aspects, however it is still largely a right-wing movement.

So, you are trying to refute me by saying absolutely nothing about socialism, or fascism, but by merely saying that XYZ supported fascism.

Not a refutation, not even a serious attempt. Fascism is socialist because the driving force of economic activity is the state's plan, and the means of production are under de-facto state ownership

Can you define for me “socialism” please, without looking it up? Also, you haven’t refuted my democracy and capitalism are contradictory argument. My stance remains the same; Pol pot wasn’t a socialist, because actions speak louder than words.

Already did. It has been shown that Pol-Pot was a socialist, he centralised all production in the government. His actions prove that he was a socialist. The only reason anyone would say he wasn't is the vast piles of dead bodies that were the inevitable result of socialism.

from even dictionary.com
often Fascism

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.


Fascism is the dictatorship by those in power.
Communism is the dictatorship by the people.

If this will speak in your terms.

Just like a carriage, capitalism is outdated. Communism is the wave of the future. If people would only read, not only Marx and Lenin, but the Soviet constitution as well. They would know that Soviet Communism was in principle a representitive government with a bill of rights. The problem was that the powers of the secret police became greater than any constitutional protections or limitations. I feel that the United States could end up going down the same path.

Nonsense.

If someone brings up past communist dictators, remind them that those were not indeed true communists, but fascist socialists.
If anybody uses the word Fascist like this, remind them that Dictatorship does not equal Fascism. Non-of the past communists could be considered Fascist.

In fact, using the same logic you used, there has never been a true Fascist [Even Mussolini and D'Annuzio can't be called Fascists when you use your logic]. They have just been run-of-the-mill Dictators.

Because there is no blood on the hands of capitalists. From Pinochet to Francisco Franco, there are a lot more deaths caused by greed, nationalism, and personal gain, aspects of capitalism
Actually, franco was technically a Socialist [All Fascists are] and not a capitalist.

Fascism isn't socialism. Nazis called themselves 'nationalist socialists', however in practice they weren't socialists. Fascists actively quell labour power and socialists believe it holy.
Cromyr, you are quite wrong for several ways.
a) Fascism is a Form of Socialism because it uses the Corporatist/Syndicalist economic system which is technically a form of Socialism.
b) Nazism were not Fascist. Fascism is the beliefe in Nationalism, Nazism is the belief in Racism. Talk to the leaders of the Nazi parties and Fascist parties here in the U.S., they will tell you that Nazis are not Fascists.
Everybody rich in the 1930s in the future fascist European countries from Germany (of course excluding Jews) to Italy wanted fascists over communists because fascists kept the economy going as capatalists and thus the communists lost all their wealth. Also how do you explain Hitler's obsession with trying to destroy the left with his storm troopers for so long if he was leftist? Fascists are the extreme right and Communists/Socialists are the extreme left. Funny how the two are similar
Nobody said Fascism was leftist, you can be socialist and be to the right or center of the political spectrum.
~~~
BTW, I wouldn't trust RevLeft. They don't even allow people of other ideologies disagree with what they say in their OPPOSING VIEWS forum, a forum they say is for non-Communists to discuss things.

b) Nazism were not Fascist. Fascism is the beliefe in Nationalism, Nazism is the belief in Racism. Talk to the leaders of the Nazi parties and Fascist parties here in the U.S., they will tell you that Nazis are not Fascists.

[/COLOR]

Actually, this point is incredibly wrong. Nazis, pre-hitler, were a nationalist socialist movement(Nazi means National Socialists). Their views could be described as extreme nationalism, which led to their racist tendencies(fueled in no small part by Hitler). They were Fascist, by definition. Do you even know what Fascism is(If you don't, look one post back). The Nazi party was a Fascist organization. The Neo-Nazi's are not what I would call real Nazi's, once again by definition. Neo-Nazis are marked almost completely by racism, whereas actual Nazism is not necessarily so.

All of your questions could be answered here....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/

Also a little thing here...
Here is what most of your capitalists will say to communism.
1."What incentive does a person have to work for, when they will get the same results whether they work harder or less, its creates lazyness!"

What incentive do people have for working hard or less now? If you work hard in your office or factory job, you get the same wage from your boss as before and now the boss always expects you to maintain and even increase that level of productivity. The only incentive for not working less, generally, is so that your boss dosn't get mad at you or fire you... this is a negative incentive.

Think about capitalism and socialism as a fishing boat:

On a capitalist fishing boat you have one captain (boss) and you and 4 other fishermen. The ship sails into the bay for 8 hours a day no matter how many fish you catch. What's your incentive to work harder than you have to? You are alienated from the results of your labor, so if you catch 20 fish or 200, you get paid the same wage whereas your boss has just increased his profits by 180 fish. If you don't catch at least 20 fish, then you get fired. If everyone is catching 200 fish, then maybe the market gets saturated and the boss decides he only needs 3 fishermen to catch enough fish to make money when he sells them at the fish market; so 2 of you get fired so that your boss can save on labor costs.

A communist fishing boat would be more like 5 of your friends going out on a boat you all owned. So since you would all benifit from the combined efforts, you would have an incentive to do a good job. If everyone was catching 200 fish, and you only needed 500 to have enough for people in your town, you could stop and go home early when you reached 500 fish. You would also want to divide up chores on the boat equally since a clean boat would make all of your lives easier aestetically and in your ability to catch fish.

2.Who will do the dirty work? People are greedy!

This is a tough one, I would suggest people divide the "dirty" work up.

It also seems people don't have a clue what communism really is.

Communism is a hypothetical social order in which there are no classes and consequently no state as an organ of class rule.

It is postulated that such a society will have little in the way of public authorities or "government" and that whatever is found to be useful will be "ultra-democratic" and rely heavily on internet referendums (direct democracy). These public authorities will almost exclusively be concerned with the large-scale co-ordination of production and distribution of goods and services, and most of their "decisions" are likely to be suggestive rather than compulsive.

There will be no formal "nation states" in a communist world, though many of the names may persist as geographic designations.

There will be no production of "commodities" -- goods and services produced for sale -- instead goods and services will be produced for use -- either by the producers themselves or freely given to those who will make good use of them.

There will be no "currency" as such; no money...though old currency units may be used for record-keeping purposes, they will have no independent utility.

Individual compensation will vary little, and that according to "need"...the ability to actually use what is appropriated from the public total.

People will have the freedom to gravitate to the "work" that they find most intrinsically rewarding for its own sake. But there will be considerable informal pressure to "work" at something useful. The stereotypical "lazy bum" will be an object of scorn and/or pity. Work that is so "bad" that no one wishes to do it will either be automated, shared out in some collective fashion so that no one has to do very much of it, or simply dispensed with altogether.

The social life of a communist society will be extraordinally libertarian; very few of the taboos and and even fewer of the regulations that presently exist will still survive. Religion, if it survives at all, will be in the nature of a hobby, without the power to influence people's lives in any significant way.

Prestige in a communist society will come from competence and reliability...the highest respect will go to those who've demonstrated their ability to perform especially useful work that many will want to emulate.

The most utterly detested crime in communist society will be the attempt to "hire" wage-labor for the purpose of producing a "commodity". This will be regarded in the same way that we currently regard human sacrifice or chattel slavery...as an unspeakable horror and an attempt to "bring back" an old and disgustingly inhumane social order, namely capitalism.

Thus, the hypothetical features of a communist society, as extrapolated from the ideas of Marx and Engels.

Since such a social order has never existed for any significant period of time, we presently have no way of "knowing" if it will actually "work". More importantly, it is really unknown what kinds of things must be done and must be avoided to successfully manage the transition from capitalism to communism...although there are many theories about this. It seems likely that there will be several centuries of "trial and error" before the human species manages this transition successfully.

Also greed isn't a part of human nature. Just look at New Orleans, when people HAD water they never were "greedy with it" but when it was short they did become "greedy" with it. Greed is not based upon human nature, but upon supply of something.



I believe in Che´s theory of the "Socialist Man"

It is an unselfish person who makes daily sacrifices for the common good of the people; not for greed, not for money, not for more land and titles, but for a better future for everyone against imperialism. You work harder because you want to create a better world for your people. If money is on your mind, then you can move to the United States and exploit other nations for your god (money).

People in my area just are not all there.

:sniper: :mp5: Go get them comrade.

Be prepared to address the Tragedy of the Commons. In English towns which had a commons used by all for grazing it invariably became overgrazed and worthless. Those which were sold to or controlled by private land owners prospered and were well maintained. You may also want to know that the 1st Thanksgiving came not after the 1st crop harvest which was a dismal failure causing much starvation and disease. It came after the pilgrims abandoned the vaunted Mayflower Compact which called for a communist economy and switched to pure capitolism which quite literally saved them. Of course if you have the intellectual honesty of most liberals you could claim that our first forefathers were indeed commies.:eek:

Actually, this point is incredibly wrong. Nazis, pre-hitler, were a nationalist socialist movement(Nazi means National Socialists). Their views could be described as extreme nationalism, which led to their racist tendencies(fueled in no small part by Hitler).
Nazis promoted the idea of a Germany composed only of people who had German blood.
On the other, Fascist Italy promoted the idea of an Italian country composed of any ethnicity.

While National Socialism was very heavily based on Fascism it was not the same thing.

They were Fascist, by definition.
Dictionaries do not differentiate between Fascism and Nazism. They have combined them, so the only way to decide what was or was not Fascist is to compare them with Italy.

Do you even know what Fascism is
Yes, I have devoted quite a bit of the last two years of my life to studying Fascism.

The Neo-Nazi's are not what I would call real Nazi's, once again by definition. Neo-Nazis are marked almost completely by racism, whereas actual Nazism is not necessarily so
I was not referring to Neo-Nazis, I was referring to the actual Nazi Party of America. The NPA is supports the government of Nazi Germany and supports some level of racism [Not nearly as much as Nazi Germany and are much more like the citizens of the time rather than the government] while Neo-Nazis are more like anarchists who support the racial policy of Nazi Germany in full.

And once again, there is no true definition. The only way you can find out if something is Nazi is to compare it with Nazi Germany.

"Already did. It has been shown that Pol-Pot was a socialist, he centralised all production in the government. His actions prove that he was a socialist. The only reason anyone would say he wasn't is the vast piles of dead bodies that were the inevitable result of socialism."

So all of the work done at the concentration camps were just results of socialism?

Pol-Pot induced rapid change, and the death was a result of it. However if America were to turn socialist over night it wouldn't be the same.
A government is like an equation, you have work and materials put into it, the government works in whatever way, and stuff comes out. You can't turn lead into gold, but you can make sure everyone gets an equal amount of it (who would want it anyway, but that isn't my point) Socialist governments controll production, and the workers decide how much to create (Eg. 'Dictatorship of the proletariat'). However when there is great change over a short time and now well planned out, it can be disastrous, which was the case. But brutal dictatorship isn't intertwined with socialism.

Also, Nazis were Ethno-Nationalists, being as they believed that the master race had ancestral claims to Germany (and the world) and they had to kick the Jews out, they were both nationalist and racist.

Communism is such a loaded word, that two people can be talking about it and run circles around each other without getting anywhere because their understanding is so different. I think it's important to define exactly what communism is.

Most people who call themselves communist today believe that the Soviet Union never achieved communism. They had a form of state capitalism led by a socialist government which was controlled by a communist party, but the economy never achieved communism. Somewhere along the way even the "communists" of the Soviet Union and its client states forgot what communism really was supposed to be.

Pure communism actually means NO STATE, NO MONEY, NO TAXES, NO GOVERNMENT, NO COUNTRIES. In order for this to work, it would have to be global. If not, opportunists from other nation states would come in and take them over. This was Trotsky's criticism of Stalin. Trotsky wanted a worldwide revolution to end all capitalism and all governments. Stalin believed in socialism in individual nation-states. Whether or not Stalin even really believed in real communism is questionable. What he created was an unequal system of crony capitalism and a new class system with party leaders becoming the new upper class.

The original idea of communism was that socialism was simply to be a temporary transition period which was necessary to redistribute the wealth equally so when the state was ended the capitalists wouldn't be able to take back control and re-create a capitalist nation and hierachial.

It's no surprise that an undertaking of this magnitude wouldn't work at the first try. It may fail at the tenth try. What communism proposes is a total restructuring of society in almost every way. Just because previous attempts have failed to achieve it, doesn't mean it isn't a worthy goal or that people will or should stop trying.

No country mentioned in this thread is/was truly communist. They may be led by a communist party, but they are socialist - a form of government which is only as good as its leaders - some good, some bad. And our present United States could be said to be a form of socialism only controlled by corporation which have become the defacto government.

There seems to be a lot of confusion related to central control of the economy. Most all nation states have some central control of the economy, whether they're representative democracies, fascist states or socialist states. Central control of the economy is not the definition of socialism because there is such a thing as free market socialism. Socialism is a form of government which uses the state as a mechanism to make individuals more economically equal - and that is hardly what fascists were about. Simply because both use strong centralized governments does not mean that they are the same thing or that their objectives are the same. Our own country uses a central government to subsidize industry and give corporate welfare - that doesn't necessarily mean we are socialist or fascist, although some would argue that we are getting close to the latter. Ironically, pure communism is the only system which doesn't have a central control of the government because there is no government. Actually real communism and libertarianism have basically more in common than most people realize.

So all of the work done at the concentration camps were just results of socialism?

Yes.

Pol-Pot induced rapid change, and the death was a result of it. However if America were to turn socialist over night it wouldn't be the same.
A government is like an equation, you have work and materials put into it, the government works in whatever way, and stuff comes out. You can't turn lead into gold, but you can make sure everyone gets an equal amount of it (who would want it anyway, but that isn't my point) Socialist governments controll production, and the workers decide how much to create (Eg. 'Dictatorship of the proletariat'). However when there is great change over a short time and now well planned out, it can be disastrous, which was the case. But brutal dictatorship isn't intertwined with socialism.

The reason Pol-Pot introduced rapid change was that he understood socialism better than anyone else. Socialism is fundamentally incompatible with human nature, and requires terror to enforce it. Rapid change, and the shock it induces makes this easier.

Here is a little passage on why socialism must use massive terror:

The requirements of enforcing a system of price and wage controls shed major light on the totalitarian nature of socialism — most obviously, of course, on that of the German or Nazi variant of socialism, but also on that of Soviet-style socialism as well.

We can start with the fact that the financial self-interest of sellers operating under price controls is to evade the price controls and raise their prices. Buyers otherwise unable to obtain goods are willing, indeed, eager to pay these higher prices as the means of securing the goods they want. In these circumstances, what is to stop prices from rising and a massive black market from developing?

The answer is a combination of severe penalties combined with a great likelihood of being caught and then actually suffering those penalties. Mere fines are not likely to provide much of a deterrent. They will be regarded simply as an additional business expense. If the government is serious about its price controls, it is necessary for it to impose penalties comparable to those for a major felony.

But the mere existence of such penalties is not enough. The government has to make it actually dangerous to conduct black-market transactions. It has to make people fear that in conducting such a transaction they might somehow be discovered by the police, and actually end up in jail. In order to create such fear, the government must develop an army of spies and secret informers. For example, the government must make a storekeeper and his customer fearful that if they engage in a black-market transaction, some other customer in the store will report them.

Because of the privacy and secrecy in which many black-market transactions can be conducted, the government must also make anyone contemplating a black-market transaction fearful that the other party might turn out to be a police agent trying to entrap him. The government must make people fearful even of their long-time associates, even of their friends and relatives, lest even they turn out to be informers.

And, finally, in order to obtain convictions, the government must place the decision about innocence or guilt in the case of black-market transactions in the hands of an administrative tribunal or its police agents on the spot. It cannot rely on jury trials, because it is unlikely that many juries can be found willing to bring in guilty verdicts in cases in which a man might have to go to jail for several years for the crime of selling a few pounds of meat or a pair of shoes above the ceiling price.

In sum, therefore, the requirements merely of enforcing price-control regulations is the adoption of essential features of a totalitarian state, namely, the establishment of the category of "economic crimes," in which the peaceful pursuit of material self-interest is treated as a criminal offense, and the establishment of a totalitarian police apparatus replete with spies and informers and the power of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. ...

Black market activity entails the commission of further crimes. Under de facto socialism, the production and sale of goods in the black market entails the defiance of the government's regulations concerning production and distribution, as well as the defiance of its price controls. For example, the goods themselves that are sold in the black market are intended by the government to be distributed in accordance with its plan, and not in the black market. The factors of production used to produce those goods are likewise intended by the government to be used in accordance with its plan, and not for the purpose of supplying the black market.

Under a system of de jure socialism, such as existed in Soviet Russia, in which the legal code of the country openly and explicitly makes the government the owner of the means of production, all black-market activity necessarily entails the misappropriation or theft of state property. For example, the factory workers or managers in Soviet Russia who turned out products that they sold in the black market were considered as stealing the raw materials supplied by the state.

Furthermore, in any type of socialist state, Nazi or Communist, the government's economic plan is part of the supreme law of the land. We all have a good idea of how chaotic the so-called planning process of socialism is. Its further disruption by workers and managers siphoning off materials and supplies to produce for the black market, is something which a socialist state is logically entitled to regard as an act of sabotage of its national economic plan. And sabotage is how the legal code of a socialist state does regard it. Consistent with this fact, black-market activity in a socialist country often carries the death penalty.

...

Now I think that a fundamental fact that explains the all-round reign of terror found under socialism is the incredible dilemma in which a socialist state places itself in relation to the masses of its citizens. On the one hand, it assumes full responsibility for the individual's economic well-being. Russian or Bolshevik-style socialism openly avows this responsibility — this is the main source of its popular appeal. On the other hand, in all of the ways one can imagine, a socialist state makes an unbelievable botch of the job. It makes the individual's life a nightmare.

Every day of his life, the citizen of a socialist state must spend time in endless waiting lines. For him, the problems Americans experienced in the gasoline shortages of the 1970s are normal; only he does not experience them in relation to gasoline — for he does not own a car and has no hope of ever owning one — but in relation to simple items of clothing, to vegetables, even to bread. Even worse he is frequently forced to work at a job that is not of his choice and which he therefore must certainly hate. (For under shortages, the government comes to decide the allocation of labor just as it does the allocation of the material factors of production.) And he lives in a condition of unbelievable overcrowding, with hardly ever a chance for privacy. (In the face of housing shortages, boarders are assigned to homes; families are compelled to share apartments. And a system of internal passports and visas is adopted to limit the severity of housing shortages in the more desirable areas of the country.) To put it mildly, a person forced to live in such conditions must seethe with resentment and hostility.

Now against whom would it be more logical for the citizens of a socialist state to direct their resentment and hostility than against that very socialist state itself? The same socialist state which has proclaimed its responsibility for their life, has promised them a life of bliss, and which in fact is responsible for giving them a life of hell. Indeed, the leaders of a socialist state live in a further dilemma, in that they daily encourage the people to believe that socialism is a perfect system whose bad results can only be the work of evil men. If that were true, who in reason could those evil men be but the rulers themselves, who have not only made life a hell, but have perverted an allegedly perfect system to do it?

It follows that the rulers of a socialist state must live in terror of the people. By the logic of their actions and their teachings, the boiling, seething resentment of the people should well up and swallow them in an orgy of bloody vengeance. The rulers sense this, even if they do not admit it openly; and thus their major concern is always to keep the lid on the citizenry.

Consequently, it is true but very inadequate merely to say such things as that socialism lacks freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Of course, it lacks these freedoms. If the government owns all the newspapers and publishing houses, if it decides for what purposes newsprint and paper are to be made available, then obviously nothing can be printed which the government does not want printed. If it owns all the meeting halls, no public speech or lecture can be delivered which the government does not want delivered. But socialism goes far beyond the mere lack of freedom of press and speech.

A socialist government totally annihilates these freedoms. It turns the press and every public forum into a vehicle of hysterical propaganda in its own behalf, and it engages in the relentless persecution of everyone who dares to deviate by so much as an inch from its official party line.

The reason for these facts is the socialist rulers' terror of the people. To protect themselves, they must order the propaganda ministry and the secret police to work 'round the clock. The one, to constantly divert the people's attention from the responsibility of socialism, and of the rulers of socialism, for the people's misery. The other, to spirit away and silence anyone who might even remotely suggest the responsibility of socialism or its rulers — to spirit away anyone who begins to show signs of thinking for himself. It is because of the rulers' terror, and their desperate need to find scapegoats for the failures of socialism, that the press of a socialist country is always full of stories about foreign plots and sabotage, and about corruption and mismanagement on the part of subordinate officials, and why, periodically, it is necessary to unmask large-scale domestic plots and to sacrifice major officials and entire factions in giant purges.

It is because of their terror, and their desperate need to crush every breath even of potential opposition, that the rulers of socialism do not dare to allow even purely cultural activities that are not under the control of the state. For if people so much as assemble for an art show or poetry reading that is not controlled by the state, the rulers must fear the dissemination of dangerous ideas. Any unauthorized ideas are dangerous ideas, because they can lead people to begin thinking for themselves and thus to begin thinking about the nature of socialism and its rulers. The rulers must fear the spontaneous assembly of a handful of people in a room, and use the secret police and its apparatus of spies, informers, and terror either to stop such meetings or to make sure that their content is entirely innocuous from the point of view of the state.

Socialism cannot be ruled for very long except by terror. As soon as the terror is relaxed, resentment and hostility logically begin to well up against the rulers. The stage is thus set for a revolution or civil war. In fact, in the absence of terror, or, more correctly, a sufficient degree of terror, socialism would be characterized by an endless series of revolutions and civil wars, as each new group of rulers proved as incapable of making socialism function successfully as its predecessors before it. The inescapable inference to be drawn is that the terror actually experienced in the socialist countries was not simply the work of evil men, such as Stalin, but springs from the nature of the socialist system. Stalin could come to the fore because his unusual willingness and cunning in the use of terror were the specific characteristics most required by a ruler of socialism in order to remain in power. He rose to the top by a process of socialist natural selection: the selection of the worst.


Source: http://mises.org/story/1937

Its a bit of a read, but I think worth your while.

Socialists believe that economic activity should be driven by a state plan. Fascists do it, communists do it.

....

You have totally misunderstood what evolution is. Evolution isn't some pre-determined process which will lead to a definite conclusion, that is more like intelligent design (or since we are talking socialism, unintelligent-design). Evolution is about adaptation to envrionment. In terms of political/economy, the system which best adapts will propser, the system that produces the best results will go on into the future. Systems that fail to do these will fall. In that sense, it can be predicted that democracy and capitalism will succeed, and go on into the future.

With all due respect, the essential fallacy of all arguments made by apologists for Capitalism is enshrined here.

True, socialists and fascists alike have one thing in common... they invest a large proportion of decision-making power in the State. Socialists purportedly for the welfare of the people, and fascists unabashedly for the welfare of corporations.

To understand how this applies equally to capitalism, in fact in ways that are more detrimental to the common man than any socialist or fascist dictatorship, the nature of the term "State" must first be explored and interpreted in today's context.

By the "State", one generally understands a constituted body that is empowered, through some manner of (however flawed) social contract, to exercise authority over and make decisions on behalf of the people. In the context of America's political evolution in the aftermath of World War II, a prism through which Americans generally view political systems across the board, the "State" has come to mean the apparatus of a nation's government.

What's critical to realize is that this is not necessarily so.

It has taken the presidency of George W. Bush to expose the rotting denouement that is fundamental to the capitalist system. Many of Bush's political opponents are wont to blame the current state of affairs in the USA upon the President himself, or the coterie of individual cronies that surrounds him. My contention is that what is going wrong in America now, was bound to happen sooner or later given the adherence to capitalism itself. Without the foresight shown by Roosevelt in offering the essentially socialist New Deal, it might have happened before World War 2. Absent the positive evolutionary stimulus of the ideological challenge posed by the Soviet Union, it might have come to pass at any time during the latter half of the 20th century.

What has revealed itself most strikingly under Bush II, but has in fact been a long time in becoming apparent, is that in the capitalist context the State and the apparatus of government are two very different things. American "conservatives" have always argued for "smaller government"... that is, a smaller role for the elected leaders and representatives of the American people in making decisions for them. Hence the shrill denunciation of other forms of regime where the apparatus of government shoulders greater responsibilities, requiring greater tax burdens to be imposed on the people.

The apologists for capitalism couch their specious pitch in the language of "rugged individualism" and "greater opportunity", by pretending that their push for a smaller government role is exactly equal to a push for less State interference in the advancement of individuals and corporations.

What in fact exists in the US today (I cite the US as a quintessential capitalist model), is an extremely debased form of State wherein power has devolved from the emasculated apparatus of government into the hands of a plutocratic oligarchy. A class of extremely wealthy citizenry, individuals and corporations, who are empowered to influence authority and formulate policy... without bearing any of the responsibility to the people, that a conventional government shoulders by virtue of social contract!

There can be no doubt that economic activity in Capitalist America proceeds according to the whims of this State-beyond-the-government, to at least the same extent that it proceeds according to a "State plan" in Fascist or Socialist nations.

When a Ken Lay can walk away unscathed from defrauding thousands of shareholders out of their life's savings; when corporations such as Halliburton can dictate the prosecution of a war in which American soldiers die in the service of their profit motive; when the elected representatives of all American people enact tax cuts that plunge the people's exchequer into record deficits, while turning over 51% of the loot to the nation's richest 1% of citizens (the projected net effect by 2010); when the repeal of Estate Taxes serve to further ensure that the constituents of this robber-baron oligarchy will retain their power in perpetuity, effectively denying advancement to members of less privileged classes.... when all these things happen, they are not symptoms of Bush's failings, but the logical conclusion of the Capitalist system itself. This bandit feudalism we see around us does not result from the misgovernance of a specific leader; it heralds the decline and fall of the Capitalist institution, whose pulpy and rotten heart lies exposed at last.

The US government itself may not oppress the American people, but the Capitalist State certainly does... even if it is oppression by omission more often than by commission. The less well-off of our citizenry--the ones who pump the gas-- are as economically oppressed as any in history, with a third of them unable to afford health insurance, a large proportion of their children denied even barely acceptable educational opportunities, and all of them wondering whether anything will be left of the payments they've been making into social security. The middle and upper-middle classes-- the ones who buy the gas to fill their SUVs-- fuel what's left of the economy by suing each other and selling each other homes. The ones who sell the gas... and the SUVs, and the medicines, and the Chinese-made low-price consumer goods... control just about everything. Certainly they control far more than could have been envisioned by any of the founding fathers who forged the American social contract.

In many other ways, the Capitalist State-beyond-the-government behaves exactly as have the sorts of irresponsible, tyrannical regimes cited by apologists for capitalism. It lies, spins propaganda, provides news laced with fear for consumption as entertainment, and distracts the people from their predicament by channeling their frustration into emotionally charged and ultimately useless diversions. Abortion rights! Gay marriage! Private gun ownership! Terrorism! A five-ton marble copy of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse! No Goebbels, or Stalin, could have done better.

An adherence to capitalism has not been favored by the process of political evolution; rather, it has herded the American nation into an evolutionary dead-end, beyond which there is only the promise of inevitable decline and collapse. Outliving the Soviets' authoritarian socialism by a handful of decades may seem like a big deal to the triumphalist nit-wits who celebrate "winning the cold war". It will mean absolutely nothing in the grander scheme of history.

True, socialists and fascists alike have one thing in common... they invest a large proportion of decision-making power in the State. Socialists purportedly for the welfare of the people, and fascists unabashedly for the welfare of corporations.

Don't confuse rhetoric with reality. Both invest total powers in the state for their own benefit.

Your whole argument rests on the US being quintessentially capitalist. Tell me, what is quintessentially capitalist about:


The Federal Reserve Bank
Social Security
Compulsory unionism (in some areas)
Governments spending about half of GDP
Hundreds of regulatory agencies
Tariffs
Subsidies
Energy price controls


The US is closer to fascism than capitalism (namely because the US government, as well as State and Local governments decides in many ways how owners can use their property). Since the New Deal, the US has been sliding towards fascism.

Excuse me, but it is your whole counter-argument that revolves once again around confusing the apparatus and activities of government, with the prevailing Capitalist state that sets the agenda in the US... including individuals and corporations that have no legitimate social contract with the people. THIS is what makes the US quintessentially capitalist.

All items on the list you have set forth, relate to government activities, from the Federal Reserve to Energy Price Controls. The Capitalist State on the other hand, pushes consistently to downsize all these components of government apparatus, save those which it can hijack for its own benefit by fair means or foul. The chronic attempts to pillage social security are a case in point.

The New Deal was a long time ago, and I don't really see how it is representative of a trend that has culminated in the present situation.

Capitalism is the path to communism. The seeds of communism are there and nothing can stop evolution. Nationalist propaganda and useless rethoric certainly won't stop it. Every single nation in the western world is moving toward a socialist society. Minimum wages and social education are a start but not the end of history.

Excuse me, but it is your whole counter-argument that revolves once again around confusing the apparatus and activities of government, with the prevailing Capitalist state that sets the agenda in the US... including individuals and corporations that have no legitimate social contract with the people. THIS is what makes the US quintessentially capitalist.

No. The US Government, and the State and Local Governments in thousands of ways tax, compel, regulate, subsidise, and prohibit economic activity. Big business has pushed a lot of this agenda, the Fed for example was a creation of big bankers, original business regulation was big business's way to destroy competition. The FDIC was something bankers wanted.

The chronic attempts to pillage social security are a case in point.

Congress pillaging Social Security is an example is corporations undermining ze state? No one has pillaged it like Congress has, leaving only Government 'bonds' which never mature and are never paid off (like those in the Fed)

The New Deal was a long time ago, and I don't really see how it is representative of a trend that has culminated in the present situation.

The New Deal was the beginnings of modern US fascism, and virtually all of it is in place. Some parts have been retrenched, others expanded.

Capitalism is the path to communism. The seeds of communism are there and nothing can stop evolution. Nationalist propaganda and useless rethoric certainly won't stop it. Every single nation in the western world is moving toward a socialist society. Minimum wages and social education are a start but not the end of history.

What evolution? Evolution to a failed system of theft? Let me explain to you something about evolution, it is about adaptation. The nations that are moving towards socialism are on the decline, France and Germany being cases in point, Australia has been moving away from socialism for over a quarter of a century, and it is doing better.

Evolution is not a process that moves towards a pre-determined conclusion.

Capitalism is the path to more capitalism.

Schumpeter has so a great talent for being ignored...no one seems to want to face his arguments.

You don't have to look far to see that he's talking a lot of nonsense. Australia had its most leftist Federal government in the 1970's (Whitlam, pompous, hypocritical, criminal bastard), and has been moving right ever since. Labor only gets a look in because the right (Diet Coke Liberal Party) control it. His argument is based on the idea of these intellectual elites opposing capitalism, and gaining the influence to overthrow it.

That's like writing a mathematical formula, and placing "And Then A Miracle Happens" in the middle.

Our so-called "intellectual-elites" couldn't be less influentual. Schumpeter is great for a university staff-room circle jerk, but on Earth, it is simply rubbish.

Lol, Russia was a craphole under communism, too, entirely dependent on Western trade for its survival. Hell, it had to import huge quantities of grain to prevent mass starvation.

They also wiped out nearly 70% of the nazi territory before D-Day, and they export nearly twice as much as they import ($162.5 billion to $92.91 billion)
No country is fully self-sufficient, nor is a country's welfare a factor in this - It's just that no nation has a sufficient amount of all necessary resources.
Granted, right now the economical torch is being passed around in the western world due to the unstable exchange rates, and militaristically I'd put my money on China if only due to their sheer amount of soldiers - 342,956,265 men available for service, one and a half times the amount of US inhabitants.
However 60 years ago Russia was indeed one of the superpowers at least when it comes to military strength, and your argument "entirely dependent on Western trade for its survival" is completely void.

What evolution? Evolution to a failed system of theft? Let me explain to you something about evolution, it is about adaptation. The nations that are moving towards socialism are on the decline, France and Germany being cases in point, Australia has been moving away from socialism for over a quarter of a century, and it is doing better.

Evolution is not a process that moves towards a pre-determined conclusion.

Capitalism is the path to more capitalism.
You are too close minded. France has a right wing government for now and has been moving right wing since a long time now. You are confused. You think communism can be implemented in a nation and you think that communism is big government spending and corruption but you know nothing about it. You probably think China is a communist nation when no country on earth ever even claimed to be a communist country and can't ever claim that since communism is not compatible with nationalism. 200 years ago there was no minimum wage, no social education, child labor, no social health care, no social housing, no labot law, no benefit for the unemployed and no central bank in any western country. But you probably spit on anything even remotely related to social things and you probably think everything should go better should we go back 200 years ago when we were "free" (as in free from social programs).

You are too close minded. France has a right wing government for now and has been moving right wing since a long time now. You are confused. You think communism can be implemented in a nation and you think that communism is big government spending and corruption but you know nothing about it. You probably think China is a communist nation when no country on earth ever even claimed to be a communist country and can't ever claim that since communism is not compatible with nationalism. 200 years ago there was no minimum wage, no social education, child labor, no social health care, no social housing, no labot law, no benefit for the unemployed and no central bank in any western country.

Sounds like you're trying to make excuses for the excesses of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and a few others. It wasn't until the fall of the USSR that I started hearing this kind of apology or denial - prior to that, they were Communist leaders (albeit of varied flavor), and their countries were considered Communist - by Communists and their opponents alike.

Sounds like you're trying to make excuses for the excesses of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and a few others. It wasn't until the fall of the USSR that I started hearing this kind of apology or denial - prior to that, they were Communist leaders (albeit of varied flavor), and their countries were considered Communist - by Communists and their opponents alike.

Yes, I don't recall any of those leaders giving speeches on the rise of "state capitalism" or whatever term the post-Cold War Communists made up to justify the failed, corrupt, and murderous ideology that was implemented in these nations. It honestly doesn't matter what Communism was supposed to be, it matters what it was in practice. After all, Nietzsche wasn't a racist or anti-Semite, but Hitler loved using his ideas about the Ubermensch...

Sounds like you're trying to make excuses for the excesses of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and a few others. It wasn't until the fall of the USSR that I started hearing this kind of apology or denial - prior to that, they were Communist leaders (albeit of varied flavor), and their countries were considered Communist - by Communists and their opponents alike.
You are confusing communists and communism. Yes they were communists but they didn't implement communism, they didn't even claim to have implemented communism. Communism in internationnal in its nature. The USSR claimed to be a socialist union and it were more or less. They failed because they had too few socialism, not because there was too much. Nowadays, the USSR is vanished, Russia is run by the Mafia and the superpower days are far. Western propaganda calls that a failure of communism. That show how little they understand the concept.

You are confusing communists and communism. Yes they were communists but they didn't implement communism, they didn't even claim to have implemented communism. Communism in internationnal in its nature. The USSR claimed to be a socialist union and it were more or less. They failed because they had too few socialism, not because there was too much. Nowadays, the USSR is vanished, Russia is run by the Mafia and the superpower days are far. Western propaganda calls that a failure of communism. That show how little they understand the concept.

I call Stalin killing 40 million of his own people (not counting those killed by the Germans in WW II) a classic example of Communism at work.

You are confusing communists and communism. Yes they were communists but they didn't implement communism, they didn't even claim to have implemented communism. Communism in internationnal in its nature. The USSR claimed to be a socialist union and it were more or less. They failed because they had too few socialism, not because there was too much. Nowadays, the USSR is vanished, Russia is run by the Mafia and the superpower days are far. Western propaganda calls that a failure of communism. That show how little they understand the concept.

Well, if one of the largest and resource-rich nations in the world couldn't get communism to work, it doesn't seem like the ideology works. Capitalism has been successful in nations of almost any size and culture, while communism has failed everywhere it's been implemented.

Yes, I don't recall any of those leaders giving speeches on the rise of "state capitalism" or whatever term the post-Cold War Communists made up to justify the failed, corrupt, and murderous ideology that was implemented in these nations. It honestly doesn't matter what Communism was supposed to be, it matters what it was in practice. After all, Nietzsche wasn't a racist or anti-Semite, but Hitler loved using his ideas about the Ubermensch...That's revisionism. Before the red revolution, Russia was a feodal backward country. In the 60's it was a superpower, rivaling with the US and surpassing it in many fields. The socialist government made many good things and many bad things as well. It doesn't tell anything about how communism work in practice anyway.

Capitalism itself creates the conditions which drives the world towards socialism. Capitalism does have the ability to create wealth quickly and speeds up industrialization and technological advancement, I will give it that much. But at what cost? For every person who benefits from capitalism there are many who suffer because of it. And those who say people have died because of socialism, I'd counter that to say that those people died because capitalists tried to turn socialism back and over-throw it. They also sabotaged socialist economies through trade embargoes and sponsoring counter-revolutions. Nobody died BECAUSE of socialism, they died because capitalists both in those countries and from without worked to destroy it and turn those countries backwards toward capitalism. That gave rise to the totalitarian nature of many of these states. In order to prevent a counter-revolution, tyrants were allowed to rise to the top because they were the only ones who could stop it. And most of these tyrants, like Stalin, weren't interested in true socialism or communism, only their own power. That however has nothing to do with socialism or communism - no more than the fact that Pinochet or Bush are bad people therefore all capitalists are bad people. ALL political philosophies have had bad leaders and all have killed in the name of an ideology, so that's not an argument which can be made against socialism or communism.

Certain countries, namely imperialist ones benefit greatly from capitalism. But even in those countries, there is an inevitable tendency for wealth to flow to the top. This is the fundamental flaw of capitalism - an ever-increasing number of people must suffer so a shrinking number can have ever-increasing (unnecessarily) control of wealth.

History is long and it is quite short-sighted of capitalists to declare victory and proclaim capitalism has triumphed. If anything, liberal/left reformers have simply pro-longed capitalism's existence by making it more palatable. While Bush has simply speeded up it's demise. We can see it now with the growth of communist groups within the U.S. It may not get a lot of media attention, but get out and start talking to younger people and you'll be amazed how many are identifying as communist, even in the country which benefits the most from capitalism's excesses. I don't think we're going to see a communist revolution anytime soon here because most people are too spoiled and well-fed and distracted with endless entertainment and material goodies to even think about these issues, but the seeds are definitely planted and they aren't going away. As long as there is capitalist inequality there will be people working to overthrow it.

The truth is there will be a pendulum swinging back and forth for some time, but eventually we will move to socialism, that's inevitable, and then socialism will be overthrown and we'll move to pure communism. And no amount of propaganda is going to be able to stop it because it is the only logical conclusion. We may not live to see it, but it will happen eventually.

Well, if one of the largest and resource-rich nations in the world couldn't get communism to work, it doesn't seem like the ideology works. Capitalism has been successful in nations of almost any size and culture, while communism has failed everywhere it's been implemented.
Were has it been implemented?

That's revisionism. Before the red revolution, Russia was a feodal backward country. In the 60's it was a superpower, rivaling with the US and surpassing it in many fields. The socialist government made many good things and many bad things as well. It doesn't tell anything about how communism work in practice anyway.

It was backward, but had resources and a large population. The Russian economy could have been modernized without the revolution, especially since industrialization and expansion of railroads was accelerating in the early 20th century. The war derailed this, and

Communists built heavy industry at the cost of 20 million lives and devastated environment, with millions exposed to substandard conditions.. Russia was a superpower built on the back of slave labor and oppression. Stalin spent lives like money to harvest gold in Siberia, and simultaneously destroyed Russian agriculture by collectivization; it took well over 25 years for production to approach the levels from before collectivization, even if the damage from WWII is excluded.

<<Well, if one of the largest and resource-rich nations in the world couldn't get communism to work, it doesn't seem like the ideology works.>>

You still don't get it, communism means no more nations, no government, no more money, no leaders and it is international, meaning ALL governments and nations cease to exist. It's impossible for one to say communism didn't work in a country because communism means NO COUNTRY.

The USSR was supposedly socialist, but after Stalin took over they abandoned communism and reverted back to capitalism - that was what the purges were about - they killed the communists who followed Trotsky. Trotsky wanted to wage a worldwide communist revolution. The people Stalin killed WERE COMMUNISTS. He wanted to continue that USSR as socialist in name only. World communists have been saying this since the 1950's that the Soviet Union was not truly socialist and definitely not communist, they were state capitalist. Mao said the same thing. That's what caused the split between the USSR and China. And a similar capitalist takeover happened in China after Mao's death. They simply use the communist party to control people and promote their own economic agenda. Marx even predicted this would happen, that socialist nations would revert back to capitalism and need to be overthrown again. Trotsky called this Perpetual Revolution and that's why Stalin hated him so much and had him killed along with millions of other communists.

<<Well, if one of the largest and resource-rich nations in the world couldn't get communism to work, it doesn't seem like the ideology works.>>

You still don't get it, communism means no more nations, no government, no more money, no leaders and it is international, meaning ALL governments and nations cease to exist. It's impossible for one to say communism didn't work in a country because communism means NO COUNTRY.

The USSR was supposedly socialist, but after Stalin took over they abandoned communism and reverted back to capitalism - that was what the purges were about - they killed the communists who followed Trotsky. Trotsky wanted to wage a worldwide communist revolution. The people Stalin killed WERE COMMUNISTS. He wanted to continue that USSR as socialist in name only. World communists have been saying this since the 1950's that the Soviet Union was not truly socialist and definitely not communist, they were state capitalist. Mao said the same thing. That's what caused the split between the USSR and China. And a similar capitalist takeover happened in China after Mao's death. They simply use the communist party to control people and promote their own economic agenda. Marx even predicted this would happen, that socialist nations would revert back to capitalism and need to be overthrown again. Trotsky called this Perpetual Revolution and that's why Stalin hated him so much and had him killed along with millions of other communists.


What justification do you give for violent revolution? Most revolutions begin with interesting things like executing everyone with an advanced education.

Eh? Why shoot teachers? And this is before Stalin.

If a handful of people want to make the world Communist, what right do they have to shoot, enslave, and subjugate everyone else in order to make that happen?

It was backward, but had resources and a large population. The Russian economy could have been modernized without the revolution, especially since industrialization and expansion of railroads was accelerating in the early 20th century. The war derailed this, and

Communists built heavy industry at the cost of 20 million lives and devastated environment, with millions exposed to substandard conditions.. Russia was a superpower built on the back of slave labor and oppression. Stalin spent lives like money to harvest gold in Siberia, and simultaneously destroyed Russian agriculture by collectivization; it took well over 25 years for production to approach the levels from before collectivization, even if the damage from WWII is excluded.
The collectivisation of farms was indeed badly implemented.
In the 60's, the USSR lauches the first satelitte, opening a new era in human history.
Now let see how capitalism was implemented. In the UK, by using children in factories and in in mines, by exploiting the proletariat to the point of starvation and repressing strikes in bloodbathes. In Frances, the revolution was about systematic extermination of the monarchs and religious representatives. In the US by the slaughter of indigeneous people. 200 years after, the US has the largest economy in the world.

<<Russia was a superpower built on the back of slave labor and oppression.>>

Oh please, the United States wealth was founded on the genocide of an entire continent, and after an entire race was essentially wiped from the planet we imported another race and enslaved them for hundreds of years. Not only that, but we've sabotaged economies around the world which we didn't like, we've started wars and counter-revolutions and we've assassinated countless leaders who we didn't like to further our goals. I'm no fan of Stalin, but whatever he did pales in comparison to whatever the U.S. did in order to get its wealth and power. Pot meet kettle.

What justification do you give for violent revolution? Most revolutions begin with interesting things like executing everyone with an advanced education.

Eh? Why shoot teachers? And this is before Stalin.

If a handful of people want to make the world Communist, what right do they have to shoot, enslave, and subjugate everyone else in order to make that happen?
This is what we call the class struggle.
The dominant class has the right of its power. When a class becomes irrelevant, it gets exterminated by the more powerful one. This was, this is and this will be until the class system is no more relevant.

<<Russia was a superpower built on the back of slave labor and oppression.>>

Oh please, the United States wealth was founded on the genocide of an entire continent, and after an entire race was essentially wiped from the planet we imported another race and enslaved them for hundreds of years. Not only that, but we've sabotaged economies around the world which we didn't like, we've started wars and counter-revolutions and we've assassinated countless leaders who we didn't like to further our goals. I'm no fan of Stalin, but whatever he did pales in comparison to whatever the U.S. did in order to get its wealth and power. Pot meet kettle.

Most the the Native Americans perished during the initial few years of the Spanish colonization of Central America.

The Native Americans were so few in numbers when the English finally started settling what you call the US, that there were abandoned villages in many locations - wiped out by measles, typhoid, smallpox, etc.

Even during the American "Wild West" era, the Native Americans never fielded a force greater than 20,000 men (and that only for a single battle), and never had the wild stampeding hordes of fighters that you see in movies.

They were already essentially wiped out by the millions long before the US was even colonized. Wiped out not by men, but by microbes. And in those days, there was no knowledge of medicine to make it an intentional event.

Europeans simply showed up, and the diseases that they carried killed millions.

<<What justification do you give for violent revolution?>>

Because the power brokers are not going to give it up any other way. If communists were to win an election, the capitalists would simply assassinate them, much like they did to Salvador Allende, like they tried to do to Castro and who knows who else they've done it to.

I'm no fan of violence, and I do think some of the revolutions have been excessive, while in other cases it has been exaggerated for capitalist propaganda. But the reality is that the power brokers and their willing pawns aren't going to give up their power any other way. Unfortunately, there is no other way to stop them than by physical force. And capitalism certainly has no problem using violence to hold onto its power, so those who are attempting to overthrow it have to respond in kind. Otherwise they'll run all over you and things will never get better.

....They also imported slaves from Africa.

<<What justification do you give for violent revolution?>>

Because the power brokers are not going to give it up any other way. If communists were to win an election, the capitalists would simply assassinate them, much like they did to Salvador Allende, like they tried to do to Castro and who knows who else they've done it to.

I'm no fan of violence, and I do think some of the revolutions have been excessive, while in other cases it has been exaggerated for capitalist propaganda. But the reality is that the power brokers and their willing pawns aren't going to give up their power any other way. Unfortunately, there is no other way to stop them than by physical force. And capitalism certainly has no problem using violence to hold onto its power, so those who are attempting to overthrow it have to respond in kind. Otherwise they'll run all over you and things will never get better.


My grandparents were teachers, and they were executed by Communists for the crime of being teachers. Math teachers.

They also imported slaves from Africa.
Not all of them, and the Americans fought a war amongst themselves to stop the practice.

Without resorting to communism.

If capitalism is so bad, why is the US doing so well?

My grandparents were teachers, and they were executed by Communists for the crime of being teachers. Math teachers.
My best friend is Romanian and was deported for the crime of being romanian. This is the sad world we live in. I sympathise with you but it doesn't mean you should call all communists murderers.

<<Europeans simply showed up, and the diseases that they carried killed millions.>>

This has been the excuse used for the genocide, that they all died of diseases, when in reality this is revisionism. Some died of diseases, but the vast majority were slaughtered. People were forced off their land which they had lived on for centuries and forced to march across the continent. Ever heard of The Trail of Tears? No amount of apologism is going to cover up that fact. Read some real history, not the revisionist crap they teach in our propaganda centers (schools). We've been lied to about this genocide and they continue to lie about it. It was the most evil thing done in the history of humanity, all for capitalist greed. It was worse than what Hitler did and what Stalin did combined, far worse.

My best friend is Romanian and was deported for the crime of being romanian. This is the sad world we live in. I sympathise with you but it doesn't mean you should call all communists murderers.

They look like murderers to me, unless you can arrive at Communism without any violence.

<<Europeans simply showed up, and the diseases that they carried killed millions.>>

This has been the excuse used for the genocide, that they all died of diseases, when in reality this is revisionism. Some died of diseases, but the vast majority were slaughtered. People were forced off their land which they had lived on for centuries and forced to march across the continent. Ever heard of The Trail of Tears? No amount of apologism is going to cover up that fact. Read some real history, not the revisionist crap they teach in our propaganda centers (schools). We've been lied to about this genocide and they continue to lie about it. It was the most evil thing done in the history of humanity, all for capitalist greed. It was worse than what Hitler did and what Stalin did combined, far worse.

Sorry. I'm quite well read on the subject. And it's not revisionism.

Trotsky called this Perpetual Revolution and that's why Stalin hated him so much and had him killed along with millions of other communists.

What you are talking about is an excuse to rule the people with fear and keep them in a state of PERPETUAL VIOLENCE and ANARCHY! Do you think any society would stand for CONSTANT government overthrows by violent ends forever? This is why I have such a low opinion of Communism, it's followers are WAY TO naive and sheep-like in following men and women with strong personalities and a bunch of guns.

Face it, Communism is a failure! Quit adhering to it like a religion and move on with your lives.

Not all of them, and the Americans fought a war amongst themselves to stop the practice.

Without resorting to communism.

If capitalism is so bad, why is the US doing so well?
Why the hell is the US doing so well? Is that because they're wealthy? And who said capitalism was bad? I think you don't get it at all.
The question you should ask is : what next?

<<If capitalism is so bad, why is the US doing so well?>>

Because we're exploiting the hell out of the rest of the planet for the benefit of a proportionally small number of people and the expense of many. No one is saying that capitalism doesn't create wealth and power. What we're saying is that the ends do not justify the means. Yes, capitalism works just fine if your only concern is greedily taking for yourself at the expense of others. However, don't blame others for wanting to overthrow it.

<<Europeans simply showed up, and the diseases that they carried killed millions.>>

This has been the excuse used for the genocide, that they all died of diseases, when in reality this is revisionism. Some died of diseases, but the vast majority were slaughtered. People were forced off their land which they had lived on for centuries and forced to march across the continent. Ever heard of The Trail of Tears? No amount of apologism is going to cover up that fact. Read some real history, not the revisionist crap they teach in our propaganda centers (schools). We've been lied to about this genocide and they continue to lie about it. It was the most evil thing done in the history of humanity, all for capitalist greed. It was worse than what Hitler did and what Stalin did combined, far worse.

Hitler killed a bunch of jews, poles, catholics, slavs, gypsies, homosexuals, and handicaps and the total is between 11 million and 22 million.

Stalin killed an estimated 11 million people

Mao killed 20 million

The Trail of Tears... A few thousand.

So HOW is it far worse?

<<Do you think any society would stand for CONSTANT government overthrows by violent ends forever?>>

No, when capitalism if finally defeated once and for all there will be no need for "government" and no need for violence, that's when we have communism. But as long as capitalism and capitalists exist there is going to be violence, not just from communists, but from capitalists competing with each other for dwindling resources. Greed, jealousy, exploitation, poverty, depression, power struggles, cronyism, war - all symptoms of capitalism. When communism arrives there will be no wars because there will be no countries. Economics will be based on "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." During socialism we will see great violence as the capitalists fight to regain and retain their hording of wealth. Capitalism is the root of all violence and until it is wiped from the planet we will have violence.

Hitler killed a bunch of jews, poles, catholics, slavs, gypsies, homosexuals, and handicaps and the total is between 11 million and 22 million.

Stalin killed an estimated 11 million people

Mao killed 20 million

The Trail of Tears... A few thousand.

So HOW is it far worse?
I would say it is equal (the intend is the same). The death toll is not equal though.

<snip>

Good GOD!:rolleyes:

Yes... Communism will fix EVERYTHING! It slices, it dices, it can bring grandma back from the dead!

You seem incapable of acknowledging the flaws in Communism and that your just mad at the Capitalism system because you don't know how to work it to your own advantage.

<<Stalin killed an estimated 11 million people>>

The people Stalin killed were COMMUNISTS. He purged the followers of Trotsky who wanted real communism. Stalin was a state capitalist, not a communist.

The Eurpeanization of the United States killed tens of millions of people. We don't have accurate records, but it far outnumbers any other genocide.

Not only that, but we had forced slavery for hundreds of years.

And we've had our hand in starting wars and sabotaging economies around the planet in order to destroy other people's sovereignty: Cuba, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Iraq, Vietnam, Angola, Guadeloupe... just to name a few. There's no telling how many people we've killed from our meddling around the world just so we can prop up this evil economic system so obese, SUV driving ditto-heads can drink their coca cola and buy cheap stuff at WalMart. Capitalists delude themselves by thinking that winning the battle is the same as winning the war. The war won't end until capitalism is wiped from the face of the earth. And that is inevitable, no matter how much you want to argue about it.

Good GOD!:rolleyes:

Yes... Communism will fix EVERYTHING! It slices, it dices, it can bring grandma back from the dead!

You seem incapable of acknowledging the flaws in Communism and that your just mad at the Capitalism system because you don't know how to work it to your own advantage.
You are close minded. You should read some books about capitalism and about communism, you would understand better what he is talking about.

<<You seem incapable of acknowledging the flaws in Communism>>

I don't think there are "flaws" in communism - I do admit that many of the people who claimed to be communists in the past were flawed and made mistakes, but the nation states of the past and present who claimed to be communist are not by my definition communist.

Communism is the abolition of government, money, taxes, military, corporations and nation states in favor of a society which exists through mutual cooperation and an equal sharing of wealth and power among all people throughout the entire world.

You can't say it doesn't work because it hasn't even been tried yet.

<<You seem incapable of acknowledging the flaws in Communism>>

I don't think there are "flaws" in communism - I do admit that many of the people who claimed to be communists in the past were flawed and made mistakes, but the nation states of the past and present who claimed to be communist are not by my definition communist.

Communism is the abolition of government, money, taxes, military, corporations and nation states in favor of a society which exists through mutual cooperation and an equal sharing of wealth and power among all people throughout the entire world.

You can't say it doesn't work because it hasn't even been tried yet.I think it is more about fair sharing than equal (from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs).

<<You seem incapable of acknowledging the flaws in Communism>>

I don't think there are "flaws" in communism - I do admit that many of the people who claimed to be communists in the past were flawed and made mistakes, but the nation states of the past and present who claimed to be communist are not by my definition communist.

Communism is the abolition of government, money, taxes, military, corporations and nation states in favor of a society which exists through mutual cooperation and an equal sharing of wealth and power among all people throughout the entire world.

You can't say it doesn't work because it hasn't even been tried yet.

Do you know what happened in Cambodia during the four year rule of Pol Pot? check wiki, Especially because most historians and economists consider that of all Communist rulers, he was the one that tried to impliment the most Communist of all governments, and then tell me if Communism is a practical system that is workable (with a straight face).

<<I think it is more about fair sharing than equal (from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs).>>

Well, yes, literal equality would basically be impossible to achieve and is a subjective term anyway. But I guess the main point of communism would be that people would be free, both from capitalist power brokers and from economic exploitation. We'd all be our own boss and the economy would work on mutual cooperation and volunteerism, not artificial scarcity, fear, and wage slavery. So, yes fair sharing sounds good to me.

...the Americans fought a war amongst themselves to stop the practice.

There was some anti-slavery war in america that I havn't heard of? Strange. Those fighting against slavery must have lost then, because there was slavery until the civil war, which was a war about states rights and preservation of the union, whence slavery was abolished only in the enemy territory by lincoln, in order to get support from oppressed peoples in the enemy land, though he had no way of accomplishing that other than by his military.

But please, tell me more about this war they fought amongst themselves to stop slavery.

defeated once and for all

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/evil.png

And we've had our hand in starting wars and sabotaging economies around the planet in order to destroy other people's sovereignty: Cuba, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Iraq, Vietnam, Angola, Guadeloupe... just to name a few.

Basically all of those nations were in the grip of a government intent on slaughtering its own people anyway. Don't try and pretend that Fidel, Saddam, Pol and all their buddies were somehow the innocent victims of an evil USA's insatiable lust for bloodshed.

<<Do you know what happened in Cambodia during the four year rule of Pol Pot? check wiki, Especially because most historians and economists consider that of all Communist rulers, he was the one that tried to impliment the most Communist of all governments, and then tell me if Communism is a practical system that is workable >>

You still don't get it - communism means NO GOVERNMENT, NO AUTHORITARIAN LEADERSHIP. Cambodia was NOT communist because it was governed. Communism means people function through cooperation, not coercion from some authoritarian leader.

That isn't to say that Pol Pot may have attempted to bring communism to Cambodia, he simply didn't get it. He tried to skip the Socialist phase and go directly to communism. Marx said that couldn't be done, that the world needed to go through socialism first in order to redistribute the power because if not, certain groups would rise to the top and create another heirarchy, just like in capitalism.

Pol Pot was an authoritarian and a totalitarian, not a communist, even though he called himself a communist and some of his ideas resembled some aspects of communism. For one thing a real communist society wouldn't force anyone to do anything, it would be voluntary cooperation. The problem with this if we tried it today, some people would use force to gain power over others, just like Pol Pot did and we'd revert back to a system of exploitation. That's why we need socialism in order to work out these issues of exploitation before we can move on to communism.

words

Capitalism promotes all of the nice things you said.

We'd all be our own boss
The concept of ownership allows you to be your own boss by trading what you own for what you want.

the economy would work
Yup.

mutual cooperation and volunteerism
Employment is mutually cooperative and it is voluntary. It is a voluntary exchange of labour for money, a means by which to accrue food and other goodies.

<<Don't try and pretend that Fidel, Saddam, Pol and all their buddies were somehow the innocent victims of an evil USA's insatiable lust for bloodshed.>>

I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that they are simply a product of capitalism. As long as capitalism exists we are going to have petty tyrants of all stripes fighting for a piece of the pie. It will never end until capitalism is abolished and we have no such thing as countries, armies, leaders or money. No exploitation of any kind, whether it's done in the name of capitalism, socialism, fascism, religion or whatever. That's communism and it is the only logical answer. Anything else and it will just be more of the same.

The Eurpeanization of the United States killed tens of millions of people. We don't have accurate records, but it far outnumbers any other genocide. snip

Not only that, but we had forced slavery for hundreds of years.



From the first website I came across on this subject. Right or wrong, don't know, but for the sake of argument. "By conservative estimates, the population of the United states prior to European contact was greater than 12 million. Four centuries later, the count was reduced by 95% to 237 thousand."
http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1997/native-americans.html

So, a population difference of almost 11.7 million over 400 years. Many of whom probably were killed for very wrong reasons, but who can say exactly how many were never born? There were certainly NOT "tens of millions" killed that you claim. And again, this reduction occurred over 400 YEARS.

In regards to forced slavery for 100's of years....do I regret that the USA hung onto slavery as long as it did? Hell yes. But, name one country that has never had forced slavery.

Get past the rhetoric. Check your facts. Debate with reason, not emotion.

You still don't get it - communism means NO GOVERNMENT, NO AUTHORITARIAN LEADERSHIP. Cambodia was NOT communist because it was governed. Communism means people function through cooperation, not coercion from some authoritarian leader.

I know that Cambodia was not successful in the implementation of communism. Read my post - my point was not what ideology Pot followed. You listed Cambodia as one of the USA's evil-warmongery victims.

<snip>

It is impossible to create a peaceful society without a working government, if everyone was pacifist and enlightened (like the Buddha, guess what religion I follow) then yes it could work, but there have always been and always will be people who are corrupted by power and the opprotunity for power and they will gather like-minded individuals together, get a bunch of weapons and take over using force and then keep power by using fear.

Communism is nice on paper but it can never work in real life, accept that and work with the rest of society to create a better form of Capitalism that has market growth counterbalanced with the needs of the people. That is what I plan to do.

<<Employment is mutually cooperative and it is voluntary. It is a voluntary exchange of labour for money, a means by which to accrue food and other goodies.>>

For the overwhelming majority of the world, employment is not voluntary, it is the only way they can survive. And most of them are working at subsistence levels with very little to no chance of moving up the ladder. And if their health fails them their lives are ruined. That to me is a sickening system and I'm one of the people who benefits from capitalism, yet I have the moral reasoning to see that it isn't right.

It will never end until capitalism is abolished and we have no such thing as countries, armies, leaders or money. No exploitation of any kind, whether it's done in the name of capitalism, socialism, fascism, religion or whatever. That's communism and it is the only logical answer. Anything else and it will just be more of the same.

Because gee, with no military or law enforcement, nobody's going to think of taking advantage of the vast hordes of undefended innocents, right?

I mean, who cares that no police will come to the aid of the meek, the magical power of communism will somehow pacify all muggers and killers and stop everyone from fighting!

For the overwhelming majority of the world, employment is not voluntary, it is the only way they can survive.

It's voluntary. It may be a case of "work or be homeless", but that doesn't make it non-voluntary. The only way to make it otherwise is to give out free wealth, which has to be taken from other people.


That to me is a sickening system and I'm one of the people who benefits from capitalism, yet I have the moral reasoning to see that it isn't right.

Give your computer to charity.

<<<<<It is impossible to create a peaceful society without a working government, if everyone was pacifist and enlightened (like the Buddha, guess what religion I follow) then yes it could work, but there have always been and always will be people who are corrupted by power and the opprotunity for power and they will gather like-minded individuals together, get a bunch of weapons and take over using force and then keep power by using fear. Communism is nice on paper but it can never work in real life, accept that and work with the rest of society to create a better form of Capitalism that has market growth counterbalanced with the needs of the people. That is what I plan to do.>>>>>

This is the reason we need a socialist phase. To totally take power out of the hands of those who have it and spread it as evenly across society as possible. That's what real democracy should be about anyway. This is also why communism will not work in one country alone, but must be global. If one country were to become communist, other countries would invade them and turn them back to capitalism.

Essentially, if power were dispersed across an even playing field and the public was evolved enough to support an anti-heirarchial society, they would put down anyone who tried to gain power over others. This is why we need a socialist phase, to destroy all the authoritarian power horders, regardless of whether they call themselves capitalist or communist.

I don't agree that we should just accept capitalism and try to make it better, because no matter how nice we try to make it, it will always revert back to exploitation. A system based on greed can only be reformed temporarily. Eventually those reforms will be eaten away and the bad things will happen again. That's the very essence of class struggle. Until all authoritarianism, including economic is destroyed, things won't change.

<<I mean, who cares that no police will come to the aid of the meek, the magical power of communism will somehow pacify all muggers and killers and stop everyone from fighting!>>

Most of the social ills and crime we have are the result of capitalism. People get mugged because they have money. What would be the point of mugging someone if there is no such thing as money? Wars are started because of fighting for power and resources. If power is shared equitably across the board, there would be no point. Capitalism also tends to promote competition which leads to people pitting themselves against each other with winners and losers, which in turn leads to retribution. Under a society of cooperative economics status would be given to those who contribute the most to society, not those who take the most for themselves. Capitalism tends to create problems and then convince people that they are needed to solve them.

This is also why communism will not work in one country alone, but must be global. If one country were to become communist, other countries would invade them and turn them back to capitalism.


You're right. Communism is so regressive that only in a world where there is no other alternative can it succeed.


Essentially, if power were dispersed across an even playing field and the public was evolved enough to support an anti-heirarchial society, they would put down anyone who tried to gain power over others.


Evolved enough? What sort of Nazi eugenics are you advocating here? Only highly evolved people can accept your ideology? What happened to everyone being unique and equal?

Most of the social ills and crime we have are the result of capitalism. People get mugged because they have money. What would be the point of mugging someone if there is no such thing as money?


That you consider the abolition of money to equal the abolition of theft is absurd. If somebody takes your food or clothes by force, it's still a mugging.


Wars are started because of fighting for power and resources.


I've got news for you - resources and power still exist in your no-money no-cops free-for-all. The difference is, they're no longer protected from greedy thieves.


Under a society of cooperative economics status would be given to those who contribute the most to society, not those who take the most for themselves.

You've just described how capitalism works. People who contribute to society are rewarded when members of society BUY their goods or services, and they in turn can buy what they want.

Those who take what they want without adequetly compensating for it are imprisoned.

<snip>

Someone is forgetting the fact that there are people who are mentally deranged and will kill for no other reason than that they are CRAZY, pure, plain, and simple, one of the reasons for government to exist is to hunt crazy people down and either place them in jail or a mental hospital (depending on the case).

Without a government, who's job does it become to protect us from the Son of Sam's or the Manson Families out there?

<<<You listed Cambodia as one of the USA's evil-warmongery victims.>>>

Actually, I didn't list Cambodia as one of them, but certainly U.S. involvement in the area contributed to a substantial number of deaths, and even after the alleged atrocities Pol Pot was said to have committed the U.S. funded the Khmer Rouge in their fight against Vietnam.

I can only wonder if the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. had stayed out of the region all together how many lives would have been saved.

A common technique of capitalists is when a revolution happens in a country is to go in and fund a counter-revolution and sabotage their economy. The natural response of a country when attacked is to revert to authoritarianism and militarism and stifle dissent. Just look at how the U.S. reacted after 911, and that is not even comparable to what some countries have endured at the hand of the U.S. and its agents. Then when these countries respond the U.S. holds them out and says, "See, see, this is what communists do, they kill people, they're totalitarian!" Again, capitalists create the crisis and then hold themselves out as the solution. It happens time and time again.

<<Without a government, who's job does it become to protect us from the Son of Sam's or the Manson Families out there?>>

If you look at "primitive" community cultures, there is very little if no crime.

Also, if you compare the U.S. to other countries, we are a breeding ground for serial killers (not to mention other criminals). Look at how much crime has increased in Russia since they've reverted back to full-scale capitalism. The economic pressures, the fear-mongering, the constant consumerist propaganda, literally drives people insane. You don't hear too much about serial killers in socialist countries. It's a result of the pressures and insanity of living in a capitalist culture.

...alleged atrocities Pol Pot was said to have committed...

Alleged? ALLEGED?!

You (edited for profane language)!!!

In Cambodia, as of today, they are STILL finding mass graves filled with human skeletons and skulls of all the people Pol Pot's regime had killed! There are memorials filled with unidentified human skulls of people who were killed by either the death squads or by starvation because of that monster.

How DARE you insult their memory in order to make your political posision look good!

A common technique of capitalists is when a revolution happens in a country is to go in and fund a counter-revolution and sabotage their economy.


You condemn the USA for "economic sabotage".

You also advocate the abolition of money.

<<Employment is mutually cooperative and it is voluntary. It is a voluntary exchange of labour for money, a means by which to accrue food and other goodies.>>

For the overwhelming majority of the world, employment is not voluntary, it is the only way they can survive.
One question: Exactly what system do you support that would eliminate the need to work in order to survive? I'm not aware of a single system that doesn't require its benefactors to work, be it individually or collectively.
Pray tell, I'd love this system.

Also, if you compare the U.S. to other countries, we are a breeding ground for serial killers (not to mention other criminals). Look at how much crime has increased in Russia since they've reverted back to full-scale capitalism.

Yeah, it's because the criminals now go to prison instead of being summarily executed.


The economic pressures, the fear-mongering, the constant consumerist propaganda, literally drives people insane.

I can feel the madness! Oh god, the terrible power of a successful economy which lets me survive is literally DRIVING me INSANE. I'm so afraid!


You don't hear too much about serial killers in socialist countries. It's a result of the pressures and insanity of living in a capitalist culture.

In socialist countries, the serial killers are often the ones in power.

<<<So, a population difference of almost 11.7 million over 400 years. >>>

No one knows the correct figures of how many native Americans were killed by the Europeans, but we do know that the number was astronomical. Writings of early explorers spoke of large "cities" numbering in the thousands and a very well-populated continent. Recent historians are now saying that much of what we previously were led to believe about the "disease" theory was revisionism, written to make us feel better.

In any case, an entire continent of people were destroyed, hundreds of languages and nations of people were obliterated all for greed. No communist has ever even been accused of coming close to doing something like this.

<<<In socialist countries, the serial killers are often the ones in power.>>>

And I suppose that George Bush killing 150,000 Iraqis is simply liberating them too, huh?

Also, in the U.S. it is estimated that close to 40% of the population is on or has been on anti-depressants. Doesn't sound like people are too happy to me, know matter how much cheap junk they can buy from sweatshops.

In any case, an entire continent of people were destroyed, hundreds of languages and nations of people were obliterated all for greed. No communist has ever even been accused of coming close to doing something like this.

That's because no communist has ever been in a place of political power. By your definition, a communist government can't exist, so how COULD communists have killed anybody?

<<<One question: Exactly what system do you support that would eliminate the need to work in order to survive?>>>

People would still need to work, it's just that they would work for themselves, not for bosses or governments, in cooperation with others for the betterment of society, not to horde wealth for themselves. I seriously don't think that under communism everyone would just sit around and watch t.v. till they starve. People like having a purpose in life and status would be based on what people do by their ability, not how much they can exploit others to show off their wealth. Makes much more sense to me than the current system.

And sure, life would be different. You wouldn't be driving your SUV down to the WalMart to buy foreign processed foods from strangers. You'd more likely ride your bike down to the neighborhood food coop and volunteer a few hours with your friends and neighbors helping each other out. You might spend an evening a week taking care of an elderly neighbor instead of them being institutionalized. You'd spend your free time working on hobbies and inventions instead of watching mindless commercials on television or sitting in gridlock traffic for hours a day. It's hard to imagine such a society for most Americans today. We're so jaded and cynical we can't even think outside the box, we just blindly follow whatever we're told by those in power.

And I suppose that George Bush killing 150,000 Iraqis is simply liberating them too, huh?


I never said I supported the Iraq war, and on balance it was a pretty bad idea, but if Saddam had carried on his slow, regular killing of Iraqis it would have surpassed that number easily, either within the dictator's lifetime or sometime within the span of his irremovable hereditary dynasty.


Also, in the U.S. it is estimated that close to 40% of the population is on or has been on anti-depressants. Doesn't sound like people are too happy to me, know matter how much cheap junk they can buy from sweatshops.

And they'd be much happier without property and without a guarantee of safety and life - of course.

By the way, you can bash the United States all you want - I'm a Brit.

<<so how COULD communists have killed anybody?>>

Communists can exist though, although it can be argued that most of what is considered communism isn't really communism at all, it's state capitalism.

<<<but if Saddam had carried on his slow, regular killing of Iraqis>>>

This is exactly my point. Under communism, real communism, Saddam would have never come to power. The U.S. in the 80's Reagan administration, funded Saddam and gave him arms, just as they did Osama, supposedly to fight "communism". But as always, capitalists create the problems, then they take credit for solving the problems they created in the first place. And this latest war will create new problems which we'll have to deal with a few years down the road.

The only answer is to take all motivation away from them all and it is capital which motivates them. If they had no money and no power, then Bush, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, and Osama would be nobodies and they wouldn't be able to do the damage they have done and continue to do.

<<<In Cambodia, as of today, they are STILL finding mass graves filled with human skeletons and skulls of all the people Pol Pot's regime had killed!>>>

How many of those people were killed because of counter-revolutionaries? How many of those people were killed because of the Vietnamese? How many were killed by the monarchists? How many of them were killed because of U.S. and U.S.S.R. meddling? After all, the CIA funded Pol Pot for years, just like they did al Qaida and Saddam Hussein.

I'm certainly not defending Pol Pot, and I'm not saying the Khmer Rouge didn't kill people, but to blame them for every death in Cambodia is dishonest and hypocritical.

People would still need to work, it's just that they would work for themselves, not for bosses or governments, in cooperation with others for the betterment of society, not to horde wealth for themselves.

This sentence is nonsense. People would work for themselves - not for themselves but for others.

I'll take your first answer.

People would still need to work, it's just that they would work for themselves,
You don't seem to realise that working in a capitalist system IS working for yourself. When you sell your labour or your expertise, the money you are given is a way of getting stuff FOR YOURSELF.

But wait, communists aren't supposed to work for themselves!


I seriously don't think that under communism everyone would just sit around and watch t.v. till they starve. People like having a purpose in life and status would be based on what people do by their ability, not how much they can exploit others to show off their wealth. Makes much more sense to me than the current system.

Uh, last time I checked, capitalism based status ENTIRELY on ability to produce - isn't that the PROBLEM WITH CAPITALISM?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is negating the tendancy of capitalism to GIVE according to ability.


And sure, life would be different. You wouldn't be driving your SUV down to the WalMart to buy foreign processed foods from strangers. You'd more likely ride your bike down to the neighborhood food coop and volunteer a few hours with your friends and neighbors helping each other out.

So instead of getting food from efficient producers who actually know how to cook, me and my family have to scrape together our own low-quality hippy gruel? The preparation of food takes several hours? Boy your system sounds progressive and futuristic!

You'd spend your free time working on hobbies and inventions instead of watching mindless commercials on television or sitting in gridlock traffic for hours a day.

HOW will I have free time when it takes me and several others hours to produce a basic meal? In this industry-free world, it sounds like my main hobby will be finding and preparing basic trappings of life which are no longer provided by the market or the government!

<<<You condemn the USA for "economic sabotage".

You also advocate the abolition of money.>>>

Just because there is no money doesn't mean there is no economy. Google search GIFT ECONOMY

This is exactly my point. Under communism, real communism, Saddam would have never come to power.

He'd have been too busy wasting hours of his life finding and making food, apparently.


But as always, capitalists create the problems


Communists and socialists are ALWAYS angelic, selfless, peaceful superhumans who never do anything wrong.

Capitalists are ALWAYS factory-owning sleaze-mongers who don't have a soul and can't feel human emotions. They kill senselessly for no reason and only once they have all been destroyed will the world be magically healed.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/evil.png


If they had no money and no power, then Bush, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, and Osama would be nobodies and they wouldn't be able to do the damage they have done and continue to do.

The absence of money solves nothing. Money just represents real things which are of value. Somebody can steal a loaf of bread or a shirt and it's still stealing.

Money is not power, money is not wealth.

Just because there is no money doesn't mean there is no economy.

Then explain how the absence of money prevents theft and exploitation.

Most criminals have low/bad education, are religious, afraid or poor. Few crimes are commited by people with a good environment to live in. Criminality and corruption are much higher in areas where there is no social education.

SNIP

The CIA stopped funding Pol Pot when the Vietnam War ended, which was ironicly when Pol Pot came to power SO the CIA had nothing to do with Pol Pot's four year reign of madness in Cambodia.

And by the way, each mass grave that is found is checked by skilled archeologist to determine how old the bones are and when they were buried. Every single mass grave that has been found in Cambodia from the late 70's is tied to Pol Pot's reigme and those are major graves found in Cambodia (other than new dig sites at Ankor Watt, or however you spell it).

And considering how much you say "Pol Pot wasn't Communist" I would think that you would support any Counter-Revolution that would overthrow that monster.

But I can't help but feel that you are trying to gloss over the atrocities that Pol Pot commited.

<<<HOW will I have free time when it takes me and several others hours to produce a basic meal? In this industry-free world, it sounds like my main hobby will be finding and preparing basic trappings of life which are no longer provided by the market or the government!>>>

You are making an assumption that we're going to rid ourselves of technology. Most work today is artificially created. We simply don't need as many hours of labor to survive as we are led to believe. Why do you think it would require hours to prepare a basic meal?

Secondly, my example is simply one instance for one person's life. Another person may be a doctor and volunteer their time healing people. Someone else may like building houses, another person may have an interest in solar power, or child care, or farming. (Side note: 40,000 people are killed each year in the U.S. by auto accidents and who knows how much lung cancer and asthma is caused, so yes, by eliminating so much use of the automobile, you'll have a much healthier populace.)

Much of our pollution and our dependence on foreign oil (and resultant terrorism and war) is because we ship things from one side of the world to the other simply because there are cheaper labor markets. I'm not saying there won't be world trade, but it won't be at that level and that's going to happen because of necessity once the oil runs out, not becuase of communism.

We're simply going to have to be smarter and more sustainable with our economy. Capitalism creates waste because it plays on manufactured desire and competition. In a cooperative economy it will be more about "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Few crimes are commited by people with a good environment to live in. Criminality and corruption are much higher in areas where there is no social education.

Who is going to pay for social education when there is no government? People will volunteer to educate the inadequately educated? What happens when those being educated kill their tutors because there are no laws? After all - we are working from the premise that they are socially uneducated and thus prone to criminality.

(Psylos - excuse me if you do not advocate the same end-product as the other poster does. I'm working with his ideal worldview, which is one without laws or government in which everybody helps eachother)

<<<The CIA stopped funding Pol Pot when the Vietnam War ended.>>>

Totally untrue, the CIA supported the Khmer Rouge all the way into the 90's, long after Pol Pot was in power because they had the most effective fighting force against the Vietnamese-installed 'communist' government.


<<<And considering how much you say "Pol Pot wasn't Communist" I would think that you would support any Counter-Revolution that would overthrow that monster.>>>>

Where do you get the idea that I support Pol Pot? The Vietnamese Communists were the ones who threw him out of power. Pol Pot was hardly a communist. If he were he wouldn't have declared himself a leader and put together an authoritarian regime. That's not what communism is about, regardless of how many people try to claim so.

You are making an assumption that we're going to rid ourselves of technology. Most work today is artificially created. We simply don't need as many hours of labor to survive as we are led to believe. Why do you think it would require hours to prepare a basic meal?

Without industry, how will we have technology? And how will large-scale industry be organised without ownership and leadership?

(Side note: 40,000 people are killed each year in the U.S. by auto accidents and who knows how much lung cancer and asthma is caused, so yes, by eliminating so much use of the automobile, you'll have a much healthier populace.)

If there is no government, who will stop me riding my gas-guzzling harley around, chain-smoking cigars and running down old people?

<<<Who is going to pay for social education when there is no government? People will volunteer to educate the inadequately educated? What happens when those being educated kill their tutors because there are no laws? After all - we are working from the premise that they are socially uneducated and thus prone to criminality.>>>

This goes back to what I said earlier in that there must be a phase of socialism. The world is not ready to go directly into communism. Once socialism evens the playing field, there won't be a need for government, people will volunteer. Why in such a world would people kill their teachers? That would be absurd. Take away the profit motive, greed, inequality, rivalry, competition, artificial scarcity, and manufactured desire, and there really is no reason for people to kill, rob, steal or declare wars. Why would you want to steal from me when I'll give you anything you want? Find out the roots of crime and then it can be obliterated. On the occasional chance that someone does committ a crime, their community will take care of them. I simply don't think that it would happen very often in such a society, but if it did, let their community gather together and come to a consensus as to what the punishment would be.

Right now in the U.S. we have a huge number of people in prison simply for marijuana charges, often selling pot to make ends meet. These people are imprisoned and end up becoming hard-core criminals. Meanwhile their families are economically hurt by them being in prison, so the children grow up without guidance and with economic scarcity, which leads to more crime, and then the victims of the crime respond, by harsher penalties, resulting in cycle which has no end. All of this is unnecessary if we were to rid ourselves of capitalism.

Who is going to pay for social education when there is no government? People will volunteer to educate the inadequately educated? What happens when those being educated kill their tutors because there are no laws? After all - we are working from the premise that they are socially uneducated and thus prone to criminality.

(Psylos - excuse me if you do not advocate the same end-product as the other poster does. I'm working with his ideal worldview, which is one without laws or government in which everybody helps eachother)
Actually I mostly agree with him, although I think he is not making him clear.
I believe you both don't talk about the same thing. Suppressing governments and laws NOW would be a suicide. What he describes is out of the reach of your understanding if you don't talk about the path involved in order to reach this kind of society. He talks about the future, a society a sence of justice and moral values which are in opposition with more than 10000 years of preceding human history. A lot of things have evolved since 10000 years. in the past, a society without slaves wasn't possible and people would have called you mad for suggesting that one day we would not need slaves anymore. 1000 years ago they would have called you mad if you suggested that the stupid peasants could be granted political power. At this time, society would have colapse. Peasant couldn't read. 200 years ago, they said society would colapse if people moved away from religion and that social education was a dream.
What communists see is the evolution of humanity and that it will continue. Most people naturally think that we are at the end of history because they can only see the past and the present. Communists look to the future. What is true today won't work tomorrow. When industrialization put millions of people to starvation, something is wrong. There is a Volkswagen factory in Germany with no light. There is no light because machines work in the dark. Machines don't need light. On the other hand, Germany's unemployment rates are skyrocketting.

<<<how will large-scale industry be organised without ownership and leadership?>>>

Through syndicalism. Suppose you and a group of friends or family members wanted to start manufacturing brooms - you would simply form a collective and run it together, dividing up the work among yourselves. If someone wasn't pulling their weight, you'd come to a consensus that they couldn't be part of the collective anymore. The brooms could be traded for things you don't have. This type of economy has existed and worked well before in all parts of the world. No reason it couldn't work today. Of course, for bigger manufacturing concerns it would be more complex, but the point is, the people who work there own it, not stock holders who have no connection to the workplace.

Why in such a world would people kill their teachers? That would be absurd.

Human nature. No matter how much happy socialist give-aways they've been subjected to, ONCE the government is gone and somebody tries to tell anyone else what to do ("social education"), there's going to be conflict.

Why would you want to steal from me when I'll give you anything you want?

It's not as simple as that. Say we're living in communist paradise. Say I want your meal you just prepared for yourself. I want your family heirlooms, the clothes you made for your family, I want to do your wife.

MOST people, no matter how hard they're brainwashed, will not want to just GIVE everything away.



Find out the roots of crime and then it can be obliterated. On the occasional chance that someone does committ a crime, their community will take care of them. I simply don't think that it would happen very often in such a society, but if it did, let their community gather together and come to a consensus as to what the punishment would be.

That's just a rehashed present-day democracy. Problem occurs, people vote on what to do about it.


Right now in the U.S. we have a huge number of people in prison simply for marijuana charges, often selling pot to make ends meet. These people are imprisoned and end up becoming hard-core criminals.

As a hardcore capitalist, I advocate the legalisation of marijuana. Don't raise a drug-baron-in-prison/starving-family argument against me, because I agree that it sucks.

snip

I get it completely. I understand, of course no huge political change like that could happen in a day, even a decade.

My problem is, I think that no matter what the path to it is, an absence of people to defend rights (cops and soldiers) will just make people revert to their greediness.

People changed their mind about slaves, religion, the class system. I understand all sorts of political changes can take place with time. But always, in large, advanced civilisation, there has been an authority of some kind which defends people against attack. I understand changing things ABOUT civilisation, I don't understand revoking the thing which preserves it.

Through syndicalism. Suppose you and a group of friends or family members wanted to start manufacturing brooms - you would simply form a collective and run it together, dividing up the work among yourselves. If someone wasn't pulling their weight, you'd come to a consensus that they couldn't be part of the collective anymore. The brooms could be traded for things you don't have.

This is very similar to a family business in a capitalist system. Instead of trading brooms though, the family trades money - an I.O.U which everyone can use to honor their deals - because not everybody wants a broom.

And by the way - the guy who isn't pulling his weight - shouldn't he still get free food and brooms? He needs them, and he should get them according to that famous phrase.


This type of economy has existed and worked well before in all parts of the world. No reason it couldn't work today.

Damn right it has. It's your standard family business, you've just taken away money which makes trading slightly harder.


Of course, for bigger manufacturing concerns it would be more complex, but the point is, the people who work there own it, not stock holders who have no connection to the workplace.

Dude, people own their work under a capitalist system too! The whole point is that you SELL the labour which you OWN because you don't need a thousand brooms or whatever it is you make, but you DO need food and clothes for your family.

Agreed. That ingenious idea sounds identical to another... called capitalism. You've just replaced capital with goods. It sounds like any other corporation or small business. Also correct that the lazy freeloader should get an EQUAL share of the rewards as every other man, or else you've arrived back at capitalism.

Strange idea, indeed.

I get it completely. I understand, of course no huge political change like that could happen in a day, even a decade.

My problem is, I think that no matter what the path to it is, an absence of people to defend rights (cops and soldiers) will just make people revert to their greediness.

People changed their mind about slaves, religion, the class system. I understand all sorts of political changes can take place with time. But always, in large, advanced civilisation, there has been an authority of some kind which defends people against attack. I understand changing things ABOUT civilisation, I don't understand revoking the thing which preserves it.
This is what is different today indeed. Capitalism has paved toe way for a new, better society. It has put the wall between civilisations down. Even the last remote tribal society has been capitalized. The world is now one entity. Attack aren't coming from outside anymore. The last wall between people is inside society itself. Borders are more and more irrelevant. The last fight is between the rich and the poor. When this war is over, there will be only one class and the class struggle will end. Indeed the betterment of society will be the only aim toward which we will all commit. This will only be possible when all can be sustained and cared for. In this society, people will work from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.

The world is now one entity.

No.

<<<Agreed. That ingenious idea sounds identical to another... called capitalism. You've just replaced capital with goods. It sounds like any other corporation or small business. Also correct that the lazy freeloader should get an EQUAL share of the rewards as every other man, or else you've arrived back at capitalism.>>>

No, it's totally different than capitalism, although it may keep some of the good things. The difference is the elimination of wealth on paper. We have a whole class of people under capitalism who survive off paper wealth. Under communism, there would be no such thing as interest and no one could become indebted or live off of interest. That's a major difference. Also, there is a fundamental difference in a "business" or a collective where all people have an equal voice than there is in a corporation or a small business where you are an employee of someone else.

No employees, voluntary cooperation. Another differing factor is no money. You wouldn't have a price set for your product which could go up or down according to markets. You'd simply give things away and people would give back to you. Everybody would look out for each other and your "wealth" or status would be based on how much you give to others, not how good you are at ripping people off or exploiting people for your own benefit.

As for freeloaders, they would have less status than others because people would look upon them as selfish and lazy. They probably wouldn't starve to death, like some do under capitalism, but they certainly would be looked down upon by most people and there would be a type of social pressure to be productive in some way. Motivation would be based on social acceptance, not on money. That's quite different than capitalism.

This is what is different today indeed. Capitalism has paved toe way for a new, better society. It has put the wall between civilisations down. Even the last remote tribal society has been capitalized. The world is now one entity. Attack aren't coming from outside anymore. The last wall between people is inside society itself. Borders are more and more irrelevant. The last fight is between the rich and the poor. When this war is over, there will be only one class and the class struggle will end. Indeed the betterment of society will be the only aim toward which we will all commit. This will only be possible when all can be sustained and cared for. In this society, people will work from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.

Even if every single man in the world agreed not to be divided on issues of race, creed, or economic status, they would find something else to discriminate against in five to ten minutes.

That is why communism will never work. Perfect Equality is impossible (unless EVERYONE lives in poverty, which is very possible) and that is what Communism demands. Human beings are flawed creatures and evolution as explained to me by a scientist who works in the field doesn't lead to a perfecting of the species.

Evolution is built on the qualities that survive into the next generation both good and bad. The only economic model that has staying power is Capitalism because it acknowledges that human beings are greedy little bloodsuckers and instead of trying to suppress that flaw, Capitalism exploits that flaw and uses it (and everything else) to make money.

Communism rejects half of what makes a human, human and because of this possess no soul, no compassion, no heart, and is instead built on statistics and meeting quotas without any incentive (other than a gun to the head).

No.
Not according to you it seems. Nationalism and religious commitment is still high in some minds, but it is decreasing and it won't stop decreasing, no matter how much conservatives try to slow evolution down. The proletarians are more and more conscious and powerful. Time will make it fade away.

No, it's totally different than capitalism, although it may keep some of the good things. The difference is the elimination of wealth on paper.

That is what we just said.


We have a whole class of people under capitalism who survive off paper wealth. Under communism, there would be no such thing as interest and no one could become indebted or live off of interest.

Who is going to prevent lending if there is no government?

Also, there is a fundamental difference in a "business" or a collective where all people have an equal voice than there is in a corporation or a small business where you are an employee of someone else.

In capitalism, you have a say over what you own - your labour. Why is it fair any other way?


No employees, voluntary cooperation.

Conventional employment is voluntary


Another differing factor is no money.


Yup, that's what we said. Money just represents tangible goods. The goods are still there.


You wouldn't have a price set for your product which could go up or down according to markets. You'd simply give things away and people would give back to you. Everybody would look out for each other and your "wealth" or status would be based on how much you give to others, not how good you are at ripping people off or exploiting people for your own benefit.

Why do I need a wealth status if everyone is compelled to give to me anyway?


As for freeloaders, they would have less status than others because people would look upon them as selfish and lazy.

That's not in line with the most fundamental principle of communism. They need food and clothes as equally as everyone else. You shouldn't look down on them or punish them in any way.



They probably wouldn't starve to death, like some do under capitalism, but they certainly would be looked down upon by most people and there would be a type of social pressure to be productive in some way.

Who's going to give a damn about social pressure? The only thing that makes me want to work is an empty fridge, and if you guys are gonna give me your hard earned food, I don't really care if you mildly tell me off or stop me biking to the co-op bingo night or whatever it is you want to do to me.

<<<Say I want your meal you just prepared for yourself. I want your family heirlooms, the clothes you made for your family, I want to do your wife.>>>

This wouldn't happen because communities would be much closer, instead of everyone isolated and in competition with one another. If someone tried to do this to you, the rest of the community would step in and stop them. Your basing your assumptions on the way the world is today, with the same mentality. Under communism it will be totally different and anyone who thinks in those terms of greed will be social outcasts. In a society where social "capital" is the most important thing, it's highly unlikely that someone would engage in such a behavior as you mention. To do so would threaten their own survival. We're all in it together. Stealing from me would be like shooting yourself in the foot.

Not according to you it seems. Nationalism and religious commitment is still high in some minds, but it is decreasing and it won't stop decreasing, no matter how much conservatives try to slow evolution down. The proletarians are more and more conscious and powerful. Time will make it fade away.

I'm not patriotic and I'm not religious. I'm just an individual. I don't agree with the rest of the world on everything, and I'm sure as hell not part of some giant entity. I have thoughts, feelings and taste which differ from those of your phantom people-amalgamation.

<snip>.

Right... Example of Community "helping you"

Ex: Fifty people try to stop two men armed with machine guns that have several hundred bullets... Not a good scenario (which would exist in the Communist System except for the "fifty people try to stop" part).

Even if every single man in the world agreed not to be divided on issues of race, creed, or economic status, they would find something else to discriminate against in five to ten minutes.

That is why communism will never work. Perfect Equality is impossible (unless EVERYONE lives in poverty, which is very possible) and that is what Communism demands. Human beings are flawed creatures and evolution as explained to me by a scientist who works in the field doesn't lead to a perfecting of the species.

Evolution is built on the qualities that survive into the next generation both good and bad. The only economic model that has staying power is Capitalism because it acknowledges that human beings are greedy little bloodsuckers and instead of trying to suppress that flaw, Capitalism exploits that flaw and uses it (and everything else) to make money.

Communism rejects half of what makes a human, human and because of this possess no soul, no compassion, no heart, and is instead built on statistics and meeting quotas without any incentive (other than a gun to the head).You describe the USSR and you think you describe communism. You don't get what I'm talking about. You should read some books about communism and philosophy. You think capitalism is the end of history because it has put down the feodal system. And anyway capitalism is a war for money. That war is not ended yet, but we already know the winners. The rich are already clearly separated from their future enemies. It becomes clearer and clearer every day. Their fortune are rising faster and faster. The poors are driven poorer and poorer to the point where they can't sustain the burden of the rich anymore. The next war is slowly starting. This war will last several centuries, perhaps more. It will be a war between the proletarians and the bourgeois. Indeed capitalism only makes sense because it replaces a previous well established class system, but it is growing another class system which paves the way for the final class struggle. The conscience of the proletariat is not ready yet for that, but decade after decade, it becomes more and more clear.

This wouldn't happen because communities would be much closer, instead of everyone isolated and in competition with one another. If someone tried to do this to you, the rest of the community would step in and stop them. Your basing your assumptions on the way the world is today, with the same mentality. Under communism it will be totally different and anyone who thinks in those terms of greed will be social outcasts.

Ok, so imagine me and Eichen and all our buddies have been kicked out of bicycle-land. We're all pariahs and we're not allowed to join back into the commune.

What exactly is gonna stop us forming a government, minting money, buy and selling shit and then eventually out-doing you guys completely? You said yourself that communism has to be global to work - any competition from outside will cause failure! Looks like your community is SOL unless they fancy lynching us.

I'm not patriotic and I'm not religious. I'm just an individual. I don't agree with the rest of the world on everything, and I'm sure as hell not part of some giant entity. I have thoughts, feelings and taste which differ from those of your phantom people-amalgamation.
You can't separate yourself from humanity and from society.

<<<That's not in line with the most fundamental principle of communism. They need food and clothes as equally as everyone else. You shouldn't look down on them or punish them in any way.>>>

Again you totally misunderstand what communism about. It is capitalism which promotes freeloading and laziness. People who are born into wealth, often live lives where they do nothing but shop, party and take vacations solely because they inherited a lot of money.

Communism says: FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY. That means if you are able you contribute something to society. Under capitalism many people are able to freeload either through inherited riches, living off interest, or through government welfare.

Under communism there is no government nanny to take care of you. Your friends and family will take care of you if you are unable to contribute, but if your simply selfish and lazy, I think they'd kick you out, so it's unlikely you would see people not contributing, especially since contributing would be so easy. It's not as if, like under capitalism, the majority of people are forced into eight hours of drudgery every day being told when they can eat and go to the bathroom all for a measly paycheck which doesn't even cover their bills. No, under communism people will pursue work they enjoy and will therefore be MORE productive.

Ok, so imagine me and Eichen and all our buddies have been kicked out of bicycle-land. We're all pariahs and we're not allowed to join back into the commune.

What exactly is gonna stop us forming a government, minting money, buy and selling shit and then eventually out-doing you guys completely? You said yourself that communism has to be global to work - any competition from outside will cause failure! Looks like your community is SOL unless they fancy lynching us.
Along with communism comes social education. You are a product of the present and past class systems.

<<<What exactly is gonna stop us forming a government, minting money, buy and selling shit and then eventually out-doing you guys completely?>>>

I think you'd have a hard time doing it. For one thing, just because we don't have government, doesn't mean we won't be organized. Hopefully by that time people will be so evolved that we will see any attempt by someone to revert back to capitalism as a horrible crime, an atrocity on the same level as murder. I think especially with the communication as it is now, WE THE PEOPLE would become aware of it quite soon and nip it in the bud. This is yet another reason why we need a period of socialism, in order to eradicate for eternity any capitalistic tendencies in society, so it wouldn't happen.

<<<Communism rejects half of what makes a human, human and because of this possess no soul, no compassion, no heart, and is instead built on statistics and meeting quotas without any incentive (other than a gun to the head)>>>

What you are describing is capitalism or state capitalism. Pure communism has an incentive, it's called compassion. And under communism there is no need to put a gun to anyone's head because no one works for anyone else. It's about freedom. You've been led to believe a lie by capitalists. Stop listening to propaganda and really read what communism is about. Stalinism and its variants are NOT communism. Under communism no one has power over other people, it is instead a voluntary spirit of cooperation among all people. Y

<<<I'm not patriotic and I'm not religious. I'm just an individual. I don't agree with the rest of the world on everything, and I'm sure as hell not part of some giant entity. I have thoughts, feelings and taste which differ from those of your phantom people-amalgamation.>>>

The purpose of communism is to give you MORE freedom, not less. It means freedom from commercialism, freedom from wage slavery, freedom from competition, freedom from government, freedom from authority, freedom from heirarchies, freedom from religious domination, freedom from corporate control..... When communism arrives people are going to be much more free than they are now. Our western illusion of freedom is b.s. We're currently living in a corporate dictatorship made only palatable by the overwhelming amount of material goodies we've been told we need and endless entertainment distractions. Once the corporatists feel confident in their stranglehold over us, those will be taken away too. We've been told the lie that we're free so much we've been brainwashed into believing it.

<<<Who's going to give a damn about social pressure? The only thing that makes me want to work is an empty fridge, and if you guys are gonna give me your hard earned food, I don't really care if you mildly tell me off or stop me biking to the co-op bingo night or whatever it is you want to do to me.>>>

You still don't get it. Under communism, your self worth and social status won't be determined by how much money you have. That's still a hard thing for many people living under capitalism to wrap their mind around. Your self-worth will be totally based on what kind of person you are, how much you give to the community. Being a selfish person would be the equivalent of having an empty fridge in this society. Your existence would depend on how well you treat others and you'd grow up learning these values, as opposed to growing up in capitalism where you grow up thinking of how many people you can exploit and stamp on to move up the socio-economic ladder. People growing up in this society will have a totally different set of values than you do.

<<<In capitalism, you have a say over what you own - your labour. Why is it fair any other way?>>>

Many people work their entire lives at jobs they hate, just to survive. What communism offers is a meeting of equals in the work place. Decisions are made by consensus, not by management giving orders to you.

The current system is not freedom to many, if not most people. Sure, you can take anti-depressants and drink lots of liquor to make it bearable, waiting out your time for a measly retirement (if they don't just throw your retirement out the window). And the sad fact is that it isn't getting better for most workers, it's getting worse. 20 years ago, an average American could get a good union job and make $15-20 an hour. Nowadays, those people are working at wal mart for $6 or $7 an hour.

We can do better than this and we owe it to ourselves to change this world for the better, not give into the cynical belief that people are just greedy and we should just let things get worse. That's such a defeatist attitude and it makes an assumption that humanity can't evolve and is destined to live in a world of war, hunger, hate, crime, poverty and exploitation. I don't buy it. I think people have been brainwashed to think we have no other choice. We do have a choice and that choice is called communism.

I agree with the majority of your statements, anarchic.

Though a few questions,

Is what you are decribing, the social umbrella that modern day has created of communism, or the perfect ideology in your view, of anarchic socialism?

Also, can not 'government' be an interchangeable word with 'system' as it is just a basis of who controls, and how? The people, would in turn control through voluntary cooperation?

I see also that your view grabs the idea of adaptation to surroundings, which I do agreee with. That in your view, one can be grown to be social, opposed to the human nature of greed and purpose of capitalism.

Also, I read about non-zero sum economics. That in essence, the subjective 'wealth' or 'need' of something causes a creation in value. Though I look at this, and think 'but there are in essence only a limited number of these resources, be they even renewable'.

Lastly, I do think a 'tit for tat' system which doesn't take in money for a 'needed i.o.u', but instead to give and take in a fair manner to benefit 'the people' and as 'the people' work for themselves, they work for themselves as 'the people.

<<<Agreed. That ingenious idea sounds identical to another... called capitalism. You've just replaced capital with goods. It sounds like any other corporation or small business. Also correct that the lazy freeloader should get an EQUAL share of the rewards as every other man, or else you've arrived back at capitalism.>>>

No, it's totally different than capitalism, although it may keep some of the good things. The difference is the elimination of wealth on paper. We have a whole class of people under capitalism who survive off paper wealth. Under communism, there would be no such thing as interest and no one could become indebted or live off of interest. That's a major difference. Also, there is a fundamental difference in a "business" or a collective where all people have an equal voice than there is in a corporation or a small business where you are an employee of someone else.

No employees, voluntary cooperation. Another differing factor is no money. You wouldn't have a price set for your product which could go up or down according to markets. You'd simply give things away and people would give back to you. Everybody would look out for each other and your "wealth" or status would be based on how much you give to others, not how good you are at ripping people off or exploiting people for your own benefit.

As for freeloaders, they would have less status than others because people would look upon them as selfish and lazy. They probably wouldn't starve to death, like some do under capitalism, but they certainly would be looked down upon by most people and there would be a type of social pressure to be productive in some way. Motivation would be based on social acceptance, not on money. That's quite different than capitalism.
At the risk of sounding naive, I'd ask if you really think that it would be a good idea, let alone possible, to turn over our capitalist society (here in the real word) for the immediate return to a stone-age bartering system?

There's only one way I see your vision working: we'd need technology to do all of the work for us, or someone's getting fucked, i.e. exploited.
Outside of that scenario, it'll just be more of the same since we're still human. Someone will always be willing to shift their responsibility onto someone else.
That work will always be shifted to the weakest and least intelligent.
Communitarianism won't work as things are now because it assumes a big lie--
That there is an idea so great that it will triumph over human nature. You assume that somehow, humanity as a whole will come to realize that the community trumps the individual. It doesn't take into the account the obvious, glaring, in-your-face everyday truth...

People are assholes. Always have been, always will. The majority will continue to be self-serving individuals by nature. Regardless of what's in the "communities" best interest.

<<<In capitalism, you have a say over what you own - your labour. Why is it fair any other way?>>>

Many people work their entire lives at jobs they hate, just to survive. What communism offers is a meeting of equals in the work place. Decisions are made by consensus, not by management giving orders to you.
Sweet Buddha, that sounds like a real shithole to work at. It assumes that somehow, despite the obvious implications concerning pluralism, everyone would agree? Sounds more like tyranny by majority. In other words, the zombies, dumbasses and dickwads (i.e., majority) would run the fucking place? *shivers*

Count me out of that utopian tomorrow.

No where is it said in his ideology that it would be "IMMEDIATE". The socialist period beforehand with a still existing government takes care of the TRANSITION NEEDED.

AS for, """People are assholes. Always have been, always will. The majority will continue to be self-serving individuals by nature. Regardless of what's in the "communities" best interest."""

The best interest of 'the people' working for themselves in that of 'the people' working for themselves.

Not persons. People.

To your second post,

This concensus, could carry as much 'give and take' as needed in the compromise of the people.

If you'd rather 'give up' and work towards bettering capitalism, just because you think an idea that is fueled by cooperation through need would not work.

Not persons. People.
Right. When the government hands over their power to the proletariate. :p

Moving along, when commies say "people", they present it in a fictitious way that incorrectly assumes something exists that doesn't.
When you say 10 people, you don't mean 11 people are in a room together (10 people, plus the "people"). When you say "the people", you imagine that there is an ideal individual that will be happy most of the time. Well, he doesn't exist.
"People" are made up of individuals, who care, desire and dislike very different things. Assuming there wouldn't be a large and angry group of outsiders who feel they "have no voice" in all of this communitarian anarchy is nonsense. Mob rule isn't pretty, and that's quickly the situation one would find themselves in. Whenever there's someone around, even if it's "the people", someone else is gonna get fucked over out of their choice or opinion.
In fact, it's gonna happen all of the time when the "people" start deciding what is and isn't gonna be happenin'.

I just can't get past that. It assumes far, far too much "faith". As an atheist and skeptic, I can't assume that prerequisite to end-stage-communism.

Then, you're arguing semantics of the meaning of 'people'.
I mean people, just as the collection of persons, of society/humanity.
You can't be outside of people, but there can be those upset that could easily be resolved within compromise, and peaceful process, depending on the matter at hand. If we're mature and behave cordially, with a feeling of sentiment and a proper dosage of reason, we should be able to come to any given compromise or conclusion.

The current system is not freedom to many, if not most people. Sure, you can take anti-depressants and drink lots of liquor to make it bearable, waiting out your time for a measly retirement (if they don't just throw your retirement out the window). And the sad fact is that it isn't getting better for most workers, it's getting worse. 20 years ago, an average American could get a good union job and make $15-20 an hour. Nowadays, those people are working at wal mart for $6 or $7 an hour.

I'm pretty sure most Americans aren't like that, to say the least. Only about 10% of American workers are union labor, and of them at best 5% had those $15-20 dollar an hour jobs. Most Americans are salaried service sector employees, not blue collar.

The reason why people aren't getting $15-20 an hour anymore is because those positions are neither competitive nor efficent. It's much easier, smarter, and more profitable to either mechanize or outsource those jobs for less money than to keep them in the US where union labor is often overpaid and underproductive.

In a capitalist economy, you have to keep up with the times, and in the modern information economy education is a primary requirement for success.

There's nothing wrong with this; it means cheaper products and a higher standard of living for those who get an education, along with higher wages and better working conditions. Those who don't get an education are left behind, and that's the way it is. The information economy is supplanting the dying manufacturing economy because it is simply a better model.

Many people work their entire lives at jobs they hate, just to survive. What communism offers is a meeting of equals in the work place. Decisions are made by consensus, not by management giving orders to you..

So, what incentive do the workers have to actually produce anything? They still get paid either way, and there's no threat of firing or wage cuts for shoddy work.

The reason there is management is so that the company can keep itself running efficently and profitably, and to provide a goal for lower level employees to work to. If you get rid of management, the enterprise will fail because there is no incentive or threat from above to work.

You can't be outside of people, but there can be those upset that could easily be resolved within compromise, and peaceful process, depending on the matter at hand. If we're mature and behave cordially, with a feeling of sentiment and a proper dosage of reason, we should be able to come to any given compromise or conclusion.
Okay, are you trying to be funny, or do you really believe that collectively, "people" are mature, cordial, sentimental and reasonable? :p
Ironically, we're looking at a pretty decent cross section of politically interested "people", and most of us hardly can be described as all of those things you've mentioned. :p
Look dude, your plan pretty much requires the abolition of all capital on a global scale in order to have a chance. I live in "Red America" in the part we call the south. People are rarely any of those things you mentioned when it comes to voting as a majority, if you haven't heard about it lately.

So the balls in your court. Convince me that this benevolence exists on a large enough scale to justify the abolition of capital, private property and enough liberty to tell the collective to go fuck itself and do something different with my life. Because either way, I suspect that I'd be in the "screwed" minority in the system you're talking about.

So, in the equal chance proposed through voluntary cooperation of tit for tat, education could be given as a service, and taken as a benefit.

To clear your point, there would need to be a complete status on schools, just how up to par they are on what they are meant to provide, and how efficient they are in turn to creating these working class.

At that, is there equal chance for education?
Sometimes the things we want to do, aren't the options we are given.

Those south grew up in the capitalist america. They were grown to adapt to their environment.

That is essentially where there must be a need and consensus for the transition, and an acceptance of capitalism as not 'the future' but as the present and in turn, to look towards the future. The transition between what is stated, is what the socialist state's purpose is.

Those south grew up in the capitalist america. They were grown to adapt to their environment.

That is essentially where there must be a need and consensus for the transition, and an acceptance of capitalism as not 'the future' but as the present and in turn, to look towards the future. The transition between what is stated, is what the socialist state's purpose is.
Okay, then you're an idealist. No problem. Some people would say that I am too every time I vote for the Libertarian Party. Fuck 'em. Who cares, right?
Just so we're honest about hings here, you have to concede that this vision isn't very likey to be taking place any time in the near future. Not even close.

Though it could, as there is a growing concensus of the informed and even the exploited. This end is not an ideal state, but an end, what the evolution of capitalism entails, creates its own defeat by the class structure to cause the need of one class, the period within is the socialist state and the outcoming, communism.

<<<Huckaber: Is what you are decribing, the social umbrella that modern day has created of communism, or the perfect ideology in your view, of anarchic socialism?

Also, can not 'government' be an interchangeable word with 'system' as it is just a basis of who controls, and how? The people, would in turn control through voluntary cooperation?>>>

I think what I'm describing is pure communism - the original idea of what it should be. Somewhere along the way, communists got derailed, some say this happened with Lenin, some say with Stalin, but regardless, what most people call communism today is not communism at all. I think anarchism is a system which works towards the same goals - elimination of the government, as well as heirarchial business practices - both of which are authoritarian systems in which one person is allowed to control or exploit others. Although some may disagree, I don't see much of a conflict between anarchism and pure communism. Socialism is simply the stage before communism which is necessary in order to even the playing field so we can move on to communism. There's a lot of debate within socialism itself of how to go about it. I think the failures of the 20th Century have taught us a lot as to what works and what doesn't and what we need to do to ensure the inevitable attempt by some members of society to revert back to capitalism. That is one thing we can be assured will happen, even by people who claim to be 'communists'.

As for the second question, under socialism there will be a government, there's no getting around that, but it has to be a government dedicated to the ultimate goal of creating communism and eventually rendering itself unnecessary. This in itself is quite a task, as people gaining power in socialism tend to let the power go to their heads. Under communism, there would be no government. There would be a system and there would be organization, but it would be a form of consensus, not leader based. I think you'd see much more local control, not centralized governments or international bodies like Nato or the U.N. or the IMF or the multi-national corporations dictating to people. We have already the technical capablility to create comfortable lives for most people without capitalism. The power brokers give us artificial scarcity in order to maintain power and control over the majority of people. Once humanity has advanced through the socialist learning stage, communism will be quite easy and quite pleasant for everyone. People will wonder why we even allowed capitalism to last as long as it did. However, the socialist stage is going to be quite difficult as most of the world is totally brainwashed into thinking capitalism is the only system which will work.

Anarchic socialism, do you know what money is, and how it came into existance?

I will tell you. When people started trading, they used the barter system you seem to think is so efficient that it can satisfy our needs. Of course barter is extremely inefficient, especially considering you say we should not abandon technology. The computer on which I write this has potentially thousands of people involved in extracting the raw materials, processing them, working the materials into components, assembling the components, transporting them, and marketing them to me. How can I pay them all under a barter system?

Barter's inherient inefficiency is "double coincidence", that is I have what you want, and you have what I want. That is difficult to find.

What people naturally do is trade their stuff for stuff they don't really want, but they know is in high demand. Others copy this practice, and by a process of elimination, society settles on a good which is of universal marketability, and is used not for production or comsumption, but for exchange. We call this good money.

In the Oppinions on Communism thread, I already dealt with the idea that theoretical communism was real communism. Of you care to look, I outline the ideas that form real communism, and make the case that upon these only can we evaluate communism. Talking about theoretical communism is simply a tactic for communist apologists who are unwilling/unable to deal with the reality of the millions of death caused by communism.

<<<In a capitalist economy, you have to keep up with the times, and in the modern information economy education is a primary requirement for success.
There's nothing wrong with this; it means cheaper products and a higher standard of living for those who get an education, along with higher wages and better working conditions.>>>

You are placing blind faith in capitalism, what can be called market fundamentalism. The truth is that this myth doesn't hold. Capitalism in effect is dependent on cycles. The U.S. has had its day in the sun, as far as the capitalists are concerned and the economic future for everyone but the owners of the capital is very bleak. A few people will continue to do well, living off the crumbs of service to the upper classes, but the vast majority will find themselves in poverty within the next one or two generations. Even the information technology jobs are being outsourced. That's the problem with capitalism, it has no concern with the happiness or well-being of people, it is only a mechanism which goes whichever way the market goes. Sure, it can produce great wealth, and many Americans live great lives right now as a result, but also at the expense of millions of lives around the world which were destroyed.

But it doesn't matter what I think or you think or anyone thinks. Capitalism is simply a stage of human development, one which is coming to an end. I predict it will last another 40 years till we run out of oil and then you will see mass chaos and we'll move on to the next step - socialism. It's irrelevant what our opinions are about these matters, it's simply a fact, much like our bodies age. We may not like it, but it's going to happen. To me communism is the most humane and advanced state of being, but that's just my opinion. Of course, for the average person, they can't comprehend such a society. Most people are so distressed that they don't think they could get out of bed unless there was a promise of a paycheck and continued survival being held out for them. What a sad way to think. Socialism will develop a new generation of people though that will think differrently.

Though it could, as there is a growing concensus of the informed and even the exploited. This end is not an ideal state, but an end, what the evolution of capitalism entails, creates its own defeat by the class structure to cause the need of one class, the period within is the socialist state and the outcoming, communism.
No, I'm referring to end-stage communism. There's no "state" to speak of (or government either). Those problems I have deal with the fantastic qualities that will somehow emerge in humanity as a collective. Now you can correctly address my statements and questions. So far, you've been tapdancing, at best.

<<<In a capitalist economy, you have to keep up with the times, and in the modern information economy education is a primary requirement for success.
There's nothing wrong with this; it means cheaper products and a higher standard of living for those who get an education, along with higher wages and better working conditions.>>>

You are placing blind faith in capitalism, what can be called market fundamentalism. The truth is that this myth doesn't hold. Capitalism in effect is dependent on cycles. The U.S. has had its day in the sun, as far as the capitalists are concerned and the economic future for everyone but the owners of the capital is very bleak. A few people will continue to do well, living off the crumbs of service to the upper classes, but the vast majority will find themselves in poverty within the next one or two generations. Even the information technology jobs are being outsourced. That's the problem with capitalism, it has no concern with the happiness or well-being of people, it is only a mechanism which goes whichever way the market goes. Sure, it can produce great wealth, and many Americans live great lives right now as a result, but also at the expense of millions of lives around the world which were destroyed.

But it doesn't matter what I think or you think or anyone thinks. Capitalism is simply a stage of human development, one which is coming to an end. I predict it will last another 40 years till we run out of oil and then you will see mass chaos and we'll move on to the next step - socialism. It's irrelevant what our opinions are about these matters, it's simply a fact, much like our bodies age. We may not like it, but it's going to happen. To me communism is the most humane and advanced state of being, but that's just my opinion. Of course, for the average person, they can't comprehend such a society. Most people are so distressed that they don't think they could get out of bed unless there was a promise of a paycheck and continued survival being held out for them. What a sad way to think. Socialism will develop a new generation of people though that will think differrently.

Do you charge an hourly fee for your psychic services, or are you getting ready by making use of the barter system now?

You are placing blind faith in capitalism, what can be called market fundamentalism.

Ha! You who claim that socialism will breed a New Soviet Man (I think that what they used to call him)! His faith is not blind, capitalism has produced the highest living standards ever. Your faith is blind, socialism, and all attempts at it have only brought misery, even the relatively moderate attempts in the West (like the Australian Whitlam [spit] "government" of 72-5)

Capitalism in effect is dependent on cycles.

No, it isn't. An economy controlled by a government central bank (a Marxist device if ever there was one) creates cycles.

The fact is that without central banking, North America (this was before the Revolution) was enourmously and consistantly prosperous.

Sure, it can produce great wealth, and many Americans live great lives right now as a result, but also at the expense of millions of lives around the world which were destroyed.

Bollocks. It is socialism, it is big and powerful government that produces the most misery. Capitalism is simply based on trade. Charges of exploitation are never proven, and that is because it is not exploitation.

Communism humane? The Gulag humane? The Berlin Wall? The Killing Fields? Communism is anti-human. It seeks to beat the human into shape, and if he won't be beaten into shape, beaten to death.

Disraeliland, Communism is not about a barter system, it's about a gift economy. Much like you are using this forum for free and the creator is not making money off of you. That's what communism is about. The "value" of a product would become meaningless. If a product is traded, it would be done so more for fun than out of necessity. There would be no real value attached to objects, other than possibly sentimental value for certain items. For example, if I started making clothes, I'd give them to people because they need them and I'm able to make them, not because I'm expecting anything in return.

I know this idea is very difficult for someone growing up under and living under capitalism to understand. It took me a long time too, to come to this understanding, but the fact is that people will have a different motivation when communism is achieved. You are producing goods and working because you want to help people, not because you are looking for something in return. Think of Mother Theresa, for example - was she doing her work because she was hoping to get rich? No. It's about social capital, altruism, and giving. Essentially we'll become a worldwide society of do-gooders and those who aren't will be looked down upon. The social pressure alone will guilt most people into being givers. Plus we won't be constantly barraged with media images telling us we need to buy, buy, buy and there won't be any social ladder to climb. So the motivation of greed will be non-existant in the new communist world.

Also, it's irrelevant that you think state capitalists represent real communism, because they weren't any more communist that Saddam's Republican guards were members of the GOP. And look at history how many people have been killed in the name of capitalism. The argument that "communists kill people" is meaningless to me. You can shout it all day long, but I'm not buying it, because those were not communist countries, they can't be because communism means no government, so how can a communist country kill people? That argument is going nowhere and never will.

Disraeliland, Communism is not about a barter system, it's about a gift economy. Much like you are using this forum for free and the creator is not making money off of you. That's what communism is about. The "value" of a product would become meaningless. If a product is traded, it would be done so more for fun than out of necessity. There would be no real value attached to objects, other than possibly sentimental value for certain items. For example, if I started making clothes, I'd give them to people because they need them and I'm able to make them, not because I'm expecting anything in return.

I know this idea is very difficult for someone growing up under and living under capitalism to understand. It took me a long time too, to come to this understanding, but the fact is that people will have a different motivation when communism is achieved. You are producing goods and working because you want to help people, not because you are looking for something in return. Think of Mother Theresa, for example - was she doing her work because she was hoping to get rich? No. It's about social capital, altruism, and giving. Essentially we'll become a worldwide society of do-gooders and those who aren't will be looked down upon. The social pressure alone will guilt most people into being givers. Plus we won't be constantly barraged with media images telling us we need to buy, buy, buy and there won't be any social ladder to climb. So the motivation of greed will be non-existant in the new communist world.

Also, it's irrelevant that you think state capitalists represent real communism, because they weren't any more communist that Saddam's Republican guards were members of the GOP. And look at history how many people have been killed in the name of capitalism. The argument that "communists kill people" is meaningless to me. You can shout it all day long, but I'm not buying it, because those were not communist countries, they can't be because communism means no government, so how can a communist country kill people? That argument is going nowhere and never will. I can't comment on what Stalinists do because their ideology is as foreign to me as pure communism is to you.

No, Communism is not expected in the 'near future' as there is not enough need for the socialist state as the last of capitalism still has the fossil fuel to keep its engine going.
The socialist state would be expected first off, giving an even longer time needed. Capitalism will fail. It is not envy, nor zero-sum economics that fuel it, but gaining a life through doing what you want and what you need that you can, to drive a direct self preservation of a humanity of benefit.

<<<Bollocks. It is socialism, it is big and powerful government that produces the most misery.>>>

I agree that big and powerful government produces the most misery, whether that government is transparent or whether it is the defacto government of big business and corporations.

Socialism is simply a necessary step to eliminating all governments. That's called communism - no government, no leaders, no taxes, no countries, no military. I think its people's nature to want to see communism, they just don't know how to get there and the word communism has been perverted and demonized both by capitalists and so-called 'communists'. But the only step towards achieving communism is going to be socialism. It's inevitable. The sooner we accept it, the sooner we can get to communism.

<<<No, it isn't. An economy controlled by a government central bank (a Marxist device if ever there was one) creates cycles.>>>

Are you kidding me? Capitalism totally runs on cycles, that's the entire basis of the markets. Ever hear of the great depression?

<<The fact is that without central banking, North America (this was before the Revolution) was enourmously and consistantly prosperous.>>>

I agree with you on that one. The early north American settlers had a basically communist society. I say let's do away with the IMF totally, as well as all banks.

I know this idea is very difficult for someone growing up under and living under capitalism to understand.

Leave the ad-hominem for the kiddies. Little shit.

Disraeliland, Communism is not about a barter system, it's about a gift economy. Much like you are using this forum for free and the creator is not making money off of you. That's what communism is about. The "value" of a product would become meaningless. If a product is traded, it would be done so more for fun than out of necessity. There would be no real value attached to objects, other than possibly sentimental value for certain items. For example, if I started making clothes, I'd give them to people because they need them and I'm able to make them, not because I'm expecting anything in return.

At its most fundamental level, communism is about an AK-47 against a human head ... forever.

Have you actually analysed your "idea". Gift economy theory works for the owners of an internet forum, but you have not shown that it can work in reality, for vital goods. "Value" is everything.

You are producing goods and working because you want to help people, not because you are looking for something in return. Think of Mother Theresa, for example - was she doing her work because she was hoping to get rich? No. It's about social capital, altruism, and giving.

I am trading. Mother Teresa acted with the profit motive, only her profits were spiritual. It was never about altruism, she got something out of what she did.

Essentially we'll become a worldwide society of do-gooders and those who aren't will be looked down upon.

What rubbish. You are making the same mistake as Marx, assuming that humans will be beaten into shape. Attempts to beat people into shape mean dead people.

Also, it's irrelevant that you think state capitalists represent real communism, because they weren't any more communist that Saddam's Republican guards were members of the GOP.

There is no difference between a state capitalist and a communism, except that the state capitalist is honest. They are exactly the same thing, the centralisation of productive power in the state. I don't accept your idea that government will simply end, you haven't provided any justification for it, except a miracle that changes fundamental human nature. I have shown it elsewhere. You are simply using "state-capitalist" as a swear word so you rationalise your communism with the misery that it has bought.

The argument that "communists kill people" is meaningless to me. You can shout it all day long, but I'm not buying it, because those were not communist countries, they can't be because communism means no government, so how can a communist country kill people? That argument is going nowhere and never will. I can't comment on what Stalinists do because their ideology is as foreign to me as pure communism is to you.

Bollocks, communism means total government. Marx's idea that an all-powerful government, with all-powerful men at the top, would simply go away when the moment was something he never explained. All-powerful men enjoy their power, they won't give it up willingly. They never have before. You can shout Marx's omissions and fallacies all day long, nad they won't change the reality. You have provided no worthwhile explaination for it. Therefore your theory, and communist theory about there being no government is not acceptable.

<<<Ha! You who claim that socialism will breed a New Soviet Man (I think that what they used to call him)! His faith is not blind, capitalism has produced the highest living standards ever. Your faith is blind, socialism, and all attempts at it have only brought misery, even the relatively moderate attempts in the West (like the Australian Whitlam [spit] "government" of 72-5)>>>

Again you are confusing the Soviet Union with communism. They may call themselves communist, but by my definition they were not communist, not even close. They were state capitalist.

Communism means NO GOVERNMENT, so how can a communist government oppress you if it doesn't exist? You're hung up on the years of propaganda that has been driven into our heads that communism is bad. Yes, I agree the Soviet Union was bad, but that's not communism.

If it makes you feel better or helps you understand it better, think of communism as libertarianism taken a step further. Not only does it free you from government control, but it frees you from economic control too. Communism is about freedom from capitalism. In order to achieve this we will go through a stage called socialism which evens out the playing field and ensures that when we reach communism our freedom will be maintained. It's as simple as that.

Are you kidding me? Capitalism totally runs on cycles, that's the entire basis of the markets. Ever hear of the great depression?

The Great Depression was a failiure of the central banking system, not a natural cycle. The central banks failed to control the speculative excess of the 1920's, and the gross fiscal imbalances caused by protectionism and the difference in economic situation between war-devastated Europe and america resulted in an unsustainable situation that the world's inexperienced central banks could not control.

Recessions are natural, depressions are not.

<<The fact is that without central banking, North America (this was before the Revolution) was enourmously and consistantly prosperous.>>>.

That's not necessarily true; the North American economy was heavily linked to that of the European powers, and so was highly susceptible to anything that affected demand for raw materials. Acute shortages of coinage also resulted in a greater amount of self sufficency and local production. If anything, it was a free-enterprise system, but not necessarily a capitalist one. It was an ad hoc economy, with the cities having a more developed system than the farmland.

Are you kidding me? Capitalism totally runs on cycles, that's the entire basis of the markets. Ever hear of the great depression?

Have you ever heard of the Federal Reserve System? The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve System of state centralised banking. They vastly expanded credit in the 1920's, and in 1929, they called in the loans, and shrank the money supply so much that we got a Depression. The cause of the Great Depression was central banking.

I agree with you on that one. The early north American settlers had a basically communist society.

No, they didn't. They had a highly developed capitalist society. What destroyed their prosperity was government central banking, specifically the Bank of England, and the British Government, which outlawed Colonial Scrip, and order tax payments to be made in gold.

Socialism is simply a necessary step to eliminating all governments. That's called communism - no government, no leaders, no taxes, no countries, no military. I think its people's nature to want to see communism, they just don't know how to get there and the word communism has been perverted and demonized both by capitalists and so-called 'communists'. But the only step towards achieving communism is going to be socialism. It's inevitable. The sooner we accept it, the sooner we can get to communism.

I refuted that rubbish already.

<<<Bollocks, communism means total government.>>>

LOL! No it doesn't. Communism means NO GOVERNMENT, NO COUNTRY, NO TAXES, NO CORPORATIONS, NO MILITARIES, NO MONEY - what you are talking about is socialism, which is a phase needed because people are so brainwashed by capitalism that it will take an entire generation or longer to grow out of the capitalist idea that you need to exploit people in order to survive. That's totally unnecessary, but obviously people like you still think it's so. That's why we need socialism. If we don't, people will continue to oppress others, start wars for dwindling resources, die of starvation and lack of medical care.

Communism is about an innternational brotherhood of humanity working together to meet the needs of all people. You may not be able to visualize, but that does not mean it isn't going to happen. It's the future, whether you like it or not.

It's inevitable. The sooner we accept it, the sooner we can get to communism.

You're acknowedging that your argument cannot be sustained, and has been destroyed by this statement. Simply saying that it is inevitable is insufficient explaination.

It's as simple as that.

Yet another acknowedgment of your argument's weakness.

You're hung up on the years of propaganda that has been driven into our heads that communism is bad.

Ad-hominem! Yet another acknowedgment of your argument's weakness.

Face it, you've lost this one, and are reduced to saying "It's inevitable!", and "You're all doody heads who don't understand!"

That's not necessarily true; the North American economy was heavily linked to that of the European powers, and so was highly susceptible to anything that affected demand for raw materials. Acute shortages of coinage also resulted in a greater amount of self sufficency and local production. If anything, it was a free-enterprise system, but not necessarily a capitalist one. It was an ad hoc economy, with the cities having a more developed system than the farmland.

What happened was the Bank of England got the British Government to outlaw Colonial Scrip (the fiat money printed by the United Colonies, which worked extremely well) and replace it with gold, of which they had very little, and ordered them to pay their taxes with it.

<<<The central banks failed to control the speculative excess of the 1920's, and the gross fiscal imbalances caused by protectionism and the difference in economic situation between war-devastated Europe and america resulted in an unsustainable situation that the world's inexperienced central banks could not control.

Recessions are natural, depressions are not.>>>

My point is that I want to see the end of money altogether. Then there is no need for any central bank or market to control the economy, nor is there need for protectionism.

It's really comparing apples to oranges anyway. There would be no money under communism anyway. Under socialism there will though and some aspects of capitalism will be retained, but slowly cut out. The only way a socialist society fails is if they revert back to a capitalist system.

What happened was the Bank of England got the British Government to outlaw Colonial Scrip (the fiat money printed by the United Colonies, which worked extremely well) and replace it with gold, of which they had very little, and ordered them to pay their taxes with it.

The main reason for this was because outlawing colonial currency made the colonies even more dependent on Britain for their currency; however, at the same time, they were taking out more precious metals than came in, with the end result being that very little tax was actually collected due to lack of specie to pay it in.

Communism is about an innternational brotherhood of humanity working together to meet the needs of all people. You may not be able to visualize, but that does not mean it isn't going to happen. It's the future, whether you like it or not.
As a libertarian living in America today, I can't convince myself of anything so absolute. Things aren't so easy to forecast in a world where opinion and "what the people want" changes so frequently. How can you assume your last statement so arrogantly? Again I'll ask, are you psychic or what?

I think that such a sensational, hyperbolic claim like that should at least be backed up with something a little more substantiated than "because I say so".
Prove it. Or at least come down off the cloud a little and realize that nobody knows (not even Jane Dixon) what's happening tomorrow, let alone "in the future". At best, you can claim an educated guess.

<<Face it, you've lost this one, and are reduced to saying "It's inevitable!", and "You're all doody heads who don't understand!">>>

No, again you misunderstand the tone of what I am saying. Communism takes a world view that humanity is evolving - someone earlier in the thread put this out, but I'll repeat it:

cavemen > feudal society > capitalism > socialism > communism

Communists believe that this is how society develops. It's not that one stage is bad, they're all necessary. Capitalism was necessary to move on to socialism. One of the problems with the Chinese revolution is that they tried to move China from a feudal society to a socialism one, skipping the step of capitalism. I think capitalism has done great things for America, but that doesn't mean we should be content to stay in that phase, especially knowing the number of people who suffer because of it. That would be immoral. We evolve to something better. By saying it is inevitable, I'm not trying to be pompous, I'm simply stating how the world is seen through a communist perspective. We really do believe that the world is going through these steps and that capitalism is simply a stage and IMHO it is a stage which is playing itself out and coming to an end.

<<<As a libertarian living in America today, I can't convince myself of anything so absolute. Things aren't so easy to forecast in a world where opinion and "what the people want" changes so frequently. How can you assume your last statement so arrogantly?>>>

As I said in my last post, it isn't about arrogance, this is the basis of communist belief, that humanity will go through all these stages. A communist believes that they are an inevitable evolution. I didn't make this up, it's basic Marxism. And I've found nothing to lead me to believe otherwise.

On the other hand, I think libertarianism has a lot more in common with communism than most libertarians care to admit. I consider myself a Left Libertarian or anarcho-communist. I'm not comfortable with big government either. However, I don't see much difference betwee big business and big government at all. About the only difference I see is that government is perhaps a little anwerable to the people, whereas big business appears to have no responsibility whatsoever.

I've understood perfectly, you are using this idea of "evolution" to get around your burden of proof.

By the way, evolution is an unpredictable process without a conclusion we can determine. What you're positing is closer to creationism.

Eichen is right, you must prove it, preferably with something more than this "inevitability" crap.

<<<You're acknowedging that your argument cannot be sustained, and has been destroyed by this statement. Simply saying that it is inevitable is insufficient explaination.>>>

Like I said, this is the basis of all Marxist belief, the inevitability that capitalism will collapse and give way to socialism, which will give way to communism. I don't really know what else I can say to explain it. To me it really is a simple process. You may not agree with it, but I do.

<<<By the way, evolution is an unpredictable process without a conclusion we can determine. What you're positing is closer to creationism.>>>

I'm not talking about evolution in the Darwinian sense and surely you are well aware of that. When I say humans evolve, I mean they grow past the stage where they need greed to be their primary motivator in life. While that may seem crazy to you, think just 100 years ago people thought it was crazy that women should be able to vote. 60 years ago people thought it was crazy that blacks should have the same rights as whites. 20 years ago people thought it was crazy that homosexuals could be open about their lifestyle. People can and will evolve and I and many others believe that they are evolving past capitalism. If you don't like the word evolve then feel free to replace it with grow. There isn't time enough for me to lay out Marx's entire thesis, you'll have to discover that on your own.

snip

What you are talking about isn't evolution, that is political change over a period of years, like how in the 60's being called a "Conservative" was a dirty word in politics then in the 80's it became "Liberal" that was the bad word.

Evolution is physical change in a species over a period of generations, mental change is in another category of it's own.

If someone brings up past communist dictators, remind them that those were not indeed true communists, but fascist socialists. Explain to your class that communism is a very democratic system because it's giving power to the working class majority.
they were indeed not socialist. in socialism, everyone gets the same thing regardless of what they do, in communism they get only as much as they work for, the harder they work the more they get and if they don't work at all they get nothing.
speaking of that, are you doing communism or socialism? big difference in them.

<<<Evolution is physical change in a species over a period of generations, mental change is in another category of it's own.>>>


You know full well the context I used the word evolution in - the evolving of human consciousness, and yes, it will "evolve" over generations as people shed the capitalist ideas and move towards a socialist understanding and then toward communism.

It isn't an easy mental leap for anyone growing up in capitalism. And I would imagine that most of the "communist" revolutionaries of the past didn't get it either. They knew capitalism was oppressing them and knew it should be overthrown, but they didn't know what to do next. Hell, I grew up thinking communism was "bad", but after reading enough, it finally struck me that this makes far more sense than being at the mercy of the whims of markets and oligarchs living in a system based on greed. Yes, pure communism (and no I'm not talking Stalinism) is the highest level of advancement mankind has yet imagined.

You cannot use faith in a debate, nor can faith refute anything. Your position is simply wrong, and you, who have the burden of proof to show it is right, have not done so.

I've read Marx's thesis, and I fully understand it. It is based on a faulty premise, and an incorrect image of capitalism. He fails to explain why a state monopoly (in his so-called transitional phase) will do things better than private competition, he fails to explain why an all powerful state managing the transition won't abuse its powers, and why it will abolish itself at the appropriate time. He comes out with transparently idiotic fluff like "they have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole" (does anyone really believe this crap!?), and idiocy like "The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat" (the idea of a whole class seizing power is absurd, it can only appoint representatives to take that power. No matter what flowery language Karl Marx chooses to use, the simple reality is that government power will always be in the hands of the few, regardless of whether that government is communist or capitalist. The real question is how much power can government have, and it is a zero-sum game, either the people can have a power, or the government can have it)

He has this notion that everyone is only paid the strict minimum, which can be proven as rubbish wherever you look. Firms compete for people by offering higher wages all the time, and people who's skills are more scarce, or more in demand can command more in the market (doctors for instance)

Here is his plan which is real communism, because the theoretical stage of communism is not possible, and no one has ever explained why it would be without writing "And Then A Miracle Happens" in the middle of the equation:

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

So, I can never own my own home. Why should I do anything? It doesn't serve my interests.

2: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax

They've nicked your land and home, now your pay too, this is just nasty! It is also a removal of incentive to work.

3: Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Removing yet another incentive to work and save, namely the ability to leave it to the ones you love.

4: Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

Marx targets emigrants because any free movement of goods, services, and people cannot be allowed by communism. Communists must make it impossible for anyone to leave the hell they create. As for rebels, he doesn't mean terrorists who bomb and hijack, they are criminals to be punished anyway for their violence, Marx means anyone who shows opposition to communism. That is the only reason he specifies rebels.

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 inheriently corrupt and inefficient. Competition works better.

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

No free speech, no freedom of movement if the government controls the means of it.

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

Work or get shot in other words. I prefer the capitalist model: work and get paid. Of course Marx is acknloweding the weakness of his thesis here. He knows that material self-interest is important, but without the ability of a worker to sell his labour services for a salary, some other incentive is needed. At this point, we intorduce Mikhail Kalashnikov (the designer of the AK-47 series).

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. That worked really well[/sarcasm]

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.

In other words, send the children into the mines and factories, and don't pay them!



Marx's thesis must rest on the removal of something fundamental to human nature, self-interest, and the interests of one's loved ones. These biological factors make possible any society.

<<<Evolution is physical change in a species over a period of generations, mental change is in another category of it's own.>>>


You know full well the context I used the word evolution in - the evolving of human consciousness, and yes, it will "evolve" over generations as people shed the capitalist ideas and move towards a socialist understanding and then toward communism.

It isn't an easy mental leap for anyone growing up in capitalism. And I would imagine that most of the "communist" revolutionaries of the past didn't get it either. They knew capitalism was oppressing them and knew it should be overthrown, but they didn't know what to do next. Hell, I grew up thinking communism was "bad", but after reading enough, it finally struck me that this makes far more sense than being at the mercy of the whims of markets and oligarchs living in a system based on greed. Yes, pure communism (and no I'm not talking Stalinism) is the highest level of advancement mankind has yet imagined.

The fact that you refuse in any way to argue your point logically is bad enough, stop insulting those who don't agree with you.

communism isnt bad at all in theory, its just how it turns out in real life that matters .

Disraeli, obviously there's no point arguing with you logically, because no amount of logic will persuade you. And that's fine, you have a right to your opinion, just as I have a right to mine.

My argument is not about faith, it is that I truly believe that mankind can and will do better. Marxism, to me at least, is not an ideology or a dogma, it is simply an explanation of the framework of how and why economics develops the way it does.

I do know that capitalism is not the final answer. No system which says people are greedy or lazy and not worthy to control their own destiny will last forever. I believe capitalism can create great wealth, but we can do better. Your entire argument centers is based on the assumption that people will not grow out of this infantile stage of selfishness. I think they will. It may not happen in our lifetime, but I think it will. If not, then we may as well all kill each other, because humanity has no hope.

You keep wanting some burden of proof. How much proof do you need? Look around at how much misery and killing is going on in the world. Look at the criminal acts taking place in the U.S., not only on the street, but in the boardroom, and the highest levels of our government. Look at how many people are on prozac in the richest country in the world. They have it all, but still aren't happy. It's because capitalism must create a feeling among the populace of insufficiency, in order to keep the public in a constant state of want and fear. If that isn't enough proof then I don't know what is.It's not my responsibility to educate you.

And your 10 points are meaningless to me. Communism means NO GOVERNMENT AND NO MONEY - so basically those ten points have no context in a communist society. There are no wages and no countries in world communism, so I have no clue what you are talking about with your points. Every one of them are irrelevant. It's like I'm talking about one thing and you're still talking about the Soviet Union. You still don't get it.

Hello, fellow Generalites. In a few days, my class will hold a debate about capitalism versus communism. I will be arguing the communist side. Will those of you who are communists kindly tell me your perspectives on the advantages of communism and the flaws of capitalism and/or provide useful links? Thanks, I appreciate it!
....
Yep, and now we know that Communism is utterly immoral, evil and it has coodies.

But as one of the few people that bother to read the OP (I'm looking at you, Disraeliland...) I'll summarise.

Communism - Good. Can't really attack it.
Socialism - kinda flawed, and since it's integral to get to Communism, this is what you need to defend.

I'd go down the road of explaining the Labour Theory of Value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_theory_of_value), Historical Materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism) (maybe support it with Schumpeter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumpeter)).

They'll undoubtedly try and concentrate on the bad things that happened when it was really implemented (if they're any good, they'll use arguments similar to Disraeli's) - and you counter with things like the Kibbutzim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz) and the Mondragon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation)-Colony as examples of consensus decisions being made that lead to quasi-Socialism, without coercion.

Depending on what year you're in at High School that should knock them out - if you're in higher grades you probably need to defend those against allegations of outside help and the apparent tendency of humans to be selfish even if they grow up in a totally cooperative environment...

But above all: Establish a clear seperation between regimes we call "communist" in the real world and the actual meaning of the system and the theory.

Disraeli, obviously there's no point arguing with you logically, because no amount of logic will persuade you. And that's fine, you have a right to your opinion, just as I have a right to mine.

Since you have used no logic whatsoever, I don't see how you can make and support that statement.

My argument is not about faith, it is that I truly believe that mankind can and will do better. Marxism, to me at least, is not an ideology or a dogma, it is simply an explanation of the framework of how and why economics develops the way it does.

That is still faith. You are not arguing on logic, you are arguing on faith.

I do know that capitalism is not the final answer. No system which says people are greedy or lazy and not worthy to control their own destiny will last forever. I believe capitalism can create great wealth, but we can do better. Your entire argument centers is based on the assumption that people will not grow out of this infantile stage of selfishness. I think they will. It may not happen in our lifetime, but I think it will. If not, then we may as well all kill each other, because humanity has no hope.

#Have a little faith in us#

You keep wanting some burden of proof. How much proof do you need? Look around at how much misery and killing is going on in the world. Look at the criminal acts taking place in the U.S., not only on the street, but in the boardroom, and the highest levels of our government. Look at how many people are on prozac in the richest country in the world. They have it all, but still aren't happy. It's because capitalism must create a feeling among the populace of insufficiency, in order to keep the public in a constant state of want and fear. If that isn't enough proof then I don't know what is.It's not my responsibility to educate you.

Where is the proof in there. No one has said that capitalism is perfect, and weaknesses in capitalism don't automatically translate to proof that communism can work. In any case, your argument rests on the notion that the US is still capitalist, it is closer to economic fascism (a system in which the state exercises many, or all the powers of ownership while leaving nominal ownership in private hands)

And your 10 points are meaningless to me. Communism means NO GOVERNMENT AND NO MONEY - so basically those ten points have no context in a communist society. There are no wages and no countries in world communism, so I have no clue what you are talking about with your points. Every one of them are irrelevant. It's like I'm talking about one thing and you're still talking about the Soviet Union. You still don't get it.

You don't read well, do you? I explained why the so-called theoretical state of communism is irrelevant to a discussion of communism because no attempt is made to explain how it can come about, nor is any attempt ever made to deal with the questions it brings up. You have made no such attempt, in fact, you have ignored it completely, preferring to rely on blind faith.

I shall list the questions:

Why an all powerful state managing the transitin won't abuse its powers, and why it will abolish itself at the appropriate time? You can't simply say that it will cease to be necessary, the fact is that the transitional state is led by men who possess and enjoy absolute power. You can't tell me that they will simply give it up.

Why would the state monopoly in the transitional phase (with which the 10 points deals) be more efficient at producing the needs of society than private enterprise? Indeed, all previous attempts at state monopolies have resulted in shortages in all items, from housing, to clothing, even to bread.

Why would the all-powerful government in the transitional phase not abuse its powers? All governments have abused their powers for political gain, or the private gain of people in it.

Why an all powerful state managing the transitin won't abuse its powers, and why it will abolish itself at the appropriate time? You can't simply say that it will cease to be necessary, the fact is that the transitional state is led by men who possess and enjoy absolute power. You can't tell me that they will simply give it up.
Remember Feudalism? That was around out of necessity, and then technology made castles and all the rest of it unnecessary.
Does that mean the Princes simply gave up their titles and power and disappeared? Of course not, they were people with power afterall.
It took a few hundred years for their importance to go away, desperately trying to prove they were still necessary, be it through starting wars or theoretical works.
No one is arguing Socialism would become Communism in a day, and no one really knows how the change might look - but ultimately something that is unnecessary tends to disappear with time.

Why would the state monopoly in the transitional phase (with which the 10 points deals) be more efficient at producing the needs of society than private enterprise? Indeed, all previous attempts at state monopolies have resulted in shortages in all items, from housing, to clothing, even to bread.
True. The theory is that participation and a feeling of co-ownership would release the true power of the Proletariat...I don't think it's a realistic idea on a large scale, although a few factories taken over by their workers have been relatively successful.

Why would the all-powerful government in the transitional phase not abuse its powers? All governments have abused their powers for political gain, or the private gain of people in it.
Yet all governments have existed, and some quite successfully for thousands of years, correct?
I don't believe the argument of the virtuous leaders of the proletariat, but it should be possible for a Socialist government to continue its existence even with some "abuse" of powers, whatever that may mean in this case.
And you have to also keep in mind that "Democratic Socialism" (not in the modern sense, but as in a socialist government being democratically elected and maintained) is not completely out of the question.

<<<Why an all powerful state managing the transitin won't abuse its powers, and why it will abolish itself at the appropriate time? >>>

Because such a state under socialism should be composed of people whose main objective is abolishing capitalism and working toward socialism. Simply because previous attempts failed doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. If it fails ten times or 100 times, is irrelevant. We keep trying till we get it right. And as long as capitalism exists there will be people trying to end it. No amount of reform is going to keep a system based on greed and inequality afloat forever.



<<<Why would the state monopoly in the transitional phase (with which the 10 points deals) be more efficient at producing the needs of society than private enterprise?>>>

It may or may not be. That's not the point. Some capitalist governments are more efficient than others at producing the needs of the society. The main point of a socialist government should be to abolish capitalism and prepare the world for communism. That should be the main goal.

(I'm looking at you, Disraeliland...)

I go with the flow, baby!

You're on the money with what he should argue, but the validity of your last point would depend on the actual premise of the debate. It might be that they're arguing communism in the real world, as opposed to the theory.

Remember Feudalism? That was around out of necessity, and then technology made castles and all the rest of it unnecessary.
Does that mean the Princes simply gave up their titles and power and disappeared? Of course not, they were people with power afterall.
It took a few hundred years for their importance to go away, desperately trying to prove they were still necessary, be it through starting wars or theoretical works.
No one is arguing Socialism would become Communism in a day, and no one really knows how the change might look - but ultimately something that is unnecessary tends to disappear with time.

They still had to be forced, they stayed on long after they became unnecessary, or they simply changed to become useful by becoming Constitutional monarchs.

True. The theory is that participation and a feeling of co-ownership would release the true power of the Proletariat...I don't think it's a realistic idea on a large scale, although a few factories taken over by their workers have been relatively successful.

The processes are different. You should realise that workers' control of firms is not exclusive to socialism, nor is it an athema to capitalism. It fits in with both. Workers buying a firm is hardly a socialist thing, it is capitalism, in fact most workers are capitalists, because of things like savings, and insurance, etc.

Yet all governments have existed, and some quite successfully for thousands of years, correct?

The power of a transitional communist regime is unchecked. It has to be to enable the reforms that Marx outlined as necessary for communism.

I don't believe the argument of the virtuous leaders of the proletariat, but it should be possible for a Socialist government to continue its existence even with some "abuse" of powers, whatever that may mean in this case.
And you have to also keep in mind that "Democratic Socialism" (not in the modern sense, but as in a socialist government being democratically elected and maintained) is not completely out of the question.

I don't see it being maintained for any length of time simply because socialism makes an incredible botch of the job it assumes. At best, what you'd have is a succession of socialist government for a while, none lasting long enough to do much, leading to the rise of a more capitalist group. The only way for "democratic socialism" to survive for a long time is for everyone to have absolute faith in socialism with no other considerations, then the process of governments lasting a few days at the most would simply go on in perpetuity. Sort of like France between the wars.

Because such a state under socialism should be composed of people whose main objective is abolishing capitalism and working toward socialism. Simply because previous attempts failed doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. If it fails ten times or 100 times, is irrelevant. We keep trying till we get it right. And as long as capitalism exists there will be people trying to end it. No amount of reform is going to keep a system based on greed and inequality afloat forever.

Nonsense. People in power enjoy power. You can't tell me that a socialist government will be composed entirely of socialist George Washington's! You are still not arguing from logic, you are using faith as an end-run around logic.

It may or may not be. That's not the point. Some capitalist governments are more efficient than others at producing the needs of the society. The main point of a socialist government should be to abolish capitalism and prepare the world for communism. That should be the main goal.

Why? It serves no one's interests, and capitalism has produced the best living standards ever.

<<<Nonsense. People in power enjoy power. You can't tell me that a socialist government will be composed entirely of socialist George Washington's! You are still not arguing from logic, you are using faith as an end-run around logic.>>>

Yes, I agree that people enjoy power and this is one of the inherent problems on the road to communist. You've just proven my point that the previous "communist" regimes were not communist at all. Still, that does not mean that we should or will stop trying to make socialism work. If it takes a thousand tries, it should be done. And if they don't live up to the promises of moving toward communism, then we'll overthrow them again and again until they get it right. And cut the "you are using faith as an end-run around logic" argument. You are the one with blind faith in capitalism, only you're too arrogant to see it.


<<<Why? It serves no one's interests, and capitalism has produced the best living standards ever.>>>

LOL!!!! For who? Those who are on the receiving end? Try telling that to those working in the maquladores, or the sweat shops, or picking fruit in near slavery, or the people who lost their entire life savings in Enron scandals, or people who have been murdered because someone robbed them, or people who've lost their lives because we bombed their country to steal their oil, or people living under the iron fist of 3rd world dictators propped up by U.S. corporations! And I could go on and on. You are totally blind to the shortcomings of capitalism. It's amazing.

[QUOTE=Anarchic Socialism] LOL!!!! For who? Those who are on the receiving end? Try telling that to those working in the maquladores, or the sweat shops, or picking fruit in near slavery, or the people who lost their entire life savings in Enron scandals, or people who have been murdered because someone robbed them, or people who've lost their lives because we bombed their country to steal their oil, or people living under the iron fist of 3rd world dictators propped up by U.S. corporations! And I could go on and on. You are totally blind to the shortcomings of capitalism. It's amazing. [QUOTE]

Right, in a communist world, nobody will be doing any of these jobs, they'll just "go away." There will also be no muderors or thieves, either? People in governmental positions will still abuse power, since government, even a communist one, will have to exist for society to succeed. Without it, it will be anarchy, and people will take control, destroy the communist lifestyle, and it will become a dictatorship.

<<<GX-Land: Right, in a communist world, nobody will be doing any of these jobs, they'll just "go away." There will also be no muderors or thieves, either? People in governmental positions will still abuse power, since government, even a communist one, will have to exist for society to succeed. Without it, it will be anarchy, and people will take control, destroy the communist lifestyle, and it will become a dictatorship.>>>

As I've said time and time again Communism means: NO GOVERNMENT, NO STATE, NO TAXES, NO MONEY, NO COUNTRIES, NO LEADERS, NO MILITARY. Under communism there would likely be no thieves and no murder because their would be no incentive. It could happen and if it did, the people in the community would take care of the perpetrator. Yes, it would be anarchy, but organized anarchy. No one would be able to take control and create a dictatorship because power and means would be so evenly dispersed across the board that no one would have the means to that like they do in a capitalist world. Besides social pressure would make such behavior totally unacceptable. You're still thinking with a capitalist mentality and are assuming that by the time we reach communism people will still think in those terms.

As has been said before in this thread Socialism is a necessary phase to destroy capitalist tendencies and redistribute power to even the playing field. First clue when we reach socialism, if the leaders of the socialist state aren't doing these things and working towards communism, then they are not communists and need to be overthrown.

On a side note, I lived for a year in a Scandinavian country (Norway) in a very "socialist" area where the majority of people believed if not in communism or socialism, at least in social democracy. I had to go and register with the lensmann, which is the equivalent of our police or sherrifs office. The entire county had ONE person, to do this job. One person to watch over about 60-70,000 people. He had no gun, no deputies, no uniform, and no marked car. He didn't seem busy or overworked at all. And people there didn't even lock their doors at night. Why? Because there wasn't a disparity of wealth. Even the laziest individuals could get government relief to survive if they had to, so there was no motivation to committ crime. It was more trouble than it was worth. And people didn't seem to be overly concerned about making lots of money or moving up the social ladder. There was no commercial television creating artificial desire. It was mainly documentaries and talk shows. Everyone seemed comfortable and happy. In the fifteen years since I was there there they've moved sharply towards capitalism. The result is now crime has increased, people are less happy, there's much more disparity in income. And last month the people of Norway elected a coalition of the Socialist Left Party and the Labor Party. It seems they didn't like capitalism and want socialism back.

Yes, I agree that people enjoy power and this is one of the inherent problems on the road to communist. You've just proven my point that the previous "communist" regimes were not communist at all. Still, that does not mean that we should or will stop trying to make socialism work. If it takes a thousand tries, it should be done. And if they don't live up to the promises of moving toward communism, then we'll overthrow them again and again until they get it right.

But socialism has always and will always fail. Your idea of a society is nothing more than a long serious of bloody coups by people jostling for power.

And cut the "you are using faith as an end-run around logic" argument. You are the one with blind faith in capitalism, only you're too arrogant to see it.

Why? It is self-evident that your arguments are based on faith. Mine on fact.

LOL!!!! For who? Those who are on the receiving end? Try telling that to those working in the maquladores, or the sweat shops, or picking fruit in near slavery, or the people who lost their entire life savings in Enron scandals, or people who have been murdered because someone robbed them, or people who've lost their lives because we bombed their country to steal their oil, or people living under the iron fist of 3rd world dictators propped up by U.S. corporations! And I could go on and on. You are totally blind to the shortcomings of capitalism. It's amazing.

Perfect solution fallacy. Capitalism isn't perfect, it is better than everything else that has been tried. Your blind faith in socialism cannot refute that fact. Socialist regimes everywhere impoverish and murder.

As I've said time and time again Communism means: NO GOVERNMENT, NO STATE, NO TAXES, NO MONEY, NO COUNTRIES, NO LEADERS, NO MILITARY.

You've totally failed to address my arguments regarding this statement. Before you bluster and shout, try thinking and addressing my arguments. "Theoretical" communism is irrelevant to discussions of communism because the theory is not valid. Why don't you validate your theory, instead of ranting.

Under communism there would likely be no thieves and no murder because their would be no incentive. It could happen and if it did, the people in the community would take care of the perpetrator. Yes, it would be anarchy, but organized anarchy. No one would be able to take control and create a dictatorship because power and means would be so evenly dispersed across the board that no one would have the means to that like they do in a capitalist world. Besides social pressure would make such behavior totally unacceptable. You're still thinking with a capitalist mentality and are assuming that by the time we reach communism people will still think in those terms.

Balderdash. An entire social class cannot seize power. Instead, it can only appoint representatives to take that power. No matter what flowery language Karl Marx chooses to use, the simple reality is that government power will always be in the hands of the few, regardless of whether that government is communist or capitalist. The only question is how much power we want that government to have, and Marx made the mistake of assuming that the more power the government had, the more power the masses would have.

As has been said before in this thread Socialism is a necessary phase to destroy capitalist tendencies and redistribute power to even the playing field. First clue when we reach socialism, if the leaders of the socialist state aren't doing these things and working towards communism, then they are not communists and need to be overthrown.

More balderdash. Socialist leaders will fail to bring the prosperity they promise, to stay in power in spite of these failures, they must emplace a totalitarian system in which overthrow becomes impossible without huge costs. You cannot tell me that if they fail, they will simply surrender, and that they won't do anything to protect their power like having an internal army, and secret police apparatus.

Norway is still a capitalist nation, it merely has a government with a greater wish to interfere in the economy than other governments. It is not socialism.

<<<But socialism has always and will always fail.>>>

Where's the proof other than your opinion? And what do you consider failing? In my opinion the main purpose of a socialist government is to take power and wealth away from the upper classes and redistribute it across the board and prepare people for the coming of communism. That's what I consider success. Your idea of success is how well they do according to some capitalist economic indicators. That's irrelevant to me. To me the only measure of success in a socialist government is the destruction of capitalism. So we're not on the same page and will never be.


<<<Capitalism isn't perfect, it is better than everything else that has been tried.>>>

We haven't tried anything else since feudalism. The feeble attempts at "socialism" were nothing but state capitalism. They were socialist in name only. The party leadership simply became the new bourgeoisie. Not much difference there than regular capitalism.


<<<"Theoretical" communism is irrelevant to discussions of communism because the theory is not valid. Why don't you validate your theory, instead of ranting.>>>

What is there to validate? I've stated the theory. Your idea of communism is not what I consider communism, nor do I advocate for it. I don't want Stalinism any more than you do. In fact, I think your position has a lot more in common with Stalinism than Pure Communism does. So how am I supposed to propose an argument when you don't even accept what communism truly is? I believe in "theoretical" communism as you call it, not Soviet Stalinism. How many times do I have to tell you that before you get it?


<<<Balderdash. An entire social class cannot seize power. Instead, it can only appoint representatives to take that power. No matter what flowery language Karl Marx chooses to use, the simple reality is that government power will always be in the hands of the few, regardless of whether that government is communist or capitalist.>>>

Wrong again. Under communism, no one will have power and there won't be a government, not in the hands of the few or in the hands of the many. It simply won't exist. At best you will have organized associations centered around various causes or societal needs, but they won't have any real power. Everything will be decided cooperatively and by consensus. That may seem an impossibility at this stage and our current population may have to die out before people can get to that point where they can think like that, but that is how it will happen. Smaller more advanced areas may be able to jump ahead and in a sense they already have - look at intentional communities or the Kibbutz system in Israel for example. These are living experiments as to what will and what won't work under communism and they're already here.


<<<Socialist leaders will fail to bring the prosperity they promise, to stay in power in spite of these failures, they must emplace a totalitarian system in which overthrow becomes impossible without huge costs.>>>

The purpose of socialism is not to bring prosperity, it is to destroy capitalism and prepare the world for communism. I do admit that it poses a problem when a so-called "socialist" government takes over and then promotes capitalism under the banner of socialism like the Soviet Union did, but they were overthrown, rightfully so, because they abandoned the ideals of communism. So it goes to show, if the USSR can be overthrown for abandoning the goal of communism, so can any government.

No one has all the answers but communism is the future of humanity, simply because the very nature of capitalism leads to oppression and then to a system to correct it permanently. It's an action which causes a reaction. No one knows how long it will take and there will be a back and forth play of class struggle for some time, but communists see it as something that is going to happen and people around the planet are actively working toward that goal. Capitalism is dependent on economic growth and is consuming resources at record rates to keep itself going. What are they going to do when they run out of oil and the real estate market busts? Base economic growth on pornography sales? Bring back slavery? Capitalism is not sustainable in the long run and Marx had the foresight to see this.

...prepare people for the coming of communism.
That's an interesting way to describe it.
Do I assume correctly if I think that would require social reengineering to get the greedy, selfish characteristics of modern people to go away?
And is that not exactly what Pol Pot aimed to do? Prepare the people for the coming of Communism?

That may seem an impossibility at this stage and our current population may have to die out before people can get to that point where they can think like that, but that is how it will happen.
Again a little too "Khmer Rouge" for my tastes.

So it goes to show, if the USSR can be overthrown for abandoning the goal of communism, so can any government.
Have you read Lenin? He actually made a practical attempt on how to reconcile Marx' and Engels' greatest failing: That they argued for centralisation in order to achieve decentralisation.
They may have been brilliant people, who understood the system they were faced with better than most did - but that they would never really reconcile their goals with their methods left people after them to figure that "tiny detail" out for themselves.
Lenin's work is not the outlining on how to stay in power, and it's not empty rhetoric - this guy seriously tried to solve the problem. Hell, even Stalin wrote academic material on how to get to Communism (although I'd think he was a lot more cynical than Lenin, or even Mao and Pol Pot were).

Yes, the USSR was not real Communism, or even real Socialism - but its existence is a direct result of people trying to make sense of the legacy of Marx and Engels, and in the end it went horribly wrong.
But so far, no one on this earth has managed to propose a working solution for the problem, and simply trial and error is not something I'd like to see, keeping in mind the consequences of past failures.

Why am I telling you this? Well, read about Max Shachtman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Shachtman#Influence_on_Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States) and maybe you'll understand why I get uncomfortable around Communists who start arguing the USSR to be evil and worthy of destruction...

Capitalism is not sustainable in the long run and Marx had the foresight to see this.
He did...but he credited Capitalism with doing more good than you do. He knew that you could not reach Socialism, you could not free the world of economic scarcity with anything other than Capitalism.
It is necessary, and Marx and Engels time and time again emphasised their awe with the success of it, to create the foundations upon which the future can be built.
You are correct to point out the unfairness and the negative side effects of Capitalism (and in my opinion it is this with which we should deal, rather than the overthrow of it) - but you cannot ignore the fact that if it hadn't been for Capitalism, we'd still live in the Middle Ages.

The feeble attempts at "socialism" were nothing but state capitalism.

Same thing.

What is there to validate? I've stated the theory. Your idea of communism is not what I consider communism, nor do I advocate for it. I don't want Stalinism any more than you do. In fact, I think your position has a lot more in common with Stalinism than Pure Communism does. So how am I supposed to propose an argument when you don't even accept what communism truly is? I believe in "theoretical" communism as you call it, not Soviet Stalinism. How many times do I have to tell you that before you get it?

Theoretical communism is irrelevant. The theory is nonsense. The reality is Pol Pot.

Wrong again. Under communism, no one will have power and there won't be a government, not in the hands of the few or in the hands of the many. It simply won't exist. At best you will have organized associations centered around various causes or societal needs, but they won't have any real power. Everything will be decided cooperatively and by consensus. That may seem an impossibility at this stage and our current population may have to die out before people can get to that point where they can think like that, but that is how it will happen. Smaller more advanced areas may be able to jump ahead and in a sense they already have - look at intentional communities or the Kibbutz system in Israel for example. These are living experiments as to what will and what won't work under communism and they're already here.

Don't spout theory, get to reality. A group of leaders will always emerge, even in Kibbutzim (where religious leaders and elders took the role)

Anyway, Kibbutzim are not examples of voluntary socialism because they were subsidised by the Israeli Government, and the tax shekels with which they made the subsidy payments were extracted by the threat of force.

The purpose of socialism is not to bring prosperity, it is to destroy capitalism and prepare the world for communism. I do admit that it poses a problem when a so-called "socialist" government takes over and then promotes capitalism under the banner of socialism like the Soviet Union did, but they were overthrown, rightfully so, because they abandoned the ideals of communism. So it goes to show, if the USSR can be overthrown for abandoning the goal of communism, so can any government.

If it can't provide the needs of the people, it has failed, and no socialist system has ever provided the needs of the people. The Soviet Union was over thrown because it was communist, not because it abandoned communism.

No one has all the answers but communism is the future of humanity, simply because the very nature of capitalism leads to oppression and then to a system to correct it permanently.

Blind faith is no substitute for facts.


It's an action which causes a reaction. No one knows how long it will take and there will be a back and forth play of class struggle for some time, but communists see it as something that is going to happen and people around the planet are actively working toward that goal.

Blind faith is no substitute for facts.

And is that not exactly what Pol Pot aimed to do? Prepare the people for the coming of Communism?

Yes. As I put it earlier, he understood communism, and what would be necessary to bring it, and was willing to do the nasty. Stalin and Pol Pot are the ultimate communist leaders because they are willing, perhaps eager to do the nasty.

It may be cynical, but if I were a socialist, I would look up to these two vicious thugs.

Yes. As I put it earlier, he understood communism, and what would be necessary to bring it, and was willing to do the nasty. Stalin and Pol Pot are the ultimate communist leaders because they are willing, perhaps eager to do the nasty.

It may be cynical, but if I were a socialist, I would look up to these two vicious thugs.
Not so sure about Stalin though...he tackled the problem rather differently. His idea was about Socialism in one country, about centrally planning industrialisation to cope with Russia's problem.
Pol Pot on the other hand was a lot closer to not so much making Socialism work, but implementing to Communism.

I just read these two articles though...and they make me depressed. I realise they're written by the same guy, but still. Don't think they're worth their own thread (especially since topics about Germany seem to be of no interest to Generalites if they don't contain the word Nazi...) but maybe you'd be interested.

The German Defect (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,366938,00.html)
Say it Slowly: 'Zukunftsangst' (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,374770,00.html)

I'm going away now to cry...;)

<<<And is that not exactly what Pol Pot aimed to do? Prepare the people for the coming of Communism?
Again a little too "Khmer Rouge" for my tastes.>>>

When I stated the current population may have to "die off" before we can reach communism, I didn't mean they were to killed off, I meant that we may need a few generations living under socialism before the world would be ready to move into capitalism. That's not so much about 're-educating' people, but letting people live in a world where their every living moment wasn't about economic survival and they weren't bombarded with constant media messages telling them they need to buy unnecessary things to be happy. I think we need to develop new values. The fact that so many people on this board say they wouldn't do anything to help anyone else if they couldn't get something out of it, is proof that we aren't ready to step into pure capitalism. These are people who need the government nanny to motivate them and keep them from stealing and exploiting others. I do think though, that more advanced individuals may choose to volunarily begin building communist institutions and lifestyles so we can learn what works and what won't. This is a huge undertaking. It always amazes me that people point out the Soviet Union as proof that communism can't work. Aside from the fact that it wasn't in my opinion truly communist and reverted back to capitalism under Stalin, it also was only in existence for 70 years! Such a total restructuring of society could take hundreds of years to develop, no different than capitalism took hundreds of years to develop. What we saw during the Soviet era was simply the infancy of communism. We haven't even reached the toddler stage at this point.

About Pol Pot: his problem, aside from being authoritarian and probably a little crazy, was that he tried to skip this stage of socialism and force the people directly into communism. Probably the same thing could be said to have happened in China, where they tried to skip both capitalism and socialism and jump directly into communism. They're going through the capitalist stage now, and I do think that it is necessary, but it will eventually go socialist. Maybe that is the plan of the Chinese leadership all along. Who knows.

When I stated the current population may have to "die off" before we can reach communism, I didn't mean they were to killed off, I meant that we may need a few generations living under socialism before the world would be ready to move into capitalism.
So you accept that people right now are not ready for communism - that they are greedy, selfish bastards because capitalism made them this way.
But wouldn't that mean that Socialism too would have to be enforced by a government?
The revolution as Marx and Engles pictured it is necessary if you are going to have majority support for Socialism - but the development of Capitalism in the last 200 years or so means that there is no "Capitalist class" anymore, and there sure as hell isn't a unified Proletariat (And that disappointment drove Mussolini to turn away from Socialism and develop Fascism....).

So I'd say that a Marxian-type Socialism or Communism will not be reached, and if it will, it will do so by itself - in other words we should rather concentrate on how to make the current, real world as pleasant as possible rather than attack that which makes us live right now.

That's not so much about 're-educating' people, but letting people live in a world where their every living moment wasn't about economic survival and they weren't bombarded with constant media messages telling them they need to buy unnecessary things to be happy.
I thought we already established that in order to do that, we'd have to solve the economic scarcity problem first - and we're nowhere near it for at least another 100 years yet.

I think we need to develop new values. The fact that so many people on this board say they wouldn't do anything to help anyone else if they couldn't get something out of it, is proof that we aren't ready to step into pure capitalism. These are people who need the government nanny to motivate them and keep them from stealing and exploiting others.
People have a tendency to develop their own values independently of what I think they should be doing.
But I agree that the idea of laissez-faire Capitalism is not the Holy Grail some people hope it is, and I'm no more ready to have Libertarians rule the world than I am with Communists.
I would hope we could get a few more pragmatists, who care about the now and how to improve it - not about tomorrow and how to reach it. Time flows by itself, whether we jump about or not.

I do think though, that more advanced individuals may choose to volunarily begin building communist institutions and lifestyles so we can learn what works and what won't. This is a huge undertaking.
Talk to a guy on these forums called "Jello Biafra". Last time I spoke to him he called himself an Anarcho-Communist, which is probably the most agreeable form of Communism yet, because it really concentrates on not using coercive power to achieve things.

What we saw during the Soviet era was simply the infancy of communism. We haven't even reached the toddler stage at this point.
True, but at this point the Toddler has fallen down the stairs I think it is fair to say, and we don't know how and when he'll try to get back up.

Maybe that is the plan of the Chinese leadership all along. Who knows.
Well, it certainly wasn't Mao's, we know that much.
But maybe you should read some of Deng Xiaoping (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0898753414/102-2065678-4593700?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance)'s work - probably my favourite "commie" of all time.

<<<Theoretical communism is irrelevant. The theory is nonsense. The reality is Pol Pot.>>>

Disraeli (hands over ears screaming): NO, NO, NO ALL COMMUNISTS ARE THE SAME. THEY'RE ALL JUST LIKE POL POT. IT'S ALL NONSENSE!

LOL! You are a trip! No matter how many times I say it, you just don't get it. Perhaps I should just stop calling what I am advocating communism and start calling it anarchism. Would that make it easier for you to grasp?

Virtually all communists today are opposed to Pol Pot, even his own Khmer Rouge turned against him. He was overthrown by people claiming to be communists. Your only argument is to set up a straw man, even though I've told you I and I would say many, if not most people claiming to be communist today don't follow Stalinism or anything of the sort. We don't consider them to be true communists. So the only model I can talk about is the "theoretical" model.


<<< If it can't provide the needs of the people, it has failed, and no socialist system has ever provided the needs of the people. The Soviet Union was over thrown because it was communist, not because it abandoned communism>>>

There's a sign in Cuba which says "20 Million Children Sleep on the Streets of the World Every Night. Not One Of Them is in Cuba." Socialism may not be perfect, but I think it is a stretch to say that no socialist system has ever provided for the needs of the people. That's utter b.s. I've lived in socialist societies before and the people seemed well-provided for by me. The problem comes when capitalists begin teasing people with unnecessary items and false status symbols. Of course people are going to want these things, especially when they are marketed to them. And socialism does not do well in creating massive amounts of unnecessary junk for us. But so what? Are we that vapid, that devolved that we need to see millions of people living in utter poverty so we can get more toys for ourselves? I suppose your answer is yes. Then why are you surprised when people want to overthrow you? Why are you surprised when people who have lived their entire lives in poverty at near-starvation levels all so you can surround yourself in luxuries want to committ violence against people like you? If you were in their situation you'd feel the same way. But obviously, you can't imagine yourself in any other position because you are admitedly self-centered and greedy and believe that is a good thing. To what end is your greed? To just get as much physical pleasure as possible out of life, no matter how many people have to die or suffer to get it?

And yes, the Soviet Union failed because they ceased to believe in and promote the idea of world communism. They had been capitalist since the 50's and the people knew their "communism" was for show only. That's why they lost faith in their government. The result though has been even worse. Recent polls show a majority of Russians and even Putin himself admit that the dissolution of the USSR was a big mistake and has benefitted no one.

Believing that humanity can strive to do better than capitalism can be called blind faith if you want it to. Makes no difference to me. I'd rather have blind faith in communism than a cynical dedication to greed and capitalism. What a sad existence that is.

Name one Communist country where refugees flocked to. Usually where refugees go, it is a good idea of where the better living standards and ways of life are.

Almost always they have gone to capitalist countries, namely America, Australia, Germany, Britain, France etc.

Fascism and socialism are different - Fascism is a governmnt run by the few, whereas socialism is a governmnet run by the masses.
The typical flaw seen with this is when you have even 3 individual opinions, decisions are not made. Look at the UN for example. It is highly inefficient because there are so many member countries who all hae thier own opinion about everything, and thus important decisions can take a long time to be made because of debates over what to do and how to do it, etc.

Name one Communist country where refugees flocked to. Usually where refugees go, it is a good idea of where the better living standards and ways of life are.
I assume you don't consider refugees of the Communist persuasion?

Many, many Spanish Communists fled Franco and his Fascism when they lost - and they went to the USSR.

I assume you don't consider refugees of the Communist persuasion?

Many, many Spanish Communists fled Franco and his Fascism when they lost - and they went to the USSR.

no no, I'm talking about refugees who are not already communist in the first place, read my post again. Refugees are usually not only fleeing from persecution, but also seeking a Better lifestyle. Now, again reply with one country that refugees have flocked to because they would have a better lifestyle.

LOL! You are a trip! No matter how many times I say it, you just don't get it. Perhaps I should just stop calling what I am advocating communism and start calling it anarchism. Would that make it easier for you to grasp?

Your theory is so underdeveloped it is not worth considering, as is Marx's theory.

Virtually all communists today are opposed to Pol Pot, even his own Khmer Rouge turned against him. He was overthrown by people claiming to be communists. Your only argument is to set up a straw man, even though I've told you I and I would say many, if not most people claiming to be communist today don't follow Stalinism or anything of the sort. We don't consider them to be true communists. So the only model I can talk about is the "theoretical" model.

Is that a refutation? It doesn't look like it. The fact the communists overthrew Pol Pot doesn't say anything about whether or not Pol Pot was a communist. It merely says that communist governments are greedy and vicious, which hardly needed to be said. You aren't talking about the theoretical model, you have ignored any attempt to point out the contradictions, failings, and ommissions in the theory, you merely proclaim the theory supreme.

There's a sign in Cuba which says "20 Million Children Sleep on the Streets of the World Every Night. Not One Of Them is in Cuba." Socialism may not be perfect, but I think it is a stretch to say that no socialist system has ever provided for the needs of the people. That's utter b.s.

Are you sure about that?

http://www.therealcuba.com/page4.htm

The problem comes when capitalists begin teasing people with unnecessary items and false status symbols.

Who the hell are you to say what is necessary?! They aren't harming anyone, no one's rights are being violated, leave the babies to their bottles, and shut up!

The problems start when puffed up little Mussolinis start dictating what people need and deserve.

Not so sure about Stalin though...he tackled the problem rather differently. His idea was about Socialism in one country, about centrally planning industrialisation to cope with Russia's problem.

Still, the general principle they advocated was the same, as was the approach.