NationStates Jolt Archive

<<<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 think World Communism has changed greatly over the last 15 years. I think the fall of the USSR was a wakeup call, but far from being the end of communism as some capitalists claim

I follow more of an anarcho-communist line myself. I believe capitalism is eventually going to collapse on its own accord, it's not going to take a bloodbath to do it. And it will happen for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is their own arrogance and greed which will do them in.

What communists/socialists need to do is develop alternatives other than the same old big government solutions. If anything, FDR and his "socialist" New Deal probably helped capitalism in the long run. If he hadn't been there to fix it, it might not have survived. But admitedly that's speculation.

Anyway, communists need to develop workable economic alternatives in the present system, such as the gift economy and local modes of production. They can fill the gap by rebuilding manufacturing in this country, which the capitalists have totally destroyed. You already see these ideas being played with in the growing number of eco-villages, co-housing, and in the internet gift economy.

But yes, if communism needs to step up to the plate and offer workable alternatives and take it out of theory and into practical application. We need to take with us the good things from the past and learn from the mistakes. I'm actually quite optimistic about the future of communism. I never realized how many other people there were out there who felt the same way, but I meet more and more every day, even in an area which is supposed to be 'conservative'. Communism may have taken a beating, but it's coming out stronger and better for it.

no no, I'm talking about refugees who are not already communist in the first place, read my post again.
I did...you made no distinction about their political persuasion, indeed you even used the words "way of life".
In the first half of the twentieth century people from all over the world, refugees or not, moved by their own free will to the USSR to take part in what they saw as the "Communist Project" - and some even because they would have a more prosperous lifestyle there than they would've had in their home countries (at least in the first few years of Electrification, when the Famines were over and Stalin wasn't completely insane yet...).

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.
Well, if you disregard politics and only count economic factors, it is fairly obvious, except maybe in Africa - I believe "African Socialism" (along Nyere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Nyerere)'s lines) did quite well for a time and Tanzania for example was experiencing a boom of immigrants from all over Sub-Saharan Africa because they were making progress, while the rest of the continent wasn't.

But I think you should read my previous posts as well - I think you're misunderstanding my position on the whole issue...

<<<Your theory is so underdeveloped it is not worth considering, as is Marx's theory.>>>

LMAO! Your arrogance is incredible! You may not like Marx or agree with him, but his writings have inspired millions and shook the capitalist system to its core in every corner of the globe. I think I'll put my faith in Marx over you any day.


And your web site is a typical anti-Castro site. Big deal. Anyone can create propaganda. I'm not saying Castro is perfect, but no one who is honest can say health care and education haven't improved in Cuba since Castro, despite the embargo and the constant attempts to sabotage their economy and overthrow their government. I think they're doing damn good considering what people like you have put them through.

<<<Who the hell are you to say what is necessary?! They aren't harming anyone, no one's rights are being violated,>>>

Gimme a break, you really do live in a bubble don't you? You either have no clue of the cost our "luxuries" have on the rest of the world or you know and don't give a damn. That either makes you ignorant or evil.

Why Socialism?
By Albert Einstein
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm

Oh yeah, Einstein was one fascist mothafucka.
...
Give me a break, you haven't been attacking the whole of socialism the entire time. Let me reiterate: Socialism is a worker's democracy, dictatorship of the proletariat. To deviate from that is to deviate from socialism. You don't call people who were not democratically elected and hold power presidents, so Stalin and Pol Pot weren't Socialists.

Cuba = vile ?

There are positive photographs to be shown as well
http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/cuba/index.html
uncredited ?
SOURCES: UNESCO, UNDP, UNSD, EPICA, CIA World Fact Book, UNICEF & the Cuban Ministry of Public Health.

Cuba and Venezuela are living proof, socialism works.

You have either answered our questions and arguments by deterring the argument, or ignoring it completely.

You haven't honestly answered our arguments about how Pol Pot and Stalin weren't socialists. You haven't explained why communism is impossible. You haven't given us a dictionary definition of socialism, instead merely articles bashing it.

<<<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!>>>

Who are you to say that people need certain things, like fashions or really tricked out cars. Marie Antoinette was killed because she was completely out of touch with the needs of the common individual. On a global scale it's the same thing. We buy up so much land for beef when people world wide don't even get any wheat. We need to give less of a shit about our petty fashions and fads and more about people not starving. It's not only completely egocentric to the point of cruelty, it's wasteful. If people don't starve they can work, and if more people work they can produce more. To decrease the number of people starving is to increase the number of people who can work.
Also, telling people to shut up is less than polite in a debate, and only accomplishes making you look crass.

Please, either directly respond to our arguments or stop wasting our time.

And your web site is a typical anti-Castro site. Big deal. Anyone can create propaganda. I'm not saying Castro is perfect, but no one who is honest can say health care and education haven't improved in Cuba since Castro, despite the embargo and the constant attempts to sabotage their economy and overthrow their government. I think they're doing damn good considering what people like you have put them through.

I produce primary and secondary sources, and your reply is "Liar, liar, pants on fire"?!

Gimme a break, you really do live in a bubble don't you? You either have no clue of the cost our "luxuries" have on the rest of the world or you know and don't give a damn. That either makes you ignorant or evil.

More ad-hominem.

Cuban Ministry of Public Health

We have no reason to believe the Cuban regime, or international organisations who's staff are accompanied by government minders. All governments will claim they are doing the best things.

Give me a break, you haven't been attacking the whole of socialism the entire time. Let me reiterate: Socialism is a worker's democracy, dictatorship of the proletariat. To deviate from that is to deviate from socialism.

Don't confuse the rhetoric with the reality. I refuted this argument before. If you can't be bothered to read the thread, why post in it? :headbang: :sniper: :mp5: :mad:

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.

Why Socialism?
It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."
I wish BAAWA was here...

<<<your reply is "Liar, liar, pants on fire"?!>>>

Don't recall saying that, but the fact is you put up a propaganda web site as a source. We all know a lot of people are out to get Castro. Why? Because he put the pimps, the mafiosos, the casinos, the drug lords, the robber barons and their American patrons out of business and turned an impoverished nation where the majority of the population lived in sheer misery under capitalism into one of the most healthy and educated nations in the world. There is no disputing that. You may hate socialism, but it did accomplish great things in Cuba. Maybe the spoiled leisure classes didn't like it, because the majority of people couldn't be their personal playthings anymore, but for most people life is much better, even though the Miami Cubans and their terrorist friends have done everything in their power to disrupt life on the island, Castro is still there and so is socialism. And that drives capitalists absolutely crazy, because they can't stand to see another model work. The reason is capitalism is propped up by the myth that there is no other alternative and if there is the people must be miserable. And if they aren't miserable, the capitalists are going to make damn sure they become so, either by sponsoring counter revolutions, polluting them with capitalist propaganda or by sabotaging their economy. People are seeing through all that though. That's why Chavez won in Venezuela with 60% of the vote. And Chavez is just the beginning. Capitalism is on the way to the dustbins of history and I say good riddance!

So you didn't say it in as many words, but you still responded to a source with allogations of dishonesty.

<<<We have no reason to believe the Cuban regime, or international organisations who's staff are accompanied by government minders>>>

Yes, governments may bullshit about what they are actually doing, however that doesn't refute the fact that UNESCO, UNDP, UNSD, EPICA, CIA World Fact Book, and UNICEF also contributed information. And just because the Cuban government was one of the sources doesn't mean that all of the other sources are nullified. Also you must believe that the CIA is clueless.

<<<Don't confuse the rhetoric with the reality. I refuted this argument before. If you can't be bothered to read the thread, why post in it?>>>

After the fact, we criticise the creators of America for claiming that all men are created equal and still hold slaves, but years afterwords the constitution was changed to make all men (and eventually women) equal under the law. We learn from brutal dictators like Pol Pot and Stalin so that we can avoid their mistakes. We've seen what capitalism does, and we avoid it, we've seen what dictators do and spoil, so we take away their power. All socialists/communists/anarchists are not little Pol Pots and Stalins waiting to take power. People learn, people change.

You didn't refute my argument and website about Cuba, only tried to claim that it was unreliable because it had international and Cuban sources. You haven't shown proof that pure capitalism is good, thus verifying pure communism. You've ignored Einstein's philosophy.

If you can't argue philosophy then you can't understand actions.

Yes, governments may bullshit about what they are actually doing, however that doesn't refute the fact that UNESCO, UNDP, UNSD, EPICA, CIA World Fact Book, and UNICEF also contributed information. And just because the Cuban government was one of the sources doesn't mean that all of the other sources are nullified. Also you must believe that the CIA is clueless.

But UN officials can't spy on Cuba, you totally failed to conceive of the idea that UN officials are minded by governments. As to the CIA, their human intelligence resources have been shot to hell since the 1970's. A satellite can't show children on the street, or Cuban schools used for military training, and they're hardly likely to transmit about it for the SIGINT people to hear.

We learn from brutal dictators like Pol Pot and Stalin so that we can avoid their mistakes. We've seen what capitalism does, and we avoid it, we've seen what dictators do and spoil, so we take away their power. All socialists/communists/anarchists are not little Pol Pots and Stalins waiting to take power. People learn, people change.

Would you read the thread before posting, please. Pol Pot and Stalin understood better than anyone else socialism, they knew what would be needed to bring it, and they were willing to carry out the necessary slaughter.

You haven't shown proof that pure capitalism is good, thus verifying pure communism. You've ignored Einstein's philosophy.

I don't have to. The burden of proof is on Anarchic Socialism, he laid down the idea, it is up to him to prove it.

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 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.
It isn't the case. In human society, you don't have to be intelligent or strong to be ruling. That's the animal world. In human society, it is a matter of which class you are born into. For instance, I would beat the queen of UK with one hand tied on the back. She can't survive on her own. She can't cook and she is pretty useless. And yet she is using one million times the wealth that I use. It is not that she is more clever or more strong. She was just born in the right class.

<<<But UN officials can't spy on Cuba, you totally failed to conceive of the idea that UN officials are minded by governments. As to the CIA, their human intelligence resources have been shot to hell since the 1970's. A satellite can't show children on the street, or Cuban schools used for military training, and they're hardly likely to transmit about it for the SIGINT people to hear.>>>

You website was not nearly as factual as the CIA, it was predominantly a bunch of pictures. Sad? Yes. But I've also had first person accounts speaking of positive accounts of Cuba. Also, the pictures are of Cuba, that is obvious, but Socialism can't make something out of nothing, some parts of infrastructure (such as modern facilities) are missing, but I have given statistics showing progress in other parts of society. You can claim my source is false, but your provided website seems to be just as lacking in creditability.

<<<Would you read the thread before posting, please. Pol Pot and Stalin understood better than anyone else socialism, they knew what would be needed to bring it, and they were willing to carry out the necessary slaughter.>>>

The problem is, only you seem to think that slaughter is necessary to achieve a communist society. There is evidence to support that socialism can be attained peacefully, but none to say that it can be forced, as is the case with Stalin and Mr Pot. It is convenient for you to think that Socialism can only be attained through bloodshed, and I admit that it is feasible that I may be idealistic when I say that it will be achieved peacefully, but we know that it cannot happen only through revolution and bloodshed. Some deaths may occur, but it isn't how it will happen. By claiming that bloodshed is the only way to achieve communism then you validity the arguments of the dictators, so basically agreeing with them. I'm glad you aren't a socialist, blood would flow in the streets.

<<<I don't have to. The burden of proof is on Anarchic Socialism, he laid down the idea, it is up to him to prove it.>>>

Actually, yes you do. You can't just claim arguments without proof behind them, because without you putting forth any proof you automatically win because you have a blank check of creditability, he can put forth as much as he wants but you can just say "But you're wrong because I said so", thus making this entire debate a waste of time. If you don't put forth any theory or evidence, we can't argue it. To do so would allow us to argue and possibly refute it, thus by not doing it you violate the fairness of the debate. To not argue fair is to give proof that your actual arguments are false.

Theory is half of the issue, action is half of the issue. You completely ignore half of the subject. Now on to action, you give forth brutal dictators, we speak about pacifists and democracy. You hold twenty five percent of the ground. Either argue theory or lose.

You website was not nearly as factual as the CIA, it was predominantly a bunch of pictures. Sad? Yes. But I've also had first person accounts speaking of positive accounts of Cuba.

Pictures tell a lot. You should not underestimate their value. You accept the picture's authenticity, but someone speaking a positive account can't have the same authenticity. The citizens of a socialist state must live in fear that everything they say will be repeated to the authorities. In Russia, there was a statue of a boy, a hero. His heroic deed? Telling the authorities what his parents said.

Also, the pictures are of Cuba, that is obvious, but Socialism can't make something out of nothing, some parts of infrastructure (such as modern facilities) are missing, but I have given statistics showing progress in other parts of society. You can claim my source is false, but your provided website seems to be just as lacking in creditability.

You have reached one of the basic problems of socialism. The state has no wealth it doesn parasitically take. Free enterprise creates wealth, and the wealth in turn brings trade from all over the world. Not only has Cuba developed almost nothing in infrastructure since 1959, but that which is there is deteriorating. There are shortages of basic goods. They are in debt up to their eyeballs (although a lot of that debt is Soviet Rubles, and other worthless communist currencies). It amounts to $US1176 (without Commie money), or $US3100, where per capita income is: $US3000.

"Free" healthcare: http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm (and worth every peso)

The problem is, only you seem to think that slaughter is necessary to achieve a communist society. There is evidence to support that socialism can be attained peacefully, but none to say that it can be forced, as is the case with Stalin and Mr Pot. It is convenient for you to think that Socialism can only be attained through bloodshed, and I admit that it is feasible that I may be idealistic when I say that it will be achieved peacefully, but we know that it cannot happen only through revolution and bloodshed. Some deaths may occur, but it isn't how it will happen. By claiming that bloodshed is the only way to achieve communism then you validity the arguments of the dictators, so basically agreeing with them. I'm glad you aren't a socialist, blood would flow in the streets.

I have said that the violence is necessary to carry out their aims. That is not agreement with the dictators because I hold their aims to be totally wrong.

You have not made any sort of argument that communism could happen without violence.

Actually, yes you do. You can't just claim arguments without proof behind them, because without you putting forth any proof you automatically win because you have a blank check of creditability, he can put forth as much as he wants but you can just say "But you're wrong because I said so", thus making this entire debate a waste of time. If you don't put forth any theory or evidence, we can't argue it. To do so would allow us to argue and possibly refute it, thus by not doing it you violate the fairness of the debate. To not argue fair is to give proof that your actual arguments are false.

I've given reasons why he is wrong. As I said before, read the thread before responding. I have not posited the new proposition, Anarchic Socialism has, it is therefore up to him to prove it, and to contest arguments against it, if he can.

Theory is half of the issue, action is half of the issue. You completely ignore half of the subject. Now on to action, you give forth brutal dictators, we speak about pacifists and democracy. You hold twenty five percent of the ground. Either argue theory or lose.

I've addressed his theory, and the practice. Pacifists and democracy don't fit into socialism because socialism doesn't work. The failures of socialism (which go to the point where Cubans have to daub words like "People live here" to prevent demolition, and people have to queue for something as basic as bread) place socialist leaders in a dilemma (this I have pointed out before) because like any leaders, they wish to stay in power. They must use force and suppression to stay in power.

If a socialist state were democratic, it would be characterised by either constant revolutions, as failed leaders are replaced by new ones who in turn fail and must be replaced, or the sort of political instability France saw between the wars in which governments lasted a few days, months at the most. These governments would not last long enough to really advance the agenda, and it would only take one failure. You may say that constitutional arrangements regarding parliamentary terms would prevent this constant, but it can't prevent party room squabbling over the leadership. A leader would fail, and be replaced

If it were pacifistic, how could it deal with internal resistance, how could it deal with people unwilling to have their property "socialised"?

You can pose ridiculous fantasies all you like, but you can't get past their basic incompatibility with the real world.

<<<I've given reasons why he is wrong. As I said before, read the thread before responding. I have not posited the new proposition, Anarchic Socialism has, it is therefore up to him to prove it, and to contest arguments against it, if he can.>>>

You keep blabbering on and on about me "proving" something, yet you never state what it is that you want me to prove. You make absolutely no sense, and I think that's your tactic. You set up straw men and tell the other person to disprove it.

Let me reiterate my points in case you still don't get it:

History is course of progress. Where man advances in their treatment of fellow man. There is no scientific way to "prove" this other that looking at history and seeing how mankind has advanced in his thinking and you know that. So you think that somehow makes you "win" the argument. That's ludicrous. Communism is not something to "prove", it is a goal to work towards.

So, honestly, I have no idea what you want me to prove. Capitalism causes pain and suffering to many people. That's an indisputable fact. You can point out all the good it does, but that doesn't change the fact that it does bad too. Therefore communists want to end it. Socialism is a phase which will destroy it. And yes, I agree things may seem worse under socialism, especially for those who reap the benefits of capitalism. They will lose their privilege and they will lose much of their wealth. I might imagine people like you will see a major drop in their standard of living. And that wouldn't be a bad thing. This is what communists feel must happen. Mistakes will be made along the way. I admit that. Capitalists will try to fight it and many people might get killed. Counter-revolutions will cause great economic distress and turmoil. But in the end this is what must be done to destroy capitalism and take away all hope of it ever coming back. Pro-capitalists will be left with no other choice but communism because it will simply be humanly impossible to bring capitalism back. This is what I want to see happen.

Now what in the hell do you want me to prove about it?

<<<I have said that the violence is necessary to carry out their aims.>>>

My personal opinion is that I have no problem with armed struggle. The United States was founded on violent revolution. Most major change comes from physical confrontation with the power structure or at least civil disobedience.

The purpose of socialism is not to create an economy on par with capitalism, it is to take wealth from people like you, Disraeliland, and leave you powerless so we can pave the way to communism - meaning no government, no countries, no money. Only when people like you have no means to revert backwards to capitalism and the oppression of others can communism work. That explains why you think socialism doesn't work. It's goals are the opposite of what you want. To me the definition of a successful socialist state is when the capitalist sector complains the most and the capitalist class sees a drop in their standard of living. I want to see LESS economic growth, not more. So as you see I have a totally different definition of what good government should be. Does that make it any clearer for you?

<<<I have said that the violence is necessary to carry out their aims.>>>

My personal opinion is that I have no problem with armed struggle. The United States was founded on violent revolution. Most major change comes from physical confrontation with the power structure or at least civil disobedience.

The purpose of socialism is not to create an economy on par with capitalism, it is to take wealth from people like you, Disraeliland, and leave you powerless so we can pave the way to communism - meaning no government, no countries, no money. Only when people like you have no means to revert backwards to capitalism and the oppression of others can communism work. That explains why you think socialism doesn't work. It's goals are the opposite of what you want. To me the definition of a successful socialist state is when the capitalist sector complains the most and the capitalist class sees a drop in their standard of living. I want to see LESS economic growth, not more. So as you see I have a totally different definition of what good government should be. Does that make it any clearer for you?

Then if I were you I would sell my house, computer, and everything and then give the money to the poor.

Redistribution of wealth, right?

The purpose of socialism is not to create an economy on par with capitalism, it is to take wealth from people like you, Disraeliland, and leave you powerless so we can pave the way to communism - meaning no government, no countries, no money. Only when people like you have no means to revert backwards to capitalism and the oppression of others can communism work.

Give your computer to charity then. There are plenty of hobos who can find better uses for it than you.

The reason is capitalism is propped up by the myth that there is no other alternative and if there is the people must be miserable.

Earlier in this thread, you proclaimed that "ONLY when capitalism has been destroyed ONCE AND FOR ALL" would the world be free of violence and other nasty stuff. And you accuse us of being narrowminded!?


And if they aren't miserable, the capitalists are going to make damn sure they become so, either by sponsoring counter revolutions, polluting them with capitalist propaganda or by sabotaging their economy.

Cause hey, it's not as if Castro feeds 'em propaganda. As for sabotaging the economy, you JUST SAID yourself that the aims of a communist are to destroy the economy as we know it. Isn't the Cuban government actually grateful if the USA helps them achieve that goal?


Capitalism is on the way to the dustbins of history and I say good riddance!

Because heck, it's not like pretty much all failed attempts at communism and the path to it so far are already sat in the dustbin of history, right? But of course, the current ideology of half the world's current superpowers is doomed to fail.

So, honestly, I have no idea what you want me to prove.

Prove to me that the promise of a vague, distant-future collection of hippy bicycle villages is worth the upheaval of the whole world and the potential death of millions of innocents.

The process you've described has basically been the creation of a Third World War.

"Capitalists will try to fight it and many people might get killed. Counter-revolutions will cause great economic distress and turmoil."

Prove that it's worth WWIII to try and create some stupid utopia which doesn't even sound that good to me anyway.

<<<Earlier in this thread, you proclaimed that "ONLY when capitalism has been destroyed ONCE AND FOR ALL" would the world be free of violence and other nasty stuff. And you accuse us of being narrowminded!?>>>

Yes, and I stand by that. Only when capitalism is destroyed for good will the world be virtually free of violence once and for all. That's communism. Under socialism there will be violence, just as there is violence under capitalism. George Bush just killed 150,000 people in order to steal that country's oil. It's not communists who are causing the violence, it is capitalist greed. We're only responding. No justice, no peace.



<<<Give your computer to charity then. There are plenty of hobos who can find better uses for it than you.>>>

How would that serve the purposes of overthrowing capitalism? Unfortunately we live in a capitalist world and must use any means at our disposal to see it collapse.



<<<Prove that it's worth WWIII to try and create some stupid utopia which doesn't even sound that good to me anyway.>>>

Because you are living in privilege either perceived or real, does not mean that others aren't suffering because of your privilege. That is the flaw of capitalism. It brings great wealth and comfort to the few at the expense of the many. This is why people will continue to work towards its eradication until it is gone. Competing economic interests will eventually start WWIII, in some sense many believe it is already happening. When it does eventually collapse upon itself, communists will be there to step in. And most of the violence is capitalist against capitalist anyway. Communists need only step in to take advantage of the situation capitalists cause themselves.


<<<As for sabotaging the economy, you JUST SAID yourself that the aims of a communist are to destroy the economy as we know it. Isn't the Cuban government actually grateful if the USA helps them achieve that goal?>>>

The goal is to destroy capitalist economies and corporations. Starving the Cuban people into submission is a totally different thing. The purpose of a socialist government, in my opinion, is to destroy all hope of capitalists to succeed so eventually they all go bankrupt or flee to another country and then replicate the situation there until there is no place left for capitalists to exist. In the case of Cuba, I think they've done a pretty good job of this. I only hope it spreads to the U.S.

Yes, and I stand by that. Only when capitalism is destroyed for good will the world be virtually free of violence once and for all. That's communism. Under socialism there will be violence, just as there is violence under capitalism. George Bush just killed 150,000 people in order to steal that country's oil. It's not communists who are causing the violence, it is capitalist greed. We're only responding. No justice, no peace.

My point exactly. You're telling us off for thinking that capitalism is the ONLY way to succeed, and ranting about what a horrible demon communism is. You're doing that too, inversely.


How would that serve the purposes of overthrowing capitalism? Unfortunately we live in a capitalist world and must use any means at our disposal to see it collapse.

You hope to instigate a worldwide revolution by arguing on the internet?


Because you are living in privilege either perceived or real, does not mean that others aren't suffering because of your privilege. That is the flaw of capitalism. It brings great wealth and comfort to the few at the expense of the many.

I can earn my keep without being a multimillionaire dinner-jacket wearer who beats up his millions of starving employees. In the late 1800's, when modern communist ideas began to develop, this wasn't always the case, and people really were getting exploited by crazy robber barons. Nowdays, it's quite possible to work hard and live to a reasonable standard without being a slavedriver. In the western world today, you don't have to be either a starving chimneysweep or a filthy rich top-hat type, you can just be an average person who contributes to society in exchange for the basics of life (and oh, is that really so very different to your utopian dreams anyway?)


When it does eventually collapse upon itself, communists will be there to step in. And most of the violence is capitalist against capitalist anyway. Communists need only step in to take advantage of the situation capitalists cause themselves.

You have a far too black-and-white view of society and politics. Not everyone is a raging communist revolutionary or a cackling robber baron.

What it boils down to is this.
FEAR!
Communists fear the idea that eventually society will become soooo capitalist socialism will be lost forever, there solution destroy capitalism.

Capitalists fear the idea that there children wont be able to carry on for them.
I agree with the idea that (provided everyone starts equally) capitalism, and providing there is a 100% inheritance tax, i would support it completely.

ALSO provided that there is a wealth cap and that the taxation on people would easily provide for the less fortunate.

You hit the point right in the nail.
The next step is the abolishment of inheritance privileges.
Not only does it end the cycle of dynasty building, but it also pave the way for (inter)nationalization of the means of production.
When the baron dies, all his property goes to the state, including those big corporations whose only purpose is the preservation and extension of class privileges. Then all can rip the benefits of his empire and the corporation can finaly profit to the masses.
Whatabout free distribution of medecine and what about the letting the people access to their fair share of the latest technology development they've worked so hard to build?

<<<You hope to instigate a worldwide revolution by arguing on the internet?>>>
The idea here is to argue communism vs. capitalism, it’s about saving as much face while making the other side look as bad as possible. Some (such as myself) would argue that communist theory is far superior to capitalist theory, and that the change from a society driven by profit to a society driven by the common good would be a good and necessary change. Others believe that the actions of men years ago are innate to socialism and thus spoil the movement entirely.

<<<I can earn my keep without being a multimillionaire dinner-jacket wearer who beats up his millions of starving employees. In the late 1800's, when modern communist ideas began to develop, this wasn't always the case, and people really were getting exploited by crazy robber barons. Nowdays, it's quite possible to work hard and live to a reasonable standard without being a slavedriver. In the western world today, you don't have to be either a starving chimneysweep or a filthy rich top-hat type, you can just be an average person who contributes to society in exchange for the basics of life (and oh, is that really so very different to your utopian dreams anyway?)>>>
There are less robber barons now, but they still control things. The Richest eight percent owns as much as the poorest forty percent.

<<<You have a far too black-and-white view of society and politics. Not everyone is a raging communist revolutionary or a cackling robber baron.>>>
You cant’ blame black and white thinking on one person in this discussion, there has been plenty to go around.

<<<I agree with the idea that (provided everyone starts equally) capitalism, and providing there is a 100% inheritance tax, i would support it completely.>>>
Elaborate why you prefer that.


Pictures
http://lava.nationalgeographic.com/pod/pictures/sm_wallpaper/NGM06_99_p40_1.jpg
http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwher/about/2002.cuba.html
http://www.ptutt.de/architectour/cuba.htm


Anyhow, the Joseph Schumpeter theory hasn’t been refuted, Venezuela hasn’t been touched, the Cuba argument still remains, capitalist therory hasn’t been put forth and so it hasn’t really been debated.

The arguement for communism still stands.

<<<You hope to instigate a worldwide revolution by arguing on the internet?>>>

The invention of the internet enables communists around the world to network and develop ideas and strategy.


<<<You have a far too black-and-white view of society and politics. Not everyone is a raging communist revolutionary or a cackling robber baron.>>>

In these times, one does not have to be a robber baron to be contributing to capitalist oppression. We ALL do it, ME included. It's hard not to live in this treacherous system without being a sponsor of sweatshops and slave labor. The difference is that I am aware of this and actively working to end capitalism and attempting to consume as little as possible. Meanwhile, you and others are celebrating capitalism like a system of greed and exploitation is a good thing!

Capitalism was a necessary phase to lift humanity out of feudalism. It also served the purpose of industrializing the world and advancing technology in a relatively short time. Capitalism has served its purpose and has outlived its necessity. Now it is time to move toward the next step - socialism. Capitalism is on its way out. One need only look at the increased disparity of wealth in the U.S. alone in the last five years. I think capitalism probably reached its peak during the Clinton years. It may have its highs and lows in the next few decades but I think it is highly likely that most of the world will be in the socialist phase by the time we reach peak oil in about 40 years. The resources just aren't there to sustain capitalism much longer than that.


<<<Nowdays, it's quite possible to work hard and live to a reasonable standard without being a slavedriver. In the western world today, you don't have to be either a starving chimneysweep or a filthy rich top-hat type,>>>

No, it's much more subtle than that nowadays, but the exploitation and oppression hasn't changed. You just aren't exposed to it because the exploited are in a foreign land. I guess you just assume that all the junk you consume magically appears out of thin air just so you can buy it cheaply. Just because capitalism and consumerism has been sanitized and presented to you under slick and glossy media propaganda doesn't mean it doesn't have blood on its hands. Simply being unaware doesn't mean you aren't contributing to the system. If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. And capitalism can not exist without exploitation. They go hand in hand. That's why there is no other logical or ethical conclusion one can come to but to end it. Reforming it simply won't work because for every reform you institute, five more will be wiped away. Just look at the state of labor in this country today. We're worse off now than we were fifty years ago.

The idea here is to argue communism vs. capitalism, it’s about saving as much face while making the other side look as bad as possible. Some (such as myself) would argue that communist theory is far superior to capitalist theory, and that the change from a society driven by profit to a society driven by the common good would be a good and necessary change. Others believe that the actions of men years ago are innate to socialism and thus spoil the movement entirely.

Communist theory is irrelevant. Communist reality is what matters, and communist reality is failure and death.

the Joseph Schumpeter theory hasn’t been refuted,

I'll refute it. The idea of the "intellectual class" having that much influence has been shown at election after election to be rubbish. The "intellectual elite" have been calling for more socialism, and the removal of governments like the UK, US, and Australian governments, and those leaders (Blair, Bush, Howard) have all increased their vote, with Howard gaining a majority in the upper house. His theory is good for a university staff room circle jerk, but sucks in the real world.

the Cuba argument still remains

My argument is unrefuted. Socialism has failed in Cuba.

capitalist therory hasn’t been put forth and so it hasn’t really been debated.

Doesn't need to be, capitalism brings more prosperity and liberty than any other idea around.

The arguement for communism still stands.

Nonsense. It lies in tatters.

Yes, and I stand by that. Only when capitalism is destroyed for good will the world be virtually free of violence once and for all.

:rolleyes:

How would that serve the purposes of overthrowing capitalism? Unfortunately we live in a capitalist world and must use any means at our disposal to see it collapse.

You haven't shown that your idea will be better, or even possible. You've made wild claims and shrieked that communism is inevitable.

Make a logical argument for once.

When it does eventually collapse upon itself, communists will be there to step in. And most of the violence is capitalist against capitalist anyway. Communists need only step in to take advantage of the situation capitalists cause themselves.

Rubbish. Can you make a logical argument, please! Instead of bellowing from the rooftops that communism is inevitable. Even the creationists use less faith in their arguments!

Because you are living in privilege either perceived or real, does not mean that others aren't suffering because of your privilege. That is the flaw of capitalism. It brings great wealth and comfort to the few at the expense of the many. This is why people will continue to work towards its eradication until it is gone.

Interesting, you are against something which you have practically no knowledge of. Your whole argument rests on a ridiculous caricature of capitalism, and a massive false dilemma (we have to choose between your ridiculous caricature of capitalism, or communism).

You have made no real explaination of why previous attempts failed (your "lost the faith" argument is revisionist bullshit), and why yours would succeed, or even be possible.

Can you at least move your argument away from your faith that there simply must be an evolution towards communism. Faith can't win an argument, and blustering won't change it.

The next step is the abolishment of inheritance privileges.

What is it with commies thinking that all the world needs is the destruction of important incentives?

What it boils down to is this.
FEAR!

No, it doesn't. On the communist side, it boils down to avarice, envy, and hatred, they have said as much themselves. They have no plan, no idea of how to bring the people what they need, nor any real wish to, their quite happy to see everyone starve because they don't want to see one man have abundance. Their talk of creating a new type of man is balderdash, just a Torjan Horse to enslave people.

With capitalists, we have seen the prosperity capitalism brings, we also don't want our rights taken away.

[Schumpeter's] theory is good for a university staff room circle jerk, but sucks in the real world.
I think you should try a bit harder to read and understand what he's saying. You haven't refuted anything really - and then you proceed to tell us that economists don't know about economics...

<<<Nowdays, it's quite possible to work hard and live to a reasonable standard without being a slavedriver.>>>

By working for corporations, supporting capitalist politicians (both Dems and Reps), paying taxes to a government which props up these multinational slavedrivers in foreign lands by military force, and consuming these products - all these things make you a slavedriver. You may not see your slaves and you may not beat them or kill them by your own hand, but the system you support and live off does. They are simply doing your dirty work for you so you can sleep at night. And yes, I've benefitted greatly from this system too, but that doesn't mean I can't work to do everything within my power to destroy it and build something better.

I think you should try a bit harder to read and understand what he's saying. You haven't refuted anything really - and then you proceed to tell us that economists don't know about economics...

A cursory look at Australian history refutes him. Australia has been trending away from social democrats. We elected one in 1972, and when he was dismissed, the people confirmed it by giving the right the biggest majority in history, Labor is controlled by the right because of this, the right can win elections.

He relies on the idea that the intellectuals will have influence enough to help this, yet the intellectual elites have constantly, and loudly railed against the right to no avail. Frankly, I don't see how his idea can work, without placing the words "And Then A Miracle Happens" in there somewhere.

He relies on the idea that the intellectuals will have influence enough to help this, yet the intellectual elites have constantly, and loudly railed against the right to no avail.
There is a lot more to it than that.

If it was that easy to refute him, he wouldn't still have the influence he has today. I suggest you sit down and really get stuck into "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy".

And there is by the way no reason to get angry with the guy: He loved Capitalism - he had the same romantic attachment to it that all other Austrians had.
He simply observed what was happening and came to the conclusion that Capitalism has it in itself to self-destruct - intellectuals or not.

<<<Rubbish. Can you make a logical argument, please! Instead of bellowing from the rooftops that communism is inevitable.>>>

Communism is inevitable because it is the only ethical solution. If humanity is to survive we must move toward communism. I totally believe capitalism had a purpose. I'm simply saying it is now time to move to the next level. I simply cannot support a system based on greed and exploitation and that is what capitalism is and always will be. You keep wanting me to prove it, but there is no proof, at least not to me. I'm not a scientific Marxist and that doesn't interest me personally. I'm an ethical communist who believes that there simply is no other logical solution but to move toward a more fair system

Also, 95% of business startups fail in their first five years. So are we to say that this is a sign capitalism does not work? Why would a total restructuring of a nation's economy and a total change in a society's thinking have any higher a success rate? Of course, creating socialism and communism is difficult, and it may fail numerous times before we get it right, but why do you assume that means we should quit trying? Plus, I've already told you my criteria for a successful socialist state and yours are totally different. I think it was a good thing the Soviet Union collapsed after Gorbachev began pushing it toward the market system. And now look at it today. Once the most powerful civilization on earth, it has been turned into a 3rd world crime land. Doesn't look like capitalism works very well to me. I guess they aren't exploiting enough people, heh. No, we're going to keep pushing until capitalism ends. It's called class struggle and yes, I say it is inevitable and will keep happening until we achieve socialism and then communism. Call that blind faith all you want. I and many others are going to keep at it until it happens.

As Che Guevara said: I don't care if I fall, as long as someone else picks up my gun and keeps on shooting.

<<<A cursory look at Australian history refutes him. Australia has been trending away from social democrats. We elected one in 1972, and when he was dismissed, the people confirmed it by giving the right the biggest majority in history, Labor is controlled by the right because of this, the right can win elections.>>>

Your problem is that you see the world through human arrogance. You think that your time, your situation is the most important deciding factor in all history.

History is long and these things change over generations and centuries, not decades like you appear to think. Yes, capitalism will have its ups and downs, but to declare the victory of capitalism and the end of history shows you are out of touch with reality. You refuse to see the bigger picture in the context of human history and seem to think that recent bourgeois elections are the determinant of human evolution (and no, I'm not talking about Darwinian evolution). Communists see the struggle in terms of the entire history of humanity. You see your own lifetime as being the end all and be all. That's quite a myopic viewpoint, but capitalism depends on people like you for its continued existence.

Communism is inevitable because it is the only ethical solution.

Nonsense. Ownership of property comes from ownership of self. Take away ownership of property, and you make slaves of everyone.

If humanity is to survive we must move toward communism. I totally believe capitalism had a purpose. I'm simply saying it is now time to move to the next level.

More blind faith.

I'm an ethical communist who believes that there simply is no other logical solution but to move toward a more fair system

You can't say that because you have used no logic to back your position.

Also, 95% of business startups fail in their first five years. So are we to say that this is a sign capitalism does not work?

No, it can say several things, firstly, that the people in question shouldn't have gone into business; secondly, they just didn't do it right; thirdly, central banking, and fractional reserve banking means there is far too much credit out there, with banks giving out loans for things that are bad risks.

The point is that it doesn't show an inherient flaw in capitalism.

Of course, creating socialism and communism is difficult, and it may fail numerous times before we get it right, but why do you assume that means we should quit trying?

Your idea has no moral or factual basis, you have virutally admitted that all you want is to steal on a massive scale. You have not shown that it can work, that it can bring any sort of good living standard, or that its even possible.

Once the most powerful civilization on earth, it has been turned into a 3rd world crime land. Doesn't look like capitalism works very well to me. I guess they aren't exploiting enough people, heh. No, we're going to keep pushing until capitalism ends.

Russia doesn't have a capitalist system, and never did.

It's called class struggle and yes, I say it is inevitable and will keep happening until we achieve socialism and then communism. Call that blind faith all you want. I and many others are going to keep at it until it happens.

What are you smoking, and where do you get it?

If it was that easy to refute him, he wouldn't still have the influence he has today.

I wouldn't say that. People still believe in Marx, remember.

It looks to me that this arguement is going no where (except to harden people's positions and create more extremism).

Can't we just let this thread die and accept that people have different opinions and always will?

Anarchic Socialism, your arguments have consisted of:


Blind faith
An absurd caricature
False causes
Ad hominem
and, Argumentum ad nauseum


And you have the hide to accuse others of arrogance?

There is a great potential for further debate here, but as a fellow poster, Neo Mishakal has stated, these arguements are doing nothing positive. The post was intended to talk about the points of Capitalism Vs Communism, and I believe it has been successful in that. Right now the thread seems to have degenerated into person on person slander hidden under the guise of a discussion on political theory. Lets bury the hatchet and go on with our lives, maybe to revisit the subject once more down the road, but for now we should stop. This isn't a surrender, this is a armistice.

I hope you all have a great Thanksgiving. Good night everyone.

To the original poster: You will definitely be experiencing in your debate the myth that "Communism is dead". Here's a good response:

Communism isn’t dead. In the late 80s and early 90s, many countries that were socialist fell due to a combination of forces including capitalist economic pressure, popular unrest, mistakes and shortcomings. Since then, capitalism has been restored in most of those countries, resulting in a disastrous drop in the living standards and well being of the masses of people.

People in many of the former socialist countries are now subjected to the most vicious, gangster capitalism, with rapidly declining health and life expectancy, and rapidly increasing unemployment, poverty, infant mortality, suicide, sexism, racism, and right-wing nationalism.

Communism isn’t dead! There is still a worldwide movement of Communists, who are active in the struggles in their own countries, who apply Marxism to their conditions and according to the history of their countries, and who organize international solidarity.

For example, the South African Communist Party played a significant role in the fight to end apartheid and plays an important role now in the labor and social justice movements in South Africa. For example, the Communist Party of Nepal helped lead the struggle to transform Nepal from a monarchy to a constitutional democracy and has played a leading role in the government. For example, the Communist Parties of Vietnam and Cuba, which are leading their countries and governments through times of difficult and complex economic transition. For example, the elected Communists who run the government of the states of Kerala and West Bengal in India.

Some of the predictions by Marx and Engels didn’t work out the way they expected—for example, the first socialist revolutions didn’t take place in the most advanced industrial societies. Agrarian countries, where capitalism did not yet have a stranglehold on political power, were the first places where socialism came into existence.

However, most of their predictions have proven to be true—the ever-increasing internationalization of capital, the ever-larger merger mania consolidating economic and political power in ever fewer hands, the inability of capitalism to avoid repetitive economic crises, the ever-growing gap between rich and poor, the insatiable drive of capitalists for more profits.

-----
Another site which contains a lot of good info is: http://rwor.org/home-e.htm

<snip>

Ok I just have to point this fact out to everyone so there is no misunderstandings.

The Communist Party in Nepal claims to be "Maoist" and it is... Because they are big fans of shooting school teachers because they "work for the government" and enlisting kids as young as 10 into their militas. Civilian casualties are mounting as the Communists and the Monarch's forces are waging a total war against one another.

The Communists in Nepal are nothing more or less than Terrorists, pure, plain, and simple.

<<<I have said that the violence is necessary to carry out their aims.>>>

My personal opinion is that I have no problem with armed struggle. The United States was founded on violent revolution. Most major change comes from physical confrontation with the power structure or at least civil disobedience.


I don't see any reference in US Revolutionary War history to the wholesale execution of the educated classes.

The Real Truth About the People's War in Nepal
by Li Onesto

Revolution #013, August 28, 2005, posted at revcom.us

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has been waging armed struggle against the government since 1996 and now controls most of the countryside. Their People’s Liberation Army is able to mobilize thousands of guerrillas against the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA), and in areas run by new revolutionary governments, they are leading millions of poor peasants to radically change the economic, political, and cultural life. Lately there has been a rash of reports in liberal publications like Harper’s, Rolling Stone, and Newsday that have attacked the people’s war in terms that are at minimum distorted and in some cases outright slander.

Revolution asked Li Onesto to respond to some of the disinformation and lies being put out about the People’s War in Nepal. Li Onesto traveled deep into the guerrilla zones of Nepal in 1999 and is the author of the book Dispatches from the People’s War in Nepal (Pluto/Insight Press, 2005).

Why are the Maoists in Nepal waging an armed revolution?

In Nepal over 85% of the people are peasants in the countryside, desperately poor, malnourished, and exploited by corrupt officials, landlords, and moneylenders. Lower castes and oppressed ethnic groups face systematic discrimination under a rigid caste system. Women are intensely suppressed and treated as inferior in every facet of society. A king controls the army and an oppressive monarchy is deeply embedded in the ruling structures of society. The whole country is subordinate to, dependent on, and dominated by India and imperialist countries like the U.S.

The ruling class and the government in Nepal defend and serve this whole oppressive setup. They have amply shown that they will use torture, rape, and summary executions against anyone who seriously opposes them. And the Nepalese people can never be free until this state power is overthrown.

Through armed struggle the Maoists have been able to carve out liberated areas, establish revolutionary governments and mobilize the people to begin transforming things: the redistribution of land, equal rights for women, an end to the caste system, autonomy for oppressed ethnic groups, healthcare, education, and the building of roads and bridges.

The broad masses of people are putting their minds and hearts into building the embryo of a new society. But this is limited as long as the reactionary regime holds state power. To seize nationwide power the Maoists have to defeat the Royal Nepalese Army. They can then build a new socialist society which they see as part of the worldwide struggle to bring about a communist world--free of all oppression and exploitation.

Some reporters say the common people in Nepal are "caught in the middle" between the Maoist guerrillas and the government forces.

This so-called "analysis" echoes the disinformation put out by the U.S. State Department that completely distorts what is really going on in this war.

The People’s Liberation Army is made up of tens of thousands of common peasants who are not "caught in the middle" but have joined the insurgency. And many more are participating in the new revolutionary governments.

The Maoist revolution aims to get rid of the whole economic, political and social system that oppresses the people. The Nepalese regime rules over, enforces and is fighting to preserve the status quo. Are the masses of people caught between these two fires? No! Sure, there are people who don’t fully support the government or the Maoists. That happens in any civil war or revolution. But more importantly, the Maoists are organizing and providing leadership to millions who are brutally and systematically oppressed by the system AND who are inspired by and support the Maoists’ vision and concrete program for building a new liberating society.

What kind of support do the Maoists have?

Those trying to justify the brutal counterinsurgency claim the masses don’t support the Maoists, that people are being coerced into joining the revolution. Anyone who seriously studies this situation knows this is a lie.

When I was in Nepal I interviewed military commanders and political leaders as well as rank-and-file guerrillas, poor farmers, and peasant youth. Something that struck me over and over again was the political consciousness of the participants in this revolution. These people were not unthinking robots, terrorized into joining the revolution. I met young women who had been denied an education--who were fighting with rifles as well as learning to read by studying revolutionary theory. This is a revolution of desperately oppressed peasants who are inspired by the vision of a whole new society and world.

The guerrillas started off small and up against a brutal regime backed by India and the U.S. They could not have achieved their current military and political strength without the genuine support and participation of thousands who believe in the goals of the revolution and on this basis go into battle and risk their lives.

What about all the people who are dying in this conflict?

First of all, we should look at all the people who needlessly die every day in Nepal, of starvation and disease and brutality under the "normal" workings of this system. But even in terms of this war, the vast majority of the 12,000 killed since the start of the war have been civilians murdered by the police and Royal Army, along with suspected revolutionaries also tortured and murdered. The U.S.-trained RNA has carried out human rights abuses against a wide swath of the population, killing thousands suspected of "supporting the Maoists," which could mean simply providing food and shelter for the guerrillas. Human rights organizations have documented how the police and RNA have burned whole villages and rounded up, tortured, murdered and jailed thousands of people. In 2003 and 2004, Nepal recorded the highest number of new cases of disappearances by security forces in the world.

On the other hand, the vast majority of people killed by the Maoists have been police and soldiers in combat. When others, like informants, have been targeted, this is because their actions have directly led to Maoists and others being jailed or killed. On several occasions, the Maoists have issued self-criticisms of actions they felt were wrong and have changed some policies after being criticized.

There is widespread censorship and government disinformation which claims the Maoists "kidnap students," "use forced labor," "execute teachers," etc. These outright lies and distortions about the nature of the Maoists are aimed at justifying a brutal counterinsurgency, backed by India, the UK and the United States.

What is the role of women in this revolution and how are the Maoists addressing the question of women’s oppression?

For centuries, feudal traditions like arranged marriages, dowries, and polygamy have been enforced in many ways and under a mixture of feudal and capitalist rules; women’s bodies are owned, controlled, and bargained over in everything from marriage to sex trafficking. Religious and cultural practices promote and perpetuate male domination. And everywhere a woman turns, her freedom and independence is policed and smothered.

Where the guerrillas have control, land is being redistributed, and for the first time women own land. Arranged marriages, polygamy, and other feudal traditions oppressive to women are no longer practiced. Wife beating and rape are severely punished by people’s courts. Women are equal participants in the new economic, political, and social life of the villages. Women are given the right to divorce, go to school, and fight in local militias as well as the People’s Liberation Army. Women make up at least 30% of the guerrilla army and there are women military commanders and political leaders.

The U.S. has called the Maoists in Nepal "terrorists" and is supporting the Nepalese government with arms, money and military training to defeat the guerrillas. Should we be concerned about this?

The Maoists in Nepal have nothing in common with groups like al-Qaida, but this has not stopped the U.S. from fabricating a comparison or arguing that if the Maoists are not defeated the country will become a "failed state" and "safe haven" for other terrorists. The U.S. is attempting to label as "terrorists" any movement that dares to challenge their domination--or rises up against a regime they support.

There are many people who are inspired by the revolution in Nepal and oppose the counterinsurgency being carried out by the U.S.-backed Nepalese regime. But even those who do not support or have questions about the People’s War in Nepal should oppose U.S. intervention--and cannot allow attacks on those who do. If the U.S. is allowed to attack real liberation struggles and call them "terrorist"… If those who politically support people’s wars are attacked and called "supporters of terrorists"… If those who say we need revolution are targeted and persecuted.... this will affect all the people and put an even deeper blanket of repression on all progressive organizations, movements, thinking, and actions.

Newsday, a liberal newspaper in New York, recently ran a special nine-part series by Matthew McAllester on the Maoist revolution in Nepal (August 14-17, 2005). Like recent articles in Harper’s 1 magazine and Rolling Stone, McAllester echoes the U.S. State Department, arguing that the Maoist revolution is a horrible and totalitarian thing that must be stopped at all costs. And like most mainstream coverage of the People’s War in Nepal, this Newsday series is based on disinformation, outright lies, and extreme anti-communist hysteria.

There is much to expose about this series and McAllester should really be forced to publicly debate and defend this rather crude piece of reactionary “journalism.” But right now, I want to focus on McAllester’s attack on the revolutionary road being built by the Maoists in Rolpa.

As A World to Win News Service reports, tens of thousands of people have been involved in building a much-needed roadway to be known as Sahid Marg, Martyr’s Highway ( Rolpa, Nepal: Building the road to the future). King Gyanendra’s Royal Army has tried many times to disrupt this project—dropping bombs from helicopters and firing on people working on the road.

But as a 75-year-old man working on the road said, “The new [Maoist] regime has responded to our sentiments, and has tried to make our dreams real, so we are ready even to give our blood for this great campaign.”

This kind of revolutionary enthusiasm and sacrifice is something McAllester can’t understand and cynically attacks. After talking to people in Rolpa he claims this project is nothing but “forced labor.” His capitalist outlook of dog-eat-dog individualism can’t comprehend how people would walk for two days to do volunteer work and that some people would do this, even though the road is “not even routed through their village.” To his way of thinking, if someone is working for no money, if someone is helping to build something that doesn’t directly benefit them—then this must be coercive, forced labor.

When “old women, young men, -mothers, grandfathers, boys and girls” tell him they “were only too happy to help the region’s development,” McAllester can only respond by claiming these people are “repeating a party mantra.” With such cynical contempt for the people McAllester cannot believe—even when he sees it with his own eyes—that the masses of people can consciously remake themselves and the world around them.

McAllester warns that “The scene on the Martyrs Road is a snapshot of what Nepal might look like if the Maoist insurgents ever came to power...” and then talks about how the Maoists could turn Nepal “into the world’s next killing fields.” He doesn’t offer a shred of evidence to support this but poses the question, if the Maoists win, will they “spill oceans of blood”? He hopes this will convince people of the “horror” of communist rule. But what horrifies McAllester is the fact that the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) now controls most of Nepal’s countryside and that they are leading millions of people to radically transform their economic, political, and cultural life.

The Maoist revolution in Nepal is bringing into being a whole new revolutionary way of thinking and acting—a revolutionary spirit where thousands of poor peasants are willing to sacrifice their very lives to get rid of the system oppressing them; where people are consciously working to bring into being a whole new way of running society; where people are working together to redistribute the land, get rid of women’s oppression, abolish caste distinctions and give equality to oppressed national minorities.

As a schoolteacher working on Martyr’s Road said,

“If the Maoists seize power centrally, I believe that within ten years Nepal will be changed dramatically. The work the Maoists have initiated in the base areas involving agriculture, industry, education and health is novel, scientific and positive. One cannot underestimate this great work...”

HOW CAPITALISM KILLS

More than 150,000 people have been killed by Guatemala's military and death squads in the past four decades. The skeletons now being dug up give stark testimony to the long and gruesome record of U.S.-backed murders in Guatemala.

U.S. Coups and Death Squads

U.S. imperialist presence in Guatemala dates back to 1906 when the United Fruit Company grabbed 170,000 acres of the best farmland. By the 1930s, United Fruit Company was the biggest landowner in Guatemala. The Guatemalan government gave United Fruit all kinds of concessions--such as tax exemptions and guarantees of low wages--that allowed the company to make enormous profits.

In 1954 a bourgeois nationalist government headed by Jacobo Arbenz began carrying out some reforms, including taking over some of the unused land held by United Fruit and distributing it to peasants. The U.S. immediately engineered a coup to overthrow Arbenz and replace him with Colonel Carlos Castillos Armas, who was trained at the U.S. Command and General Staff School in Fort Leavenworth. The CIA coup began a wave of reactionary violence--thousands of people were arrested and many tortured, and large tracts of land were given back to United Fruit and other big landowners.

After the coup, anti-government guerrillas began operating in the mountains. The Pentagon set up a counterinsurgency base, and the Green Berets trained Guatemalan officers. By the late 1960s as many as 1,000 U.S. Special Forces were taking part in a massive counterinsurgency. The Guatemalan military carried out "search and destroy" missions, rounding up villagers and sending them to concentration camps. These and other tactics were borrowed directly from the war that the U.S. was carrying out at the same time against liberation forces in Vietnam.

The notorious White Hand and other death squads made their appearance around this time. The U.S. had a clear hand in this development. Colonel Webber, the head of the U.S. military mission in Guatemala, said that he had urged the Guatemalan military to adopt "the technique of counter-terror." The death squads were a key part of this "counter-terror." Agents working out of the U.S. embassy advised and trained a Guatemalan army unit known as G-2--which carried out torture and assassinations and dumped bodies in secret graves.

Colonel Carlos Arana Osorio, the man hand-picked by the U.S. to head the vicious counterinsurgency in the late 1960s, became known as the "Butcher of Zacapa." In 1970 he became the president of Guatemala. Arana said, "If it is necessary to turn the country into a cemetery in order to pacify it, I will not hesitate to do so."

In 1982 the "born-again" Christian fascist General Ríos Montt came into power. He was the military chief of staff during the Arana regime and was personally responsible for the massacres of many villages. Ríos Montt announced on TV that he was ordered by "my god" to head up the new military junta. His real "god" was in Washington, D.C. The Reagan administration told Ríos Montt that it was looking forward to a "friendly and fruitful" relationship.

With this blessing, the Guatemalan military and death squads embarked on a new frenzy of mass murder in the countryside. Ríos Montt carried out a U.S.-directed "pacification" strategy known as "beans and rifles." One component was the distribution of food to those who collaborated with the military. A Guatemalan military officer explained, "If you are with us, we'll feed you. If not, we'll kill you." The other component was the conscripting of peasants into "civil defense patrols"--which served as village snitches and shields for the government troops in battles with guerrillas.

Still Seeking Justice

In December 1996 the Guatemalan government and the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG) signed an agreement to stop the war. The URNG was formed in 1980 from a merger of several armed groups. The peace agreement is being promoted in some quarters as a "new beginning" in Guatemala. But the agreement will not bring a fundamental change in the power relations in Guatemala. It does not change the situation where a small class of exploiters and oppressors, backed by U.S. imperialism, controls the politics and economics of society--and where nine out of ten peasant families have too little land to grow enough food to survive on.

Nor does the agreement bring full justice to the many victims of the brutal U.S.-backed criminals. Under the agreement, a "truth commission" is supposed to look into human rights abuses committed during the civil war. But the commission has no power to take any action--or even to name individual government and military officials responsible for the crimes.

The uncovering of the mass graves is a huge task--but the scientists and others carrying out the excavations are getting little funding from the government and must scramble for funds. Freddy Peccerelli from the Foundation for Forensic Anthropology said, "At the rate things are going, we have enough work to keep us busy for the next 100 years. There is no way of telling when this is ever going to end."

In San Andrés Sajcabajá, 38-year-old María Chach Ujer is one of the villagers watching anxiously as bones are dug up. She last saw her husband in 1982 when he and five others were taken away by members of a civil defense patrol. She said bitterly, "It's not fair that my children have had to go hungry and grow up without their father and that I have had to leave them and go to the coast to work in the harvest to make the money to keep us alive.

"We have suffered, while the men who killed him laugh in my face when we pass on the street, and sit in their fine houses with their wives and children, enjoying their soup and drinking their milk."

My class has done facism vs democracy before and that went a lot better than communism vs republic. Communism can not win because there are no successful examples of it. Facism on the other hand has numerous examples of successful leaders. And by the way there has never actually been any communism on earth.

<<<And by the way there has never actually been any communism on earth.>>>

That's the main point of this entire thread. Communism must be debated in the theoretical realm because communism has NEVER existed in reality.

Communism means the entire worldwide end of all authority whether it is leaders over nations, husbands over wives, priests over parishioners, landlords over tenants, bosses over employees, marketing over consumers....

It means to replace these relationships with a volunary cooperative association of humankind worldwide.

Where people get mixed up is when they confuse the governments which follow revolutions and led by Communists as communism. Those governments are not communist, they are socialist. And nobody is arguing that socialism is a flawed system, just like capitalism. If it wasn't flawed, there would be no reason to have the next state of communism. The main purpose of socialism is to break down the old relationships and beliefs in order to make the achievment of communism a possibility. Nobody is saying it will be easy. It's going to be very difficult and the resistance will be fierce, but capitalism by its very nature inspires people to rise up against its inequalities and inherent unfairness. Any system, including socialism, which fails to create a fair and just world will be overthrown until we reach communism. The more advanced humanity becomes the less tolerance we will have for greed and exploitation. People will continue to rebel and be put down in their rebellion until capitalism is ended.

But communism (the real one) does not seem achievable in the real world so are we only arguing over principles and not effectiveness?

<<<And by the way there has never actually been any communism on earth.>>>

That's the main point of this entire thread. Communism must be debated in the theoretical realm because communism has NEVER existed in reality.


The only way you're going to achieve the sort of Communism that you talk about and the ideal form that Marx spoke of, is when there are robots that can do ALL of the labor everywhere for everyone. Then everyone will live in paradise, and they won't even be workers.

Then we'll be living in paradise, until the robots get the idea that we're not necessary.

<<<But communism (the real one) does not seem achievable in the real world so are we only arguing over principles and not effectiveness?>>>

There's no reason why pure communism can not work. The only thing keeping us from it is resistance in various forms.

Why do people resist it?

The root of the resistance is in the rulers of capitalism. Of course they don't want to see it end. They are reaping the most benefits at the expense of others. If you were stranded on an island with nine other people and had a gun which allowed you to force the other people to work for you and cater to your every desire, then you wouldn't want to change that system either!

Of course it becomes more complicated than that on an international level. There are layers and layers of exploitation where persons or groups of people are holding power and authority over others and those people don't want to give up their power.

That is why we need socialism first to make communism possible. It is going to be necessary to break down these barriers between people. This is a process which could take hundreds of years. It certainly isn't going to magically happen the day after a revolution topples a government.

In our own country much has been said about motivation and incentive, and this is true. Many people, even from the working class support the capitalist system because they benefit from it in one way or another or at least aspire to.

Although I'm arguing for communism, I'm actually a 'capitalist' who has started and sold two successful business enterprises, so I know a little bit about this motivation. What needs to happen is that socialism needs to take away any hope that people might have of "moving up" in the world. For example, people think that they can work hard, save up and invest the money in real estate or the stock market and maybe make a fortune they can leave to their children. This may sound harsh, but that hope needs to be taken away from them so they have no motivation to support the capitalist system. We need to rearrange society so there is no hope of "moving up" or making a lot of money or bettering their financial situation. Only when their dreams of exploiting others to better themselves are totally crushed and an utter impossibility can we imagine a communist society. That means that all capitalist havens around the globe need to be turned communist. As long as there is one capitalist institution surviving we can not have communism.

Capitalism tends to do this on its own by consolidating power at the top. Through mergers, marketing wars, consolidation, etc. wealth tends to flow upward. Sure, there are exceptions, people who beat the odds and make it big, but these are anomolies which capitalists like to trot out and say, "see, if they can get rich, everyone can." That's simply not the case though. If FDR hadn't produced a massive redistribution of wealth in this country, the middle class today would be virtually non-existant. But FDR's reformism didn't have the effect of bringing us toward socialism or communism, it simply put a human face on the capitalist system and allowed it to continue further into time, resulting in millions of people around the planet being exploited and killed for its continued existance.

This is why I say that Republicans actually help bring us closer to socialism than Democrats. Their push to the extreme right causes a reaction in society and motivates the Left. Just look at the rise and popularity of the Revolutionary Communist Party in the U.S. since Bush took over.

We've seen in the past decades great strides in people rebelling against authorities - slavery was ended, women fighting for equality, Christians rebelling against church teachings, blacks and gays and other minorities fighting for their civil rights, people rising up in armed revolutions against oppresive regimes - these are all things that would have been unimaginable a few hundred years ago. People will continue to make new ground on breaking down authority. There will be setbacks, such as Nazism or Bushism, but every time authorities try to repress people, it will only inspire more people to take up the cause, until all authority is finally broken down. Then we will have a voluntary association of humanity, or Communism.

<<<Te only way you're going to achieve the sort of Communism that you talk about and the ideal form that Marx spoke of, is when...>>>

In a sense, capitalism brings on a form of socialism, on its own accord without meaning to. The standard of success is domination of the market, which eventually leads to one winner, although usually they will prop up two competing brands working in cooperation in order to give the appearance of choice. Such is the case with Pepsi and Coca Cola who coordinate their sales on different days and divide up their monopoly in restaurants and bars.

There is little difference today between the corporate board room economic planning and the central planning of socialist Eastern Europe. Corporatism has become a form of socialism. This can be seen in small towns where small business has been largely wiped out by Wal Mart. Many conservatives, and rightly so, have accused Bush of being a socialist. And he is in some sense, although he may not realize it. His Iraq war is essentially wiping out local control of oil fields in the middle east in favor of a global central control. His motivation is not to bring socialism but get more power to himself. But in doing so, he is essentially in a roundabout way helping to move the world toward socialism by wiping out competition. I'm not saying I'm in favor of his actions, but I think they have the effect of giving him and his alliance a short term economic gain, but in the long run they are having the effect of eliminating competitors which sets up their system as the only one. That means, when their system collapses, there won't be any alternatives, so communists can move in with a clean slate.

What I'm saying is, Bush and gang are doing our job for us without even realizing it. At the same time they are radicalizing the planet by being so brazen in their conquests - another thing which helps us in the goal of achieving communism. While I'm opposed to the neo-cons of PNAC, it does make one wonder if this isn't in their grand scheme considering many if not most of the PNAC members who Bush takes advice from are 'former' Trotskyites who belonged to the Socialist Workers Party.

So, I guess everything isn't as it appears. History is a long process and communism truly is alive and well. It will be interesting to see how these things play out in the long term. As a communist, yes, I believe we are on a schedule from capitalism to socialism to communism. In some sense I believe we already have a foot in the socialist phase and have had for a while.

<snip>

I give up.

I give up trying to break through your poor understanding of reality, it's like the time I argued for FIVE HOURS with my Pastor Grandfather about the flaws in Christian Theology, blind faith trumps the little things like "evidence" and "reality" with all types of Fanatics and you AS are no exception.

You are a fanatic who has become so convinced he is right that no one and nothing can dare tell you otherwise. It will take something fantastic to shake your faith in Communism. But like all things based on Faith (like the Iraq War) I can safely predict that Communism will never turn out right because human beings are inherently greedy creatures who will always seek more and more for themselves and SCREW everyone else.

I done debating you though as it is pointless but I will not allow you to gloss over the horrors of Communist Governments (Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.) like you have tried to do in previous posts and I will not allow you to get away with the blatent lies you have posted on what is going on in Nepal.

BOTH sides have commited war crimes against the people both sides claim to rule, thousands have died because of this conflict and no matter who wins it will be the PEOPLE who will suffer and endure endless hardship because of it.

I've spoken my bit.

The U.S. government and their mouthpiece media will say to you: “Yes, we know the regime in Nepal is brutally killing, torturing, and jailing thousands of people... but we have to stop totalitarianism and keep this country from becoming a failed state... we have to help the democratic process...”

When you hear this, stop and THINK.

“Stop totalitarianism” means: Crush the revolution. “Help the democratic process” means: Promote and enforce the process that keeps oppressors and exploiters in power to rule over a system that enforces a cruel caste system, crushing poverty, feudal women’s oppression and the systematic discrimination of ethnic minorities. “Preventing a failed state” means: Ensuring U.S. strategic interests in the region and the world AND making sure that a liberated country doesn’t emerge as a real model and alternative for the people of the world.

This is what U.S. intervention in Nepal is about enforcing.

*****

In Nepal over 85% of the people are peasants living in the countryside. Most cannot feed their families and are constantly ripped off by landlords, corrupt officials, dirty politicians and moneylenders. Different castes and ethnic groups face systematic discrimination. Women are suppressed and treated as inferior and unequal in every facet of society. The whole country is subordinate to, dependent on, and dominated by India and imperialist countries like the United States. A corrupt and reactionary government has done little, if anything, to address basic problems of food, water, sanitation, and health care.

Addressing any one of these problems requires tearing up and discarding all the economic, social and political relationships within Nepalese society and between Nepal and other countries.

This is what the People’s War in Nepal aims to do. And you can see the outlines of a new revolutionary society in the territory controlled by the Maoists.

In liberated base areas, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is leading millions of people to radically change their lives and themselves. Land seized from corrupt officials and cruel landlords has been redistributed and there are beginning forms of collective farming. Women own land for the first time. Oppressed minorities have the right to practice their own languages and culture and participate equally in the new revolutionary governments. Laws and social practices that discriminate against lower castes have been done away with. Arranged marriages, polygamy, and other feudal traditions oppressive to women are no longer practiced. Wife beating and rape are severely punished by people’s courts. Women are given the right to divorce, inherit land, go to school, and fight in local militias as well as the People’s Liberation Army. There is a whole new culture and way of thinking among the people in these liberated base areas.

This is a living example of how a Maoist people’s war mobilizes the masses to fight with the aim of taking power into their own hands and building a whole new society that really digs at the deep economic, social, and political inequalities laid down and enforced by feudalism and capitalism.

All has all been possible because the armed struggle against the Royal Nepalese Army, has allowed the revolutionary forces to seize political power in liberated base areas—which has allowed them to establish new forms of people’s government. Now, to fully implement such revolutionary changes throughout Nepalese society, it will require overthrowing the current ruling class and seizing nationwide power.

The Maoists in Nepal now control about 80 percent of the countryside. But India, the U.S., the UK and other powers backing the Gyanendra regime and have said straight up that the Maoist revolution in Nepal cannot be allowed to win. And there is a real danger of invasion by the Indian Army, some kind of UN-sponsored troops, or even the U.S. military.

The U.S. has supplied the King Gyanendra government—a straight-up monarchy that is murdering, torturing, and unjustly arresting thousands of people—with millions of dollars, thousands of M-16s, night-vision and communication equipment, and special-forces counterinsurgency training. American soldiers have conducted joint training exercises in Nepal with the Royal Nepalese Army.

All those who oppose the madness of U.S. war and oppression around the world should oppose U.S. intervention in Nepal. And all those who dream of, and want a new liberated world should support the People’s War in Nepal.

<snip>

Nice propaganda piece, now post something that doesn't come from a biased source...

In Nepal, a revolutionary struggle for liberation continues to gain ground and momentum. Since the People's War began in 1996, Maoist guerrillas have been waging fierce battles against the police and Royal Nepal Army. And today, millions of people live in areas under Maoist control.

The corrupt Nepalese regime has carried out massive crimes against the people in its attempts to crush the revolution. More than 8,000 people have been killed since the start of the war. And many more have been wounded, tortured, raped and jailed. The U.S. has allocated millions of dollars in aid to Nepal, supplied thousands of machine guns and other weaponry, and provided military advisers and training for the Royal Nepal Army. But despite all this, the People's War has gained widespread support, and the guerrillas continue to defeat the Royal Nepal Army in battle.

The more the People's Liberation Army has been able to "liberate" territory through armed struggle and carve out areas where the police and other government forces dare not enter--the more the Maoists have been able to build base areas and establish a new revolutionary political authority.

In base areas throughout the country under the leadership of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), the masses of people are running village life--organizing local militias, distributing land, building schools and latrines, and setting up "people's courts" to settle disputes, grant divorces, and punish rapists.

Since the beginning, the Rolpa District in western Nepal has been at the heart of the People's War--a key area of strength and inspiration for the revolution. The following account of a visit to a village in Rolpa brings to life the exciting new developments in the revolutionary base areas and how, in the midst of intense fighting, the masses of people are taking things into their own hands--building the outlines of a new society and walking into the future.

I wish Joseph McCartney was back. Then everyone here would hate commies.

On recent developments (this week), the seven nepalese democratic parties have broke a deal with the maoists. They will coordinate their efforts in order to bring down the monarchy. They all agree that the repressive monarchy must be put down.
I believe the role of the communists today is to raise the conscience of the proletariat so as to make them aware of their common interests. The workers should stand united wherever they come from and whatever their work is. Their interests are the same and they are the same as the interest of the unemployed and of the oppressed people from everywhere. They hold the power but they don't know it. They can bring up the system.

A Nepalese comrade from Rolpa living in India hadn't been able to go back home for some time. A few months ago, taking advantage of the ceasefire, he went to see his family and breathe in the red areas. Afterward, we were travelling by train in India where I got a chance to ask him, "What's new there, how has it changed?" He started explaining and by the time we arrived I figured I could share what I've heard with you. This is what he said.

Rolpa, in western Nepal, is famous as a stronghold of the People's War that the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has been leading since 1996. Now the people rule most of the countryside through their village revolutionary committees and the U.S.-backed monarchy is not even able to fully control many towns. But the peasants and others in Rolpa rose up at the beginning, so revolutionary power there has been developed over a relatively long time.

I went by bus to the border city but the rest was mostly walking. There are dirt roads for buses in some areas, but the closest town to my village is about a three-day walk. Also because of the RNA (Royal Nepal Army) presence, not all the bus roads are safe, so we had to go around them by foot. In all, we had to walk about three weeks before I reached my village.

You can't go alone. There is a war going on and if you are checked by the RNA or their police, you can get in trouble. In our areas as well, since the regime sends spies, comrades are very vigilant. If you are not travelling with a guide, the village revolutionary committee has to be informed of your arrival and be waiting for you. Otherwise you have to wait around until they figure out who you are and what you want.

One of the organs of the new revolutionary state is the post. Every village in the red areas has a post office and the number of its workers changes depending on the size of the village and the traffic. But our post does more than sending letters and parcels. One of its tasks is to get the sick to bigger villages or towns that have better medical facilities. Another task is transporting people around. This is very important. As I said, we are in a war situation. Everyone who comes to the village has to present themselves to the post office. Then the post organizes their travel to the next village on the way toward his or her destination. In fact, comrades who work in the post are the ones who accompany people. Sometimes, depending on the profile of the traveler or the situation in the area, this can take the form of an armed escort. And almost always this means hours or even days of walking. Our post also has a military branch to take ammunition and other things to comrades who are fighting. Comrades working in this branch are mostly either members of the militia or the People's Army. The post is almost like the communications artery of the new state.

Not all the comrades working there are locals. Actually, they are mostly from other areas. If there are really a lot of postal workers in a village, they have their own kitchen, sleeping arrangement, etc., or else they live with the masses. But of course the post office never closes and there are guards at night.

One of the decisions of the party has been that the comrades don't necessarily work in the areas where they were born. This has several positive aspects. One is that the comrades gain varied experience. They come to know other regions of the country and their people, and so their view of revolution, its tasks, goals and dimensions becomes wider. The other aspect is that even though Nepal is small, it is a country of many nations and nationalities. The mixing of different people creates a situation where many fears and prejudices break down. People come to learn about each other and the feeling of unity is strengthened. This is very important, since people don't tend to migrate from one area of Nepal to another. Instead, if they have to leave their village to seek work they go to India.

Anyway, after going through various posts, I reached my village. With comrades who were accompanying me, I went to my father's door. I wasn't sure if I could invite them in or not. My family, even though they are not Brahmin, are from upper castes and my comrades were all from lower castes or untouchables. Previously it was impossible for my father to let them in his house.

I went in. My father asked if I came alone. I said no, but comrades are from lower castes. He said "Oh! Come on! Our door is open to all. Ask them to come in and eat something. They must be tired and hungry."

I was flabbergasted. The revolution and the new political power have even broken down my old man's prejudices. This, in fact, is one of the visible changes. Most of the new party comrades are from the lower castes, those who were previously not considered whole humans. The upper castes would not eat with them or let them into their houses. Now they are very active and respected. The red power has given them self-confidence; they know it is their own political power. Though most of them are young, they have high responsibilities and carry them out successfully. The composition of the party before the war, especially at higher levels, was from the middle classes, educated people and village teachers. But things have changed, and these kids are so courageous and mature at the same time that they are loved and respected by all.

The situation of women has changed considerably too. First of all, they are active in the party, army and the new state. In the army even though there are mixed units, there are also units and contingents made up only of women, from soldiers to military and political commanders. You can see other changes in their lives as well. Women are active in different aspects of agriculture and do things they were not allowed to do before. One of these is slaughtering livestock, especially cattle. Cows are sacred animals for Hindus and people tend not to eat beef. This has also changed. Even some middle-aged women declared to me proudly that they eat beef.

People's way of speaking has also changed. We have three ways of addressing people in Nepali. One is respectful, one is familiar and the third is derogatory. The latter is used for children, lower castes and sometimes women. Nowadays this has also changed. The derogatory form of address is basically not used any more. People use either of the first two only. Most importantly though, people address each other on the basis of equality. Before, children and women used to speak to their fathers or husbands using the respectful form of address while they themselves were spoken to in a derogatory way. Now this has changed. Everyone uses the same form of address in speaking to each other, either formally or in a familiar way.

Anti-women traditions have also been dealt some serious blows. For example, previously people only celebrated the birth of sons. Now the birth of all children is celebrated in our areas.

One of the other responsibilities of the new revolutionary state is construction. One of these projects that started from the very beginning of the war was the creation of roads and bringing running water closer to the villages. This one item won the hearts of many women who previously had to walk many hours to provide drinking water for the household.

The building of schools and the fight against illiteracy is another thing. When I was a kid, we had to walk several hours to get to school. Now we are trying to build a school in every village. There is, of course, the problem of a lack of teachers. But during the emergency [when the monarchy declared a state of emergency and launched a brutal campaign of repression] the reactionary state started persecuting a lot of revolutionary supporters in the cities. As a result, many students and intellectuals came to our areas. This was good help for the villages in several ways, including that they help teaching in schools.

One of the other responsibilities is the creation of local industries. Nepal imports almost everything from India, and industry in our country is very backward. While going to my village, I saw some youth, including students, building an engine to pump deep wells. Some engineers come from Kathmandu from time to time to help and supervise. There is also small home industry. For example in one of the villages, the people learned how to make candles, which they offered for sale at the market. They burn very well. You know that in many villages there is no electricity and candles are important.

Another industry is shoemaking. In one of the villages, there was a man who made good shoes. Villagers got together, and asked him to teach them how to make shoes. Now they are producing shoes for the market. They also use cowhides, now that cows aren't sacred any more. Biscuits and potato chips are other items the home industries produce. A contingent of the People's Liberation Army was passing through a village and saw chips in the local shop. There were surprised because the old state [the monarchy] blockades areas under party control and many things are not available in the villages. The peasants said, now we make them ourselves. The soldiers said that they were more delicious than imported Indian chips.

Of course these industries cannot develop very rapidly. We are in a war situation and don't have a wall around our areas. Sometimes the Royal Army comes in. During the emergency, several times the RNA came to my village and broke our door. My father used to fix the door every time, but finally he gave up. It's expensive and they may come and break it down again. When they come, if they can, they burn and break everything. They even burn the food supplies. But ever since the war started, people's lives have become so much richer that the crimes of the enemy make people, especially the lower classes and women, fight with even more determination for a world they know will be theirs.

Anti-communists think that humanity is made up of "inherently greedy creatures who will always seek more and more for themselves and SCREW everyone else."

Communists have a much higher opion of humanity than that. We will never stop fighting to break down ALL barriers and hierarchies among people until true freedom is achieved. If it takes a thousand years to do it, we'll keep on working. There will be setbacks on the way and humanity will go through some dark times, but people must never give up trying to fight against the misery, war, exploitation, and oppression that capitalist "democracy" inflicts on the world.

We will not rest until there are no bosses, there are no rich, there is no oppression whether it be oppression of women, oppression of minorities, economic oppression, military oppression, or the oppression of the markets.

We will create a society which is free of leaders, free of commercialism, free of money, free of war, free of ecological destruction, free of the dog-eat-dog mentality and free of bigotry.

To do this we must work tirelessly to bring down this corrupt system. By simply convincing one or two other people and them convincing one or two others and so on and so on, we can turn this world around. We have many examples to follow, both good and bad, as to how we can do it. Now is the time to organize and work for the end of capitalism.

CHECK OUT THESE PHOTOS OF REAL PEOPLE FIGHTING TO BRING AN END TO CAPITALISM: http://lionesto.net/

<snip>

You haven't convinced me of crap, so your "revolution" is off to a bad start. I have read the writting on the wall, no matter how nice Communism looks on paper every single attempt to apply it to the real world has failed, from Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Grenada, Cuba, Chile, and a whole host of countries that escape memory for the moment. Each and every single time Communist theory was used in RL situations it ALWAYS turned into a bloodbath and in the end the people who suffered were the WORKERS!!! The people Communism claims to represent.

The only system that works is a Capitalist System with only minimal market controls to keep things from growing too corrupt.

It's THAT simple.

To the original poster:

All Communists are for socialism, seeing it as a transition stage to communism, a higher stage of economic, political, and social development. All socialists aren’t for communism; some see Communists as too radical.

Socialism is social ownership of the main means of production (factories, transportation) and the commanding heights of an economy (banks and other financial institutions) and runs them in the interests of the working people, using part of the value that workers produce to build up the social institutions and benefits for the whole people.

Communism, as we see it, is a more advanced stage that comes after socialism. Communism, a stage of development never reached anywhere yet, reduces the state apparatus to minimal administrative functions, since people and society will have advanced past the need for coercive functions like armies, and will directly and indirectly provide people with the full benefits of the labor they engage in.

We see communism as a later stage of development. A stage when the production of the necessities of life has become plentiful, when there will no longer be shortages of food, housing, jobs, health care and education.

We see communism as a stage when governments can "wither away" to mere administrative agencies rather than maintain coercive control on behalf of exploiting classes through armies, police forces, court systems, tax agencies.

Socialism, which we are advocates of, is a transitional stage between capitalism and communism, a stage where a change in production relations, social relations, and individual outlooks become solidified.

When people have gone through a prolonged period of living in a society not based on scarcity, exploitation, and oppression, and when production for use rather than profit is a well-established economic system, and when the productive forces have advanced to be able to provide for the needs of all people, then society will be able to advance to communism. Communists are advocates of both socialism and communism.

In a socialist country, there is still a struggle that goes on between the ruling working class and the dispossessed capitalist class inside the country, and between the working class in power in one country and the capitalist class in power in other countries. The stage of socialism, as we have learned from experience, is not irreversible, and there is not a short, quick march to communism.

<<<it ALWAYS turned into a bloodbath>>>

And who creates that bloodbath? Is it communists or capitalists who have something to lose?

Resistance to socialism and then communism is always the cause of the violence. Capitalists fund counter-revolutions, send anti-communist propaganda into countries living under socialism, sabotage their economies, bomb them, set up embargos, use the CIA to disrupt their societies - and then say, "Look, see communism doesn't work and never will!"

Perhaps if capitalists would leave other countries alone and let them have the economy they want instead of destroying them, there would be less bloodshed. If capitalists would stop resisting communism and join in bringing it to fruition there would be no bloodshed whatsoever.

Is an American socialist revolution really feasible?

That depends on what you mean by feasible! We do think it is feasible if you take a long-term view that understands, in a Marxist way, that the struggle for reforms today (quantitative change) is dialectically connected to bringing about a revolution (qualitative change).

If your question means do we think a small party can cause a revolution by itself, the answer is certainly no. We think of revolutions as profoundly democratic events, which if they are to succeed, must involve the support of a majority of the working class. A revolution that is a version of a coup won't succeed in the long term, because to fundamentally transform society requires the active involvement and support of a majority. So feasible, yes, quick, no.

The main obstacles to a socialist country in the US lie not in the formal system of representative government or the division of government into branches with checks and balances. The main obstacles come from the economic system, which is undemocratic, and uses the power of money and economic and financial weight to dominate and distort the political system, the media, cultural and academic spheres, and other major aspects of life.

We think that a socialist government could be elected under our current political structure, and that if the capitalist class can be restrained sufficiently, that transformation could be peaceful. That is what we want, what we work for. But in most revolutions, the source of the violence is the actions of the established order, which resorts to civil war or violent repression to prevent a peaceful revolution.

A socialist transformation in the US would take the money out of politics, would put democracy into the economic system, would stop the international imperialist adventures that capitalist governments claim to oppose but start constantly.

A socialist-led government would seek to expand democracy, public power, and social programs, and would work to curtail or end all military and repressive and oppressive policies. For example, the US government currently is one of the largest arms suppliers in the world, selling armaments by the billions, and demanding that international treaties allow this type of immoral, reprehensible trade.

Anti-communism is very prevalent. It is a part of our culture. The root of it is: people who own the means of production and the politicians like capitalism. They would have to give up a lot under socialism. So they created a myth that Communism is violent and undemocratic. On the contrary, we believe in a peaceful revolution, with true democracy - political, economic, and social.

The political climate associated with Joseph McCarthy didn't start or end with him. His evil genius was, for a few years in the early 50s, to ride the wave of anti-communist hysteria for his own political purposes as its most virulent practitioner.

"McCarthyism" was one variant of right-wing efforts to crush left, labor, and progressive movements by scapegoating the Communist Party. Such efforts include the "Palmer Raids" in 1919-1920, the Martin Dies' led House Un-American Activities Committee starting in the 30s, the "Truman Doctrine" in foreign policy which used covert operations and undercover funding to thwart the democratic electoral efforts of communist and socialist parties in Europe following WWII, and Truman's imposition of a "loyalty oath" on public employees in the late 40s.

McCarthy saw his chance to become a nationwide figure by becoming a spokesman for the most rabid expression of the anti-communist hysteria. He waved fictitious lists, made outrageous accusations, and ruined lives, careers and movements in the process. When the mainstream political powers realized he was taking things too far for them, they turned and condemned what they were responsible for starting.

McCarthyism, both from McCarthy himself and from many, many others, was not really directed at a fictitious "Communist threat" from the Communist Party. It was directed at the labor and progressive movements, aimed at depriving those movements of their most capable, radical leaders, aimed at creating fear so that millions of people who wanted progressive change in the US would be afraid to sign petitions, afraid to join unions and other organizations, afraid to speak up for their rights, needs and views, for fear of being ostracized.

McCarthyism is a horrible stain on the democratic rights of our whole people. Its effects continue to be felt, though with nowhere near the virulence of the 50s and early 60s. The Communist Party, at times almost alone, fought through the courts and in the streets, for maintaining democratic and constitutional rights not only for our Party, but also for all people.

Many of the laws and prosecutions and repressions of the McCarthy period have been repudiated, by the Supreme Court, by lower courts, by the industries that practiced the blacklist against progressive artists, and by historians studying the period.

Again, the lingering effects were not just from the actions of one man, reprehensible though he was. Many people and politicians, from the right-wing John Birch Society through Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and others, all the way to the supposedly "Liberal" Americans for Democratic Action, collaborated to stunt the growth of progressive movements and to isolate them from the majority of workers.

Actions such as the prosecutions of national and state leaders of the Communist Party under the Smith Act, the passage of the Taft-Hartley anti-union legislation, the McCarran Act, and others, all deserve as much condemnation as McCarthy himself. McCarthy embodied the lying, hypocrisy, jingoism, anti-intellectualism, and demagogy that others shared with him, like Richard Nixon.

The effects on our Party were severe. They included 4 to 8-year prison terms for some of our leaders. They were charged with the crime of thinking revolutionary thoughts. More importantly, the effects on the labor, peace, and progressive movements hindered the building of a broad, anti-right-wing, pro-people politics that could have brought about real benefits for working and poor people, similar to the benefits that came in the 30s.

Our whole society is still paying the price of those years of repression, reaction, and pro-business policies. And we still have ahead of us the continuing struggle for a country and world based on putting people and nature before profits, and creating peaceful solutions to the problems that face us in this new century.

There are many popular misconceptions about the Party, communism and socialism. One is that everything in the USSR and China and Cuba and other socialist countries is totalitarian, repressive, and undemocratic. These misconceptions at best are a superficial analysis and at worst an intentional falsehood.

Another is that to be a Communist is somehow unpatriotic, when the reverse is true: real patriotism requires a radical outlook to make our country one that really serves its people. The right-wing claim that communist ideas are "foreign" ideas is a xenophobic, chauvinistic, and ignorant view.

Some say Communist Parties are hidden conspiracies, hoping to overthrow the government through "force and violence." We see revolutions as profoundly democratic events, which if they are to be successful must involve a majority of the working class.

Most of the things our Party has been accused of doing are, when looked at closely, legal, constitutional, and progressive. While a counter-revolution can pull off a military coup, a revolution which hopes not only to change the power equations in government but also works to fundamentally transform society cannot do so without the support and involvement of millions.

The prime cause of these misconceptions is the aggressive propaganda campaigns of the rich and powerful, who see a strong Communist Party and a strong labor movement as threats to capitalist control.

Even before our Party was founded in 1919, there have been claims that radical ideas are not "American" somehow. Anti-communism became one of the central organizing forces of all right-wing movements, along with racism and sexism. The House un-American Activities Committee, the FBI, the major newspapers, right-wing think tanks, even many so-called "liberal" think tanks, all have been cranking out distorted propaganda about socialism, communism, and the Communist Party for decades upon decades, until anti-communism seems the accepted obvious truth to many.

These propaganda efforts are attempts by the ruling class to protect its power. When socialists and communists make mistakes, the propagandists seize on these. When socialists and communists help people, this is hidden, twisted, and lied about. When others engage in radical action or thought, they are accused of being communists. As a Brazilian cleric said, "When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.

"Capitalism retains its power in large part by encouraging and fomenting divisions in the working class and in the progressive movements. Racism, sexism, anti-communism, regional chauvinism, hatred of immigrants and foreigners, an anti-historical view of events, false patriotism, and religious hatred are all used to put obstacles in the way of workers and poor people uniting and flexing the power that masses of people organized together can wield."

It has taken a while to read through the 20+ pages of this post, but I believe being familliar with the entirety of the conversation is important before jumping into it.

I would like to quote and respond to posts specifically, but such an action would take much time, and I believe it would be more beneficial for the discussion if I addressed some of the main ideas. I will address arguments by their major proponent, though keep in mind I do not wish to make it appear that the two are one in the same.

Anarchic Socialism: Firstly, much of your argument concerns itself with this notion of historicism and historical determinism. I am aware that this sort of argumentation is present in Marx's work, but I would like to see a better presentation and defense of it. It is your position that there is some sort of "evolution" in history, that there is some current or force that is heading in some particular direction. I do not see much evidence for this type of historical analysis. It seems that by and large people react to their circumstances and environment and act in accordance with the beliefs. These beliefs are not universal.

Communists see oppression and see an inevitable drive to communism. In this line of thinking, communism just makes sense. This is a problem.

For one, there is no proof that communism is in fact the end-behavior of the human function. I do not believe it so, and neither do those who disagree with you. To this you respond that communism is inevitable. As it has been pointed out, this is weak argumentation. Tell us why and how it is inevitable. Show us evidence now that it is inevitable. You say that this is just something you believe, and that with the right mind-set, something all will believe. This is not a good argument, because you do not support the theory and engage others. Instead you repeat over and over again that your opponents simply do not understand. I do not see your opponents understanding the merits of your theory any better, and if you indeed want to see the spread of communist ideals, I suggest you try and persuade with logic and evidence, instead of citing your world's inevitability.

Secondly, this sort of historical determinism creates a passivity in individuals. If communism is, in fact, inevitable, why should one work to help others? The idea that "at some point, it will happen," denies the efficacy of humans living in the present. History is not some series of events that were provoked scientifically. Time changes nothing, it is the actions of people (or should I say persons?) that change things. To say something is inevitable, to take personal efficacy out of history, disempowers activist groups and discourages opposition to the problems in the present.

Next, your type of ideal communism is a moving target, which leads to stupid discussions. When the US government does shitty things, it is on the onus of capitalism, even though, as it has been brought up before, the United States is hardly a great example of capitalism (*cough* corporate welfare *cough*). Now, when your opponents cite the tragedies and failures of attempts at communism, you refute them with "well, that wasn't really communism." Yes, but if it is your position that you can use examples of abuses in the world, that are somehow sprung from capitalism's loins, you need to defend your own theory and its real world ramifications. I can defend capitalism against many of these events by saying that, "well, that wasn't really capitalism, it was statism or authoritarianism."

In this argument you are arguing from an ideal position, against a real position. This leads to shitty discussions for the reasons above. There is no clash of arguments. It is doubly bad since this isn't even and ideal vs. ideal debate, which might prove interesting. You are not even affording capitalism the same type of flexibility, by attempting to pin all these tragedies on it, while saying your opponents can not pin any to you.

On this point I would say engage ideal capitalism with ideal communism, this would get to the heart of the debate.

Next, from what I can see, you advocate a radical paradigmatic shift in human thought, in order to allow communism to exist. You seem to get flustered when Disraeliland keeps asking for proof, but if you really want this shift to take place, then you must lay out how it will happen. No one is really saying that if people were radically different, communism still wouldn't work (though I think it is a tenable position). We merely ask how do we go about becoming radically different?

Now, to the meat of your position, anarcho-communism (or would it be syndicalism, it isn't entirely clear). What would happen if someone disagreed with the collectivist positions? You reply that in your illusory world there would be great social pressure to comply, but in the present there is great social pressure not to murder, yet that still occurs. How would collectivists deal with those who disagree, and choose not to contribute? You may reply, again, that it simply wouldn't occur, that people would think so differently, that it only makes sense for them to cooperate. People do not always act rationally. It seems clear that in order for this type of collectivism to work, there needs to be some initiation of force or coercion on the anarcho-communist's part. At least in anarcho-capitalism, people are free to form voluntary communes. I merely bring up anarcho-capitalism, since it is the other widely espoused branch of anarchist thought.

*start ad hominem*This leads nicely to your labeling of capitalists as arrogant. I contend that it is you who are arrogant. You are the one who refuses to engage people in a meaningful way. You are the one who repeats that your opponents simply "do not understand" ad nauseum. You put yourself above others. You say that you know what needs to be done. You seem to be confident in the idea that it is you who knows the needs of people. You would like everyone to think the way you do, because after all you are the one who knows how to ensure humankind's survival. Your hubris is also shown in your ideas about the transition to communism. All those people who have tried transitional socialism have failed because they did not have the right goal in mind, they were corrupt. Your fictional socialists would always be mindful of their goal, and would not be tempted. It is in this way that you are arrogant. You make it seem like you are part of the brotherhood of humanity, a great supporter of fraternity, but you can be neither since you refuse to step down from the lofty realm of ideals. We live here, you argue up there. */ad hominem*

Your anarcho-communist world also relies on the idea that there no more scarcity. This is absurd, there is always scarcity, unless you would like to try and "debunk" the second law of thermodynamics. There is always scarcity because something is always lost, there is no perpetual motion, and eventually we will succumb to extinction by scarcity, if not before then. This is not to say that we cannot minimize the effects of scarcity, surely not. The utilization of technology goes a long way to use limited resources most effectively. You have not explained why this trend will not continue.

It is true that modern manufacturing techniques has somewhat divorced producers from their product, but one may combat this within capitalism by supporting businesses that subscribe to fair trade practices. If we do indeed live in a culture of consumerism that renders the oppression upon which it is based invisible, then take action to change that culture. Get into contact with others about how Coca-Cola has funded death squads in Columbia to kill labor leaders. Make that a real reason not to buy their product.

Next, I have read about gift economies, and they are intriguing. I just fail to see why capitalism and gift economies are mutually exclusive. Are not those who give to charity afforded higher esteem than those who spend their money on personal items? Money is simply used to account for a wide range of products, and to deal with rationing of supply. In Soviet Russia lines were often substituted for prices. The scarcer the item, the longer the line. I fail to see how this allocation of resources is more fair than a price system.

A family unit can be an example of a gift economy, since there aren't really any profit-driven decisions in deciding to raise a child. Instead of pure cost-value decisions, other factors are taken into account, like love and companionship. I don't see why systems like this cannot survive within a capitalist system, since property rights are respected, and on may decide to do as one pleases with one's own property.

The gist of my position is that under a system that respects the right to propert - capitalism - one can create and foster alternative idea systems. This can be thought of as the sort of societal pressure Anarcho Socialism wrote about. There are competing value systems within capitalism right now. Since value is a subjective term as ever, I would suggest instead of flying above us with your idealistic communism, you should convince others to take into account what their purchase really supports. Communism is a system that decides what people need for them, I advocate simply that you encourage people to question their own perception of what they need.

There are many other considerations in this debate that I have not engaged, such as the Labor Theory of Value, and the problem of calculation in socialism. Both theories also have interesting philosophical underpinnings that have not been explored here, and I encourage everyone to familliarize themselves with the complexity of the issue

I fear that I have joined the discussion too late, and that my attempt to participate has yielded only confusion.

I guess my grandparents who were shot by Communists must have been counterrevolutionaries without knowing.

I guess teaching math to 12 year olds is counterrevolutionary.

If AS can justify taking two unarmed math teachers out of class on the day the North Koreans roll into town, and the North Korean Communist political officer announces that all intellectuals are to be shot on the spot in order to make way for the People's Revolution, then I'll be buying his argument.

But if he can't come up with a really, really good reason, I'm going put AS on ignore.

I'm not talking about propaganda - I'm talking about a personal experience with Communism.

Coneira, to put the whole topic into context, we have to look at it that Communism is a loaded word in the society we currently live in. Merely stating that one supports the idea of communism will bring angry attacks which easily get down to the personal level. My question is where does this anti-communist sentiment come from? Some have stated past violence done by communists. I address that in two ways:

1.) It is important to understand where the source of this violence comes from. Is it from people who want a better world for themselves or does it come from people whose fortunes are threatened by socialism? To just say communists are inherently evil and kill people for no reason is an absurd argument. In many cases where there has been great violence the majority of those killed were communists.

2.) It is an illogical argument to say that because A killed people and A and B both belong to the same group, then both A and B are killers. Capitalists have killed and committed atrocities for hundreds of years, but that does not mean all capitalists are murderers. To make such outrageous claims about communists is dishonest, especially when the violence occuring is often due to counter-revolution.

Now, I think I've made a pretty clear case that socialism and communism are two different things. I've defined this several times, yet the one poster (disraeliland) continued to make the same mistake and refused to discuss the two different systems by their correct meanings. That was my frustration with him and yes, out of frustration I may have slipped into ad hominen, but it was from both sides.

I've explained my definition of communism as being a state of existence where no one or no system or organization has power over another.

Socialism, on the other hand, is a flawed system that is necessary to get us to that point. There is no point arguing with anyone on the merits of socialism, because I agree with the anti-capitalists that socialism is flawed. I think that we will see a drop in our standard of living under socialism, I think it will cause great upheaval, and I agree that it is just as flawed, as capitalism.

So why do it? Because it is the only way we can move toward communism.

You asked why I believe there is an inevitable drive toward communism? I think that it can be drawn from viewing human history that mankind has an innate desire to reach a potential for fairness. I think our understanding of what fairness is develops over time. In the caveman days fairness was taking what you want and need. As people developed in social groupings they formed heirarchies to better meet their needs and protection. This turned into feudalism. Systems of religion were set up to convince people to follow the leaders. But even out of these religions came the Reformation, Protestant rebellion, the Renaissance. The American Revolution was yet another step on this ladder, as was the French Revolution. Feudalism was replaced with capitalism and that was and by the majority seen as the most fair system. During this time we've come to see slavery as unfair, we've enacted civil rights protections, women's rights, etc. With the writings of Marx we got a clearer understanding of how some people benefit from the exploitation of others.

Do I think that Marx is the end all and be all of human thought? No, I simply think he is just another step on the ladder of human progress to breaking down power structures. I'm sure there will be other thinkers in the future which will challenge us in ways we haven't even thought of yet. And yes, there will be setbacks. My point is that human development has been a constant story of revolution and counter-revolution. To assume that our lifetime is the end of history seems absurd to me. To say that capitalism is the perfect system and we can do no better simply doesn't cut it with me.

Does that mean that all people who claim to be communist are perfect and have all the answers? Hell no. They are simply people playing out the human need to right wrongs in the world. Some of them will make mistakes because being imperfect is also a human trait.

200 years ago the average American could not comprehend the amount of freedom black people have achieved in this country, or that homosexuals can live their lives openly, or that women can vote in elections. My thesis is that we are constantly growing in our understanding of what is just in human relations and shedding old ways. I think capitalism played a huge role in this, as does libertarianism, feminism and all sorts of ideas. Setbacks will happen, of course, but those setbacks will cause reactions which propel the people even further.

I think where confusion sets in is when people look at a socialist society which may be advancing in economic relations between people, but is still backward in other areas and hold that up as an example that all socialism is bad. Socialist societies are only as good or advanced as the people who live in them. Socialism is not the end goal, it is simply a period when one group of people seeks to rise up against another group of people who have power over them. Such a confrontation naturally will cause discord and violence as the group in power will want to hold on to their privilege. But it is a necessary confrontation to let the powerholders see that the system they control is not fair.

No one can say how long this socialist phase will take. It has manifested itself across the planet as the Left - Right divide. Since communist parties in this country have been so attacked, the "Left" in our country has become the Democrats. Their goal is not communism or even socialism, but they do point out some of the inherent flaws of our current system and challenge them.

So it doesn't really matter if all socialist and communist parties were totally eliminated. There is always going to be this push and pull between those who have power and those who don't. When I say it is inevitable, that is what I mean. I'm not saying it to be arrogant and presume I know everything - I'm simply saying that struggle for power is an inherent condition of humanity and the more we learn, the more we push for fairness.

Capitalists like to point out to the achievements of capitalism, which is true, it has created great wealth and has helped to advance technology. However, even in the belly of the beast we have 40 million people without health insurance, thousands of people homeless in every city of the nation, large swaths of the population living in utter poverty, rampant crime and violence, a population where millions of people are self-medicating with alcohol, drugs or anti-depressants. I say this is an unnacceptable condition. I don't want to see one person in unjust conditions much less hundreds of millions around the world.

But most people in the U.S. and the West are happy because they are well-fed and have cheap goods available for themselves. I can't prove it, but I think somewhere down the road, people will come to look at us and our acceptance of greed is good just like we look back on slavery. I think they will wonder where are morals and ethics are. And I haven't even mentioned what capitalism is doing to those in other countries, its environmental impact, or the psychological effects.

Now when it comes to communism as I have defined it, I can't see any system more fair. That's the only logical conclusion I can come to. Yes, it is dependent on a paradigm shift, but by looking at history it is clear that there is a constant shifting of humanity's paradigm, usually to becoming more fair and just. And whenever it shifts to the more conservative thinking, there is a reaction to that. Of course, these things happen over centuries, not decades. So, the idea of communism that I'm proposing most likely won't happen in our lifetime, except maybe in very small scale experiments, such as eco-villages or intentional communities.

It does boil down to a moral and ethical question and these are things which can't always be proven scientifically, but that doesn't mean that people should not strive toward and dream of these goals.

Coneira, to put the whole topic into ...

It does boil down to a moral and ethical question and these are things which can't always be proven scientifically, but that doesn't mean that people should not strive toward and dream of these goals.

Very well explained :)

Capitalism is a great idea, but it doesn't work unless a noticable proportion of the country suffer poverty, so it doesn't work.

Also I hate it when people say "Oh but doctors will be benefiting the same way binmen do and will move to another country so that they can get paid and have a better standard of living balahabala"
The thing is, being a doctor is associated with earning more money in capitalist societies, you get people doing it for the money, in communism you get people becoming doctors because thats their genuine commitment.

<<<I guess my grandparents who were shot by Communists must have been counterrevolutionaries without knowing.>>>

By my definition of communism, no one has power over others, there are no armies, there are no "communist" government, no repression of any form, whether in the name of communism, capitalism, democracy, or whatever.

Yes, that is wrong what happened to your grandparents, if that is indeed true, but it is unfair of you to place the blame on me or even on communism for that matter.

They were caught up in a struggle for power between people who have power and those who don't who want to take power. In such struggles people get killed.

Under communism, NOBODY has power so there is no power struggle.

The problem we have here is that we are talking about two different things. I'm talking about a future condition of humanity and you are talking about physical confrontation between groups with one group calling itself communist and committing violence.

Anti-communists are quick to point out when communists kill someone, yet become quite forgetful when capitalists do it. I'm not going to list the number of atrocities done by capitalists, but they are many and they continue to this day. One need only look at the history of Latin America to see how many people capitalists have murdered in order to protect U.S. corporate interests.

Now, by your logic, I should be preaching that capitalism is a murderous philosophy. But I don't, because it is people who committ acts, not the ideology and people from just about EVERY ideology have killed others including Christians. Maybe Quakers and Amish might be exempt, but there is no group that doesn't have blood on its hands. So I think that it does not make sense for you to use violence as an argument against communism.

It's understandable and a normal human reaction to hate ANY group which kills one of your own, but such thinking is exactly the thing which leads to racism and nationalism. You can't scapegoat an entire group because of the actions of certain members, especially in this case where atrocities were committed on both sides. To use that as the basis of your argument is simply an attempt to turn this into an emotional debate.

<<<The thing is, being a doctor is associated with earning more money in capitalist societies, you get people doing it for the money, in communism you get people becoming doctors because thats their genuine commitment.>>>

Exactly, the fact that so many people think money can be the only motivation in life is quite disturbing.

What AS has failed to respond to in his billion posts is the fact that EVERY single Communist Revolution Group that gained even an INCH of power engaged in mass executions of teachers, doctors, philosophers, thinkers, scientists, basicly anyone with a High School Degree and above.

The most recent Communist group to engage in mass assasinations of teachers are the Maoist Communists in... NEPAL! The same Communist Revolutionaries that AS DARES compares to the American Revolutionaries!!!

While I do acknowledge that the Communists in Nepal have brought many issues to the table that DO need to be address (gender equality, electorial freedom, etc.) I feel that they should bring about social change with diplomacy not bullets.

Shouldn't violent revolution be the LAST option and not the FIRST?

But back to my basic point. Communism seems to eat alive anyone with a different viewpoint or an opinion without even considering the merits of the arguement presented.

Therefore Communism isn't a philosophy that can be applied to changing times and is flexible but rather is a conservative movement that stiffles all creativity and scientific development (beyond what the Soviets want) and will always fail because of competition with Capitalism which IS flexible and can be applied to almost any situation and come out right.

Okay, I think, at least for me this debate has served its purpose and is at an impasse, so I'll probably not post in it after this, but thanks to all who contributed, even those who disagreed, because it did help challenge me to think through a lot of this and develop a tighter position.

For me communism is the culmination of human thought throughout history, from the teaching of Jesus, to capitalism, to the American Revolution, feminism, Marx, civil rights struggles, libertarianism.... it goes on and on, but one thing they all have in common is a desire to work towards human freedom and justice.

My conclusion is that communism (the theoretical pure communism) is the ultimate state of human freedom, because it addresses inequality at all levels. I think that there will come a change in the way mankind views human relations even if we are a long way from that goal.

Many say that some people don't deserve equality, that they aren't intelligent enough or that they don't work hard enough, etc. But to take that view one must have some standard to measure by, and any standard that is to be used is subjective and artificial, and most often our decision of who is deserving and who is not, is based on who is most similar to ourselves. That makes it an arbitrary and unfair standard. Therefore, the only conclusion I can come to is that all people deserve as much fairness and equality we can possibly give them simply for their existence as a human being.

Yes, this brings up many, many questions which need to be worked through. This is why we need a period of socialism to work through these issues and break down the barriers and beliefs which separate humanity and result in crime, war, hatred, wealth disparity, bigotry, mental illness, etc.

There are no easy solutions, there is only a goal - that of creating a communist way of relating to each other and the planet. We need a way of relating where there are no bosses, no leaders, no rulers, no people forcing others to do things for their own benefit. We need to end a system which allows people to delude themselves into thinking they are spreading "freedom" and "democracy" around the world, when in effect they are doing just the opposite. Many mistakes have been made on this path and many will continue to be made, but it is part of our personal development to strive for a better world.

Communists are not necessarily better people, they are just people happen to latch on to the word communist or perhaps they are swept up in the movement. Some are good people, some are bad, just like the rest of the population. When comparing past attempts by communists I think it is important to put these people in the context from where they came. Many of them were peasants, with little education who suddenly found themselves with a gun in their hand and people shooting at them. In such a situation those with the strongest survival insticts rise to the top. Many of these people went from plowing fields with a stick to becoming leaders of entire countries. Is it any wonder that they would make mistakes? Any time you are trying something new, there will be mistakes. But today we can learn from these mistakes. Once the propaganda of the cold war dies down we can look at what worked in these socialist societies and what didn't. Propagandists tend to make it appear that absolutely everything was terrible in these socialist societies, but we know that isn't the case. Reality is never that black and white. There were good things and there were bad things and then there were outside influences seeking to destroy these societies too, not to mention the defeated classes who didn't want to see these experiments work. So, no, it is not surprising that socialism ran into problems, but that doesn't change the fact that the goal is worthy.

We simply must challenge ourselves to do better and create a better life for ALL people - one with no more governments and no more businesses to start wars and oppress people for their own gain. As long as anyone is being treated unfairly or being oppressed, we are ALL at risk for being treated unfairly or being oppressed.

Of course AS backs out before answering my questions... Oh well, I can't expect a commie to have an honest debate where the risk of his entire BELIEF system being exposed as unworkable BS becomes increasing greater and greater.

Well I'm done with this thread like yesterday's fish!

LOL, Neo Mishkail -

I'm not going to debate someone who takes your tone. I've already stated my position in great detail. I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it and am not going to badger you about like you have me.

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.


Now heres some sense!!!
This is really what is beginning to happen.
The leftist parties have become popular in large european nations, a widened mainstreaming of welfare states in europe and throughout the world.
Have u seen the development of corporation in america especially!!!
High level corporate based statehood is essensially a socialist system, each corporation controlling means of production and supply, controlling central government via lobbys, controling lives, employment, accomodation, thinking and loyalties of the workers. Developing into a new society, a new corporate left where 1 corporate nation controls all within its borders and its sphere of influence!!!

Your teacher forgot an important third: anarchism

Yah but the thing you are forgettiing is that both communism and captialism have plus sides:rolleyes:

One more thing, I forgot to address in Coinera's post:

<<<How would collectivists deal with those who disagree, and choose not to contribute? You may reply, again, that it simply wouldn't occur, that people would think so differently, that it only makes sense for them to cooperate. People do not always act rationally. It seems clear that in order for this type of collectivism to work, there needs to be some initiation of force or coercion on the anarcho-communist's part. At least in anarcho-capitalism, people are free to form voluntary communes. I merely bring up anarcho-capitalism, since it is the other widely espoused branch of anarchist thought.>>>>

Good question. The point I've been attempting to make all along, and I guess not very well, is that this ideal communist world is something to be imagined for the future. It simply wouldn't work for us to all get up tomorrow and join hands singing kumbaya. Here's why:

The injustices within our economic and social system encourage rivalries and competition, which in turn breed resentment. We live in a highly polarized society where people have an opinion about everything from politics to celebrities to sports teams.... It's engrained in our nature distrust others, we live in a war mentality constantly - everything from wearing sports logos to wearing the right clothes to competing even with family members to having the best Christmas presents. Every aspect of our life is based on getting more, getting better things, looking better. Even sexuality is termed a 'marketplace'.

And our electoral system couches our democracy in terms of winners and losers. Half the voters win in an election and the other half loses. So whatever the winning side wants they will get until the next election comes around and we're all polarized once again.

This creates a society where everyone is dissenting or reacting against something, if not in politics then consumer choices, lifestyle, or whatever.

I think that when communism happens it will be when we get to a critical point where aren't just reacting against things, but on a level where we're less ego oriented, more empathic and living with a new ethical/spiritual view. Some people are close to that now, at least periodically. But the overwhelming majority has a lot of issues to work through and that's why we may not move to communism for a thousand years. I know this sounds like I'm making wild predictions, but my theory is that we've always been advancing in our understanding and treatment of others, so why should we assume that we've reached completion?

So, in a future communist society people wouldn't be thinking the same way. It would be more of an altruistic culture where people learn to come to consensus decisions, not orders from above. There would also be no power structure pitting people against one another and creating conflict. I think most of the irrational actions of people in this society are the result of living in a system with so much injustice, not just economic, but on every level. In a society where every person is treated with respect and a degree of equality, where rivalry and competition is looked down upon, it is logical to assume there would be less discord between people. It would seem to follow that when conflicts arise there would be a meeting of people in the community who would air their grievances and come to a consensus. In extreme cases, there could be other measures, possibly banishment, or some kind of containment if an individual is dangerous to others, but I think this would be much less of a problem than we have today simply because people would be relating to each other in a different way.

My problem with anarcho-capitalism, is yes, it sounds like it is more freedom, but I don't think it would work. In fact, I think it would be even worse than what we are living in today. The reason is, the reasons I stated above. You wouldn't have changed society in these fundamental ways, so people would still be living in competition, only without the constraints of government. People would oppress each other and I think you'd see an increase in crime. It would basically be a free for all.

Sure, you could get together and form a commune, but what is to stop other people from outside coming in and killing you and stealing all your stuff? I think anarcho-communism is a better world because it addresses the basic problems of humanity and is a freedom in itself. Anarcho-capitalism seems to me to just be more of the same, only worse.

AS, you've managed to address precisely nothing.

Now, I think I've made a pretty clear case that socialism and communism are two different things. I've defined this several times, yet the one poster (disraeliland) continued to make the same mistake and refused to discuss the two different systems by their correct meanings. That was my frustration with him and yes, out of frustration I may have slipped into ad hominen, but it was from both sides.

Horseshit. Your response to any argument you can't refute fairly is to say that the arguer is either:


Arrogant
Has something to lose
Has a mind addled by "capitalist propaganda", or
Any/all of the above


I have addressed the reasons why communist theory is irrelevant. Basically, the theory is utterly incompatible with the real world. Claiming that men will be fundamentally changed does not get you out of this, it merely plunges you in deeper. You haven't addressed the inherient flaws in communist theory that make it incompatible with reality, you have merely gone on about how people will be fundamentally changed, and about how we must try a zillion times if that's what it takes.

Your "arguments" favouring the communist theory you espouse are merely fluff points. They are utterly unpersuasive.

I think that when communism happens it will be when we get to a critical point where aren't just reacting against things, but on a level where we're less ego oriented, more empathic and living with a new ethical/spiritual view.

You mean turned into mindless, uncreative, unthinking, incoherient zombies. Toiling away in the rice paddies.

Some people are close to that now

You don't have to tell me! :D

rivalries and competition, which in turn breed resentment.

Competition breeds advancement, and improvement. Take cars, communists produced the Trabant ... for 30 years, while on the other side of the Wall, BMW and Mercedes in competition made better and better cars over that time.

In my own country, the intense rivalry between Holden, and Ford, with their flagship products the Commodore and Falcon respectively has meant continual improvement. I used to have an '87 Falcon, now I have a '94 Falcon and I can see the improvements all around, safety, efficiency, comfort, performance, security, and even the bass.

Competition only breeds resentment in childish co-dependent "people" so immature that one must seriously question letting them out of the maternity ward. Mature people thrive in competition, and everyone benefits in the end.

Even sexuality is termed a 'marketplace'.

ROFLMAO! You conflate a colloquial expression into some "deep flaw" in capitalism.

This creates a society where everyone is dissenting or reacting against something, if not in politics then consumer choices, lifestyle, or whatever.

Finally, an honest remark. Communism cannot tolerate dissent, it cannot tolerate "unauthorised" ideas, that is why Gulags and Berlin Walls were necessary for communism. That is why Killer Kommie Kastro sends his Navy to slaughter Cubans who try to leave the "workers' paradise", and why he has independent librarians, and people who translate webpages from English to Spanish to prison for 30 years. KKK knows that dissent cannot be tolerated.

The leftist parties have become popular in large european nations, a widened mainstreaming of welfare states in europe and throughout the world.

No, they're not. The backlash against leftist idiocy is already underway, with the CSU/CDP coalition narrowing winning in Germany, and with other rightist parties getting better and better electoral performances. In Australia, the main traditionally leftist party (Labor) has been under the contol of its right faction, because their the only Labor politicians who can win elections. In the US, the GOP has the White House, both Houses of Congress, and an increasing number of states.

Why did the original poster feel the need to "revisit" communism on NS General?

In fact, when is NS General ever not visiting communism? Please invite me next time.

Anti-communism is very prevalent. It is a part of our culture. The root of it is: people who own the means of production and the politicians like capitalism. They would have to give up a lot under socialism. So they created a myth that Communism is violent and undemocratic. On the contrary, we believe in a peaceful revolution, with true democracy - political, economic, and social.


Revolution and democracy imply majority support. In essentially all of the western world today, we run a system of representitive democracy. Now, I can't speak with so much authority about, say, Australia or the USA, but in the United Kingdom, my home country and the oldest surviving democracy in the world, not a single communist holds a position of political power. To my knowledge there is not a single constituency in the nation where a communist or even an extreme socialist has been elected into office.

Now, if you were to try and create conditions appropriate for communism or socialism in england, your actions would empirically have to be un-democratic.


[communists want to remove] oppression of the markets.


By abolishing money and banning conventional trade and commerce?!



A stage when the production of the necessities of life has become plentiful, when there will no longer be shortages of food, housing, jobs, health care and education.

You haven't convincingly explained how your politics will magically relieve the world of all famine, homelessness and unemployment. You've just said, without further development or explanation, that capitalism causes all of these so it must be destroyed.


And who creates that bloodbath? Is it communists or capitalists who have something to lose?

Like I said, to spread your communist disease into my country and countries like it, you would have to use violence against the majority, because we haven't, don't and won't vote for you or support you.

Perhaps if capitalists would leave other countries alone and let them have the economy they want instead of destroying them, there would be less bloodshed.

I'm a capitalist but I'm not a militarist.

Mcarthy is the root of all anti-communism Mcarthy Mcarthy blah blah blah

Mcarthy was an American. We hate communism in Britain and other countries as well.



Capitalism retains its power in large part by encouraging and fomenting divisions in the working class and in the progressive movements. Racism, sexism, anti-communism, regional chauvinism, hatred of immigrants and foreigners, an anti-historical view of events, false patriotism, and religious hatred

Capitalists don't advocate Racism, sexism, chauvinism, xenophobia, revisionism, nationalism or religious hatred. Whew, talk about misrepresenting the other side.

200 years ago the average American could not comprehend the amount of freedom black people have achieved in this country, or that homosexuals can live their lives openly, or that women can vote in elections.

Racial equality, voting by women and freedom of sexual preference are all advances in civil rights and liberties. Banning conventional economics and trading is a regression of human rights, and to imply that it is the next step in the sequence of liberation you've described is silly.

But most people in the U.S. and the West are happy because they are well-fed and have cheap goods available for themselves.

That's total bull. I'm a very happy guy and I'm a pretty average member of British society. It's great that we have such a wide variety of food, clothing and other commodities at our disposal, and most of us are damn happy about it.

a population where millions of people are self-medicating with alcohol, drugs or anti-depressants.

You don't support the right to decide what you put in your own body? That people drink isn't a sign that they're unhappy.


Anti-communists are quick to point out when communists kill someone, yet become quite forgetful when capitalists do it.

This coming from a person who thinks the trail of tears was worse than Stalin's purges.

You don't support the right to decide what you put in your own body? That people drink isn't a sign that they're unhappy.

I would further point out that in communist countries, alcoholism was rampant, and about the only thing not in short supply in the USSR was booze. Alcohol abuse was so bad that soldiers would sell military equipment, including weapons and ammunition for vodka. One crew even sold their tank for it! In Afghanistan, where booze was scarce (being a Muslim country), substitutes were found, in the form of hard drugs.

Disraeliland and Dogburg,

I think this dialog is not getting anywhere, simply repeating the same points over and over again.

Instead of addressing each of your points, which I've done in NUMEROUS posts, let me try once again to state my position.

I've already stated that I'm not in favor of totalitarianism. I think the Soviet Union was wrong in many ways. I think it was founded with good intentions, but became corrupt. I also don't think it represented the type of communism I'm talking about - maybe it gave lip service to some aspects, but simply because they called themselves communist does not mean they represent the same thing I believe in. There are as many different breeds of communists as there are capitalists. If I had lived there I probably would have worked to overthrow them myself.

Secondly, there seems to be some confusion between the difference between and armed revolution and an ideal communist society. Yes, armed revolution is sometimes necessary. When people are living in deplorable conditions, worked like slaves, raped and tortured by their masters, they have every right to rebel.What comes after that has never once in history been communism although it is often, especially in the last century members of communist parties who led these revolutions. Have they made mistakes? Yes. I've admitted that. Have they been violent and oppressed the human rights of the people they've conquered? Absolutely. But these revolutions were necessary, regardless. The only other choice would be to continue the status quo.

Now, back to communism. My basic thesis is that people can treat each other better and change their world. You are telling me that we can put a man on the moon, but we can not create a system of economics based on greed and the exploitation of people in developing countries? Bull. Even capitalists, unless they are some type of fundamentalist admit that there are serious flaws and shortcomings. Your solution is to throw your hands up in the air and say, "I've got what I want, so screw everybody else. People are just greedy and this is as good as it gets. It's a dog-eat-dog world."

I say strive for something better.

I have lived in a variety of "socialist" communities, in a college set up to function that way, on a kibbutz in Israel, and in a Scandinavian country with a quite advanced socialist system and minimal commercialism. And I will say there is a huge difference in the way people think, act towards each other, and live their lives. My experience shows me that people were kinder, happier, more compassionate, less materialistic, less greedy, less antagonistic. I also didn't find that socialism stifled creativity or ingenuity, in fact I found quite the opposite to be true. I found that people were much more curious and inspired than those who spend all day long in a specialized job of drudgery and then come home and plop themselves in front of a television.

True, all of these were voluntary situations. I did not live in a setting where people were forced into socialism by the barrel of a gun and do admit that that wouldn't work and would have inherent problems in itself. I also admit that some people living in these situations did sometimes long for the luxuries and the glamour which is afforded under capitalism. Even separated from the capitalist marketing machine, the longing of all that it offers can still be seductive. And yes, the standard of living is lower, if you measure your standard of living by material goods and market value. But what struck me the most after living in these situations and going back into capitalism was the difference in the people. I felt a common bond with others living under socialism. People were friendlier and more open. Going back under capitalism was a huge culture shock. After living in it for a while, the differences begin to fade, but coming right out of socialism into capitalism one notices how shallow, how self-centered, how non-caring, how materialistic, and how hypocritical most people are under capitalism.

I think people are happier under a socialistic or communistic type society. That's my experience and that's my opinion. You are free to disagree. My feeling though is that capitalism indoctrinates one to view the rest of humankind as competitors. The closest thing to socialism you find in a capitalist society is the family unit or perhaps a group of close friends, but even then other people are viewed as competitors and often viewed with mistrust.

So essentially my view of socialism is based on morals, ethics, and spirituality. Your argument with me is based on something different. You want me to argue that socialism or communism will do a better job by the standards you hold up and I'm admitting to you it won't. You won't have as many material goodies, but at the same time, you won't be living in a society which makes you feel those things are necessary or desireable. When none of your peers have these things or even want them, then why would you want them?

And disraeliland keeps pointing out flaws in "communist" countries and what I'm saying is YES, I AGREE WITH YOU those countries had flaws. I'm not proposing going back to that. I've laid out the case numerous times that what I'm proposing is not the Soviet Union, but you keep coming back with, but in the Soviet Union..... To me the Soviet Union is an example of how NOT to do communism.

<<<we run a system of representitive democracy. Now, I can't speak with so much authority about, say, Australia or the USA, but in the United Kingdom, my home country and the oldest surviving democracy in the world>>>

In the USA our last two elections were stolen. In order to run for office in this country, one must have huge amounts of cash. It is impossible to get the media's attention without it. And it becomes ever more expensive with each election. So where does this money come from? Does it come from average people giving $10, 20, 50 dollars each? No, it is either billionaires who fund their own campaign or from corporate lobbies. So the result is you end up with two candidates who are on the corporate payroll - one who pretends to support the conservative religious community and another who has a more "liberal" view on social issues like abortion. But both of them supporting essentially the same economic policy. So basically in this country it's a capitalist vs. capitalist contest and no one with any other ideas is allowed in. It's a private club. And even then they still cheat and steal. Kind of like we have a "choice" between pepsi or coke. It is no choice and that is not what I consider democracy. I think it's a sham to make us feel like we have a say, when we really don't. If anyone were to somehow get elected who threatened the power structure, they'd be assassinated, I have no doubt about that.

And further to disraelis "points":

<<<Horseshit. Your response to any argument you can't refute fairly is to say that the arguer is either:
Arrogant
Has something to lose
Has a mind addled by "capitalist propaganda", or
Any/all of the above>>>

1. Arrogance: Give me a break. You are one of the most arrogant people I've ever had the displeasure of chatting with. So take a look in the mirror if you want to see arrogance.

2. Has something to lose: Yes, anyone would have to be blind to think that some people in capitalism have more to lose than others. By denying that you are being dishonest. No one can deny that some people have a bigger slice of the pie than others.

3. Has a mind addled by "capitalist propaganda": 1st off we've gone through 50 years of red-baiting. No one can deny that. Secondly, capitalist advertisiing does set up a system of creating wants and desires in order to influence consumer behavior. I know plenty of people in advertising and have worked some in that field myself. No one denies this to be the case. The average American is exposed to hundreds of marketing messages each day. To say that it has no effect on a person's thinking is to be in total denial. And there is tons of literature out there about this. I suggest you read some of it instead of spouting off.

Finally, I take my position on moral grounds. Simply because I don't see or experience the oppression that capitalism causes doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Because I have a comfortable life doesn't mean I'm going to throw my ethical beliefs out the window and convince myself that this is as good as it gets because I'm doing good. To do so would make me a sell-out. I'm going to strive for something better. There is nothing wrong with dreaming of a more fair and just world.

<<<That's total bull. I'm a very happy guy and I'm a pretty average member of British society. It's great that we have such a wide variety of food, clothing and other commodities at our disposal, and most of us are damn happy about it>>>

And yes, we all know what Britain's wealth was built on. Just look at your history. Never has there been a country with such a sense of entitlement. A country which pillaged, raped, colonized, enslaved and stole in every part of the planet.

We even had a revolution in the U.S. to throw you people out. How dare you talk about communists? Look at your own record of human rights abuses for centuries. Thank God the sun has finally set on the British Empire.

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 Russians failed horribly at creating a true Communist country. Think of a kid with down syndrome with no legs. That's Russian Communism.

I challenge anyone to name a single Communist state that has existed that has been truly communist. I can't think of a single state where true communism was practiced. The ideal is a very noble one, but the fact that there hasn't ever been a true communist state is something that you'll have to get around, because the people for capitalism will point it out.

I challenge anyone to name a single Communist state that has existed that has been truly communist. I can't think of a single state where true communism was practiced. The ideal is a very noble one, but the fact that there hasn't ever been a true communist state is something that you'll have to get around, because the people for capitalism will point it out.

You have a point. It looks GREAT on paper but it never works out when it's practiced. Humans are just too greedy for their own good. Woot!

<<<I challenge anyone to name a single Communist state that has existed that has been truly communist. I can't think of a single state where true communism was practiced. The ideal is a very noble one, but the fact that there hasn't ever been a true communist state is something that you'll have to get around, because the people for capitalism will point it out.>>>

That's the basis of what I've been trying to get across in this whole thread. Communism means NO STATE, so you can't have a communist state. You can have states controlled by people calling themselves communists, but they haven't reached communism.

That is the whole problem with this debate. People are debating the Soviet Union and thinking they are debating communism. They can't see the difference. I think pure communism is more like a form of libertarianism where humanity has gotten past the need for mechanisms like money, or bosses, or government, or militaries.


The frustrating thing is that anti-communists just want to debate the merits of the Soviet Union and in my opinion that has about as much to do with communism as the U.S. has to do with communism, at least by how I define communism. I don't really know any communists today who support the USSR. Most communists I know consider it to be a state capitalist and totalitarian state.

Another thing anti-communists bring up is that communism = totalitarianism. That's simply untrue. Communism is the exact opposite of totlitarianism. It is as far away from it as you can get, because under communism, no one has authority over another person, there is no state, no police, no employers, etc. So how could that be totalitarian?

And yes, we all know what Britain's wealth was built on. Just look at your history. Never has there been a country with such a sense of entitlement. A country which pillaged, raped, colonized, enslaved and stole in every part of the planet.

We even had a revolution in the U.S. to throw you people out. How dare you talk about communists? Look at your own record of human rights abuses for centuries. Thank God the sun has finally set on the British Empire.

We gave most of it back. All we have now is a slice of the antarctic and a few tiny, de facto independent colonies. Our modern wealth as a nation is based on our support for business and enterprise.

And with all your slander, you still didn't explain how you'd turn Great Britain communist. Which was what I asked you, given that you seemed to think the whole western world was in the grip of a few evil corporate monsters and that most of the population were miserable and oppressed.

In the USA our last two elections were stolen. In order to run for office in this country, one must have huge amounts of cash. It is impossible to get the media's attention without it. And it becomes ever more expensive with each election. So where does this money come from? Does it come from average people giving $10, 20, 50 dollars each? No, it is either billionaires who fund their own campaign or from corporate lobbies. So the result is you end up with two candidates who are on the corporate payroll - one who pretends to support the conservative religious community and another who has a more "liberal" view on social issues like abortion. But both of them supporting essentially the same economic policy.

If enough people actually gave a damn about communism, it wouldn't be too hard to raise a couple of billion dollars (or even start a just, violent revolution if a majority supported you).

By the way AS, on a seperate issue, and here's somewhere we might be able to gain common ground - You said in your big post that in your opinion communism was best and in our opinion capitalism was best.

Does it have to be either or? You maintain that communism has to occur worldwide, and capitalism has to be eradicated completely. Would it not be theoretically possible, were a free-market superpower and a big country full of communists to coexist? Plenty of capitalists are isolationists or pacifists, it's by no means certain that there would be war. Besides, if this hypothetical future communist bloc were to exist, and it matched your description, it would be pretty much devoid of all commodities considered valuable in capitalism - everyone would be living in small, local communities.

If both nations had open borders, people would be able to free themselves of capitalist wage slavery by zipping over to communism-land, and free to work and trade conventionally on the other side. I think this idea is called panarchy, and it seems to me like a great way to prove which ideology is more beneficial, whilst letting the two co-exist. Providing both sides honoured a non-aggression pact of some sort, I think this would be the best solution to push for. What do you reckon, AS?

<<<I think this idea is called panarchy, and it seems to me like a great way to prove which ideology is more beneficial, whilst letting the two co-exist. Providing both sides honoured a non-aggression pact of some sort, I think this would be the best solution to push for. What do you reckon, AS?>>>

Theoretically, I agree with you on that. I think such a thing was proposed by many people after the fall of the Berlin Wall in Eastern Germany, but it never materialized. Nowadays, there's a lot of Ostalgie - people in the Eastern Germany who do miss some aspects of the old society, even if they didn't like the repressive ones.

I think part of the problem with such a structure, would be a threat that the capitalists would invade such a society or try to incite a capitalist revolution in order to increase their markets. In theory, if there is no agression, then I think it would be a great solution, people should be able to live in freedom how they choose. Capitalists make an assumption that freedom means the same thing for everyone. For some of us freedom means being free from commercialism, free from power structures, free from the dog-eat-dog mentality, freedom from fears of living without a safety net, freedom from crime, greed etc.

The problem though, and this is on both sides, is this need to dominate other people. Capitalism has a long history of colonizing other people, and former socialist governments are just as guilty of trying to subjugate people to their systems. I think that when you have a country controlled by any ideology it naturally sees a country with another one as a threat.

But no, I like your idea, especially as a practical solution for now. And I think the world is moving towards these kinds of solutions. The Zapatistas are an example. As is the idea of autonomous zones and special economic districts. Another example is Christiania in Denmark, a former military base which was taken over by anarchists and turned into a semi-autonomous area.

I think in the U.S. though it would be seen as a major threat to the establishment if communists tried to carve out a region of their own. I think they'd come in with guns and bombs and kill everyone. We're only free as long as we work within capitalism. We aren't free to deviate from it.

<<<you still didn't explain how you'd turn Great Britain communist.>>>

It isn't a question of turning countries communist. What I've been trying to explain is that to me communism is a state of mind, a goal for humanity to achieve in the future. It won't happen in our lifetimes, so it's nothing for you to worry about.

Communism will be achieved when all barriers of exploitation and power are broken down so we won't have anyone oppressing anyone else in any way. There won't be a need for control structures like governments and police forces. There will be no heirarchies such as class or employers. It may not even be called communism by that time. And it may take hundreds of years to get to that point. Maybe thousands.

To me it's not just about a different economic system, it's about a whole change in human thought, spirituality, ethics and the way we relate to one another. It's about creating a more libertarian, egalitarian, and sustainable world. It's difficult to envision this ideal now, but that doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. Think how fantastic the world we live in today would seem to someone a thousand years ago. Why is it such a stretch to imagine that a thousand years from now we can be that advanced sometime in the future? And why should we not have the freedom to believe in it or work towards it?

I think part of the problem with such a structure, would be a threat that the capitalists would invade such a society or try to incite a capitalist revolution in order to increase their markets. In theory, if there is no agression, then I think it would be a great solution, people should be able to live in freedom how they choose. Capitalists make an assumption that freedom means the same thing for everyone.

Well gee, like I said, not all or even most capitalists are violent, senseless warmongers. For example, although I'm a pretty firm free-marketer, I wouldn't advocate the destruction of the utopia you described as long as didn't infringe on my right to live in a society of money and convetional economics.

Also, I'd like to just make a side point here. I don't subscribe to impractical utopian dreams, but if I did, then my concept of the ultimate political system would permit communes like yours to exist without any problem, within a system of full capitalism.

Since most brands of capitalism are dedicated to the lowering and where possible eradication of all taxation and to the abolition of most laws, it would be feasible for a group of communists to buy a piece of land, keep out any non-communists, and ban money and conventional trading within the commune. The only caveats would be minimal, if any, taxation, and the fact that you'd be obliged to release participants at their own discretion. You might also need money to trade with the outside.

Of course, this is as unlikely to ever happen as worldwide communist revolution, because politics almost always reaches a very moderate middle ground, negating both extreme laissez-faire and extreme socialism/communism (let's face it - capitalists and communists are both political minorities).

What I've been trying to explain is that to me communism is a state of mind, a goal for humanity to achieve in the future. It won't happen in our lifetimes, so it's nothing for you to worry about.

Why bother to fight for it then?

<<<I challenge anyone to name a single Communist state that has existed that has been truly communist. I can't think of a single state where true communism was practiced. The ideal is a very noble one, but the fact that there hasn't ever been a true communist state is something that you'll have to get around, because the people for capitalism will point it out.>>>

That's the basis of what I've been trying to get across in this whole thread. Communism means NO STATE, so you can't have a communist state. You can have states controlled by people calling themselves communists, but they haven't reached communism.

That is the whole problem with this debate. People are debating the Soviet Union and thinking they are debating communism. They can't see the difference. I think pure communism is more like a form of libertarianism where humanity has gotten past the need for mechanisms like money, or bosses, or government, or militaries.


The frustrating thing is that anti-communists just want to debate the merits of the Soviet Union and in my opinion that has about as much to do with communism as the U.S. has to do with communism, at least by how I define communism. I don't really know any communists today who support the USSR. Most communists I know consider it to be a state capitalist and totalitarian state.

Another thing anti-communists bring up is that communism = totalitarianism. That's simply untrue. Communism is the exact opposite of totlitarianism. It is as far away from it as you can get, because under communism, no one has authority over another person, there is no state, no police, no employers, etc. So how could that be totalitarian?

I agree completely with this statement. If theres one thing i cant stand it idiots trolling on about the USSR when debating communism. Was Hitler Democratic? he was elected, is was Democracy. LOGICALLY we should all take shots at Democracy. Idiots going on and on about USSR in communist arguements dont deserve an opinion.

<<<I wouldn't advocate the destruction of the utopia you described as long as didn't infringe on my right to live in a society of money and convetional economics.>>>

Well, if all capitalists were like you it wouldn't be an issue. However, in a system which preaches that greed and self-interest is a good thing, there are going to naturally be people who put their own interests above others and throw ethics and even legality out the window. This to me is one of the inherent problems in capitalism, but that's a whole topic in itself. Also, citizens in a capitalist society often are unaware of what their governments and corporations are doing in other countries. As long as things are good at home and people are living free and prosperous lives, they tend not to think too much about what might be happening on the other side of the world, unless it starts to really affect them, such as economic downturns, terrorism, being drafted into a war etc. That doesn't mean they are necessarily evil people, just not informed. Plus people are so separated through many layers from their modes of production, that they aren't concerned where their goods come from other than knowing where to get them.

One example I'd point out is the Native American. They lived in a world which in many ways is similar to what I'm proposing. Of course, it wasn't perfect. There were wars between tribes, but these occured in much greater frequency after the arrival of the first white settlers on the continent because it created a scarcity of resources. But, the point was, these people were living in a system outside of European economics and look what happened to them. The Europeans wanted their land so they came in and took it. What assurance do I have that capitalist wouldn't do the same thing to any communist-land?

Another problem, is how would you divide the land up? Since capitalists naturally have the bulk of wealth, how would communists be able to afford to buy enough land and other things to make an economy of this sort workable? I would imagine the bulk of people wanting to live in 'communist land' would be middle class, working class or living below poverty level. Many of these people can't afford to buy a house, much less an entire country. And even if they did, how would you separate the people who wanted to live in communist-land out from those who didn't in a given region?

In the small scale, your idea is already put into practice. The Hutterites have been living in communist societies for centuries and it seems quite succesful. Some of the communes from the sixties were able to make it work - such as The Farm in Tennessee, which is still in existence. They were actually quite economically successful. There are new intentional communities and eco-villages being formed all the time in the U.S. Then there are places like Zegg in Germany or Christiania in Denmark. So, yes there are experiments going on in new ways of living and there always will be. The problem is that I think they'd be suppressed if they became too big or too succesful. It wouldn't be in the interest of the ruling class to see these things work. They'll tolerate them if they're small enough not to be a threat, but if they view them as a threat they will brutally suppress them.


<<<Why bother to fight for it then?>>>

Because it is natural for people to repel against those who have power over them. History is one big story of some people taking power over others and then people rising up against it. This isn't exclusive to communism. Communism is simply an analysis which seeks to explain why people do it and offers a solution. I'm certainly not an orthodox Marxist. I think Marx did a good job explaining to people how power works in society, but he needs to be looked at in the context of his time. Marx is not the end of thought nor was he 100% correct. That doesn't mean that people can't take inspiration from Marxism to rise up and demand a better life for themselves and the people they are close to. The problem with debating communism is that people make this assumption that ALL people who rise up inspired by Marxism have a firm grounding in what the end goal of communism is. Many of these people were peasants with no education. All they knew is that they needed to overthrow their rulers. Many of them appear to have had little understanding of what to do next. That says nothing as to whether communism is a good or bad idea.

<<<Was Hitler Democratic? he was elected, is was Democracy. LOGICALLY we should all take shots at Democracy. Idiots going on and on about USSR in communist arguements dont deserve an opinion.>>>

Good point. There have been bad things done on both sides for a variety of reasons. History is filled with brutal capitalist states, yet anti-communists don't want to discuss that. They require of socialists and communists a much higher standard than they apply to themselves. Plus they refuse to separate socialist transition from pure communism. You can't debate someone like that, because they are talking about something totally different, so the debate just goes around in circles.

<<<That's total bull. I'm a very happy guy and I'm a pretty average member of British society. It's great that we have such a wide variety of food, clothing and other commodities at our disposal, and most of us are damn happy about it>>>

And yes, we all know what Britain's wealth was built on. Just look at your history. Never has there been a country with such a sense of entitlement. A country which pillaged, raped, colonized, enslaved and stole in every part of the planet.

We even had a revolution in the U.S. to throw you people out. How dare you talk about communists? Look at your own record of human rights abuses for centuries. Thank God the sun has finally set on the British Empire.
God, I'd say you're an idiot, but I'm afraid I'd get banned. Where are the American Indians? When did you abolish slavery, compared with Britain? Before insulting other nations, think about your own shortcomings.

As for this statement:
I challenge anyone to name a single Communist state that has existed that has been truly communist. I can't think of a single state where true communism was practiced
Don't you think it's strange every state which tried communism ended up in a bankrupt dictatorship? Apart from China, which is now more capitalist than Sweden.

God, I'd say you're an idiot, but I'm afraid I'd get banned. Where are the American Indians? When did you abolish slavery, compared with Britain? Before insulting other nations, think about your own shortcomings.

As for this statement:

Don't you think it's strange every state which tried communism ended up in a bankrupt dictatorship? Apart from China, which is now more capitalist than Sweden.


All completely correct. PLUS hes obviously an idiot, and a patriotic one at that Oh dear wheres my rifle. AMERICA PROFITED FROM WW2! thats possibly the WORST thing you can do! Grrr.

All completely correct. PLUS hes obviously an idiot, and a patriotic one at that Oh dear wheres my rifle. AMERICA PROFITED FROM WW2! thats possibly the WORST thing you can do! Grrr.
America was vital in the fight against Germany in WW2. This being said, America also managed to exterminate most of the original Indian population and abolished slavery three decades after Britain. In these conditions, I don't think such epithets as Anarchic Socialism used are appropriate.

Yes they were vital, but A. they only joined in after they got attacked, so No brownie points for you at all really. and B. THEY PROFITED. so you lose points :)

Whatever. :rolleyes:

Hmmm. Tell me sir are you a republican?

Hmmm. Tell me sir are you a republican?
Surprise, surprise, but... actually I'm Romanian. I just don't like to see people making such exagerated statements (edit: I'm talking about Anarchic Socialism). Also, being Romainian I can speak from expericence about the 'benefits' of communism.

As i say USSR was not communism, as such if you use that method of arguement your opinion is worth about as much as a Cabbage.

As i say USSR was not communism, as such if you use that method of arguement your opinion is worth about as much as a Cabbage.
I have to say your debating skills leave much to be desired. My original observation remains: how come all the countries which have tried communism at some point in the past ended up as bankrupt dictatorships?

P.S. FYI, Romania was not part of the USSR.

AS i SAY! CABBAGE! Your debating skills leave a lot to be desired, for instance some skill! NO country has achieved communism RAWR!!!!!! they have been totalitarian governments! Was Nazi-Germany Democratic? NO! arrghhh!! the simple mindedness vexes me!

What most people think when the think about communism is they think about russia or china (or likewise)

however this isn't true communisim it is state capitalism.

I will now use my favourite example of what the different types of government are.

now there is a factory where 100 people work 5 hours to make 100 units of something (what it is is unimportant).
new machinery is developed which means that it only takes 2.5 hours to make a unit rather then 5.

Capitalism=fire half the people but make them do the same amount of work as was done before.
State capitalism=produce twice as much (despite the fact there is no demand for that much)
True socialism=everyone works 2.5 hours a day

I think this explains why socialism is a good thing

it allows us to use new technology to benifit everyone in society

Perhaps you missed the 'tried communism' part in my post. I never said they achieved a utopian society, only that they failed miserably. The question is - why?

BEcause they werent trying for communism. :) simply put. AS the above post says it is State Capitalism. (thankyou btw)

now there is a factory where 100 people work 5 hours to make 100 units of something (what it is is unimportant).
new machinery is developed which means that it only takes 2.5 hours to make a unit rather then 5.

Capitalism=fire half the people but make them do the same amount of work as was done before.
State capitalism=produce twice as much (despite the fact there is no demand for that much)
True socialism=everyone works 2.5 hours a day
Capitalism - put 50 people do the work of 100. The other 50 will produce something else, resulting in increased productivity.

Communism: I make 20 shoes a day. My coworker makes 10. Each of us gets payed the same ammount. The next day, I only make 10 shoes.

P.S. The communism example is from first hand experience (mine and my father's).

BEcause they werent trying for communism. :) simply put. AS the above post says it is State Capitalism. (thankyou btw)
Where's Disraeliland when he's needed? It's news to me that before 1989 I lived in a Capitalist state.

its okay

most of the times when people have gotten close to true socialism/communism they have been crushed from out side (early after the second russian revolution, spain during the civil war, mexico at some point I think (though not too sure on this one) grenada (though still not too sure on the situation just prior to the invasion but still better then most things))

Well then with respect its people like you who make sure socialism doesnt work! beside, your reasoning is the traditional one. Convincing people like you is impossible, it is sad. You believe in your Capitalist ways more fervently than the pope believes in god, not only do you plague your own existance with this, but your children and your childrens children

yes but firstly it means everyone is working twice as hard (or not working at all) and then there is a lot of stuff being produced that for some reason wasn't being produced beforehand

after a certain point you produce too much of what ever it is you are producing and you produce beyond need.

this is why the "tiger" economies collapsed they were producing so much that there wasn't any market for it after a while so they couldn't make a profit from doing so.

capitalism is by its very nature wastefull as it has no central planning

state capitalism is also wastefull because it plans but these plans have no basis on reality so don't make sense.

Well then with respect its people like you who make sure socialism doesnt work! beside, your reasoning is the traditional one. Convincing people like you is impossible, it is sad. You believe in your Capitalist ways more fervently than the pope believes in god, not only do you plague your own existance with this, but your children and your childrens children
Better to plague them with my 'Capitalist ways' than for them to be plagued by Communism as I was!

P.S. You do realise that for achieving your version of Communism, you need to persuade the people like me.

this is why the "tiger" economies collapsed they were producing so much that there wasn't any market for it after a while so they couldn't make a profit from doing so.
Did they collapse? :confused: A minor recession would be a better word. Market economy + democracy is the best combination that's been tried so far. Despite what some people might believe, Communism was tried - and it failed.

<<<I just don't like to see people making such exagerated statements (edit: I'm talking about Anarchic Socialism)>>>

If you think that's an exagerrated statement then your education has left you totally oblivious to world history. Great Britain subjugated and colonized other countries for centuries and brutally tried to suppress people's struggle for self-determination and sovereignty. And no, I'm not saying the U.S. is any better. They are two peas in a pod, but the U.S. learned its values from the British. It is simply a continuation of the Anglo-American Empire which became unofficially reforged. Nowadays we don't invade countries to colonize them, we invade them to "liberate" them and bring them "democracy". The fact that we structure their economies to our benefit and funnel their wealth into our pockets is simply a minor detail. It obviously has no bearing on our foreign policy whatsoever. We are solely interested in slaughtering people by the tens of thousands simply to "liberate" them with capitalist democracy so they can all eat McDonald's hamburgers and drink coca cola. After all, isn't buying our products what freedom is about anyway? I think most people in the world are willing to sacrifice their lives so they can have a wal mart within driving distance, aren't they?

We are solely interested in slaughtering people by the tens of thousands simply to "liberate" them with capitalist democracy so they can all eat McDonald's hamburgers and drink coca cola. After all, isn't buying our products what freedom is about anyway? I think most people in the world are willing to sacrifice their lives so they can have a wal mart within driving distance, aren't they?

The previous time we invaded Iraq, I went along. We didn't liberate Iraq, nor did we set up McDonalds or deliver Coke.

I went because the people of Kuwait didn't want to be ruled by Saddam, and the UN agreed.

And I didn't sacrifice my life - had no intention of sacrificing my life. But I did kill at least 41 Iraqis who did a good job of sacrificing their lives.

actually the last time we invaded iraq (as the second gulf war could really only be considered as a continuation of the first by any real standards as fighting had continued everyday since then) britain did it

and eventually we got are arses kicked by a prolonged gurilla war (and yes I know i can't spell) I know this as my great grandfather was there for most of it.

<<<Communism was tried - and it failed.>>>

Communism has NEVER been tried before. In order to be communist you can't have a government, you can't have leaders, you can't have paper money, you can't have countries...

It's a lie to say communism has been tried and failed. What you had were revolutions and the imposition of state capitalism in which the bourgeois classes took back control. That's far, far from communism. So to say that communism has been tried and failed is an absurd argument. It has never been tried. The USSR, Romania, etc. were never communist. They may have been controlled by a Communist Party, but that doesn't make their economies communist. The party simply became the new ruling class. In communism you have no ruling class, nor do you have a state. So there is no such thing as a communist state.

As a Romanian, I prefer living in today's Romania than in the pre-1989 Romania. If I were an Iraqi, I'd rather live in W's Iraq than in Saddam's Iraq. That's all I'll say on this subject. I just hope the thread won't turn into a "Bush is evil! - You ungratefull Europeans, we helped you in WW2!" discution.

In communism you have no ruling class, nor do you have a state. So there is no such thing as a communist state.
And which are the practical means of achieving such a utopia?
It's a lie to say communism has been tried and failed. What you had were revolutions and the imposition of state capitalism in which the bourgeois classes took back control.
Hmm... after a Communist revolution, the only place where you'll find the bourgeois class is six foot under.

<<<Well then with respect its people like you who make sure socialism doesnt work! beside, your reasoning is the traditional one.>>>

Yeah, don't you just love people who do everything in their power to make sure that socialism fails and then say, "see, look, it will never work!" There's no reason why it doesn't work except that certain groups both from within and without sabotage it. An example is the Hutterite communities. They live a totally socialist life and have been doing so for centuries. It works just fine when there isn't an attempt to destroy it.

<<<Well then with respect its people like you who make sure socialism doesnt work! beside, your reasoning is the traditional one.>>>

Yeah, don't you just love people who do everything in their power to make sure that socialism fails and then say, "see, look, it will never work!" There's no reason why it doesn't work except that certain groups both from within and without sabotage it. An example is the Hutterite communities. They live a totally socialist life and have been doing so for centuries. It works just fine when there isn't an attempt to destroy it.

No, you obviously haven't read the studies that explain why a Hutterite community works.

Even the Hutterites know why.

If you have more than roughly 120 people, it doesn't work. That's why as soon as a Hutterite community reaches this limit, they split up into two or more communities. It is the same reason that an infantry company is roughly 120 people.

Obviously, you can't organize too much activity with only 120 people, and the communities do not cooperate with one another.

actually in true socialism you do have a state

its the people

they are the state

any thing else is anarcism (which has been tried and has definitly failed)

there has to be government as that is what protects the weak from the strong (in an ideal world) its just the government would be on a much more basic level

decentralised centralism if that makes anysense to you

<<<I went because the people of Kuwait didn't want to be ruled by Saddam, and the UN agreed.>>>

Iraq and Kuwait were artificially created states set up by Britain. The problem with capitalists is they create the problems and then try to take credit for correcting them decades later.

In your rose-colored glasses view of the world, all Iraqis are going to simply become good little capitalists, start driving SUV's, shop at Wal Marts and create a nice little pro-American 'democracy'.

I think instead what you'll see is that you've created more problems further down the road. Our interest in Iraq was for control of oil, nothing else. If Kuwait didn't have oil we never would have been there. It wouldn't have even been front page news.

Anarchic Socialism, you're mixing an economic system - Capitalism - with a political system - imperialism. They're totally different things.

<<<actually in true socialism you do have a state>>>

Yes, in socialism you must have a state, but in pure communism there is no need for a state. Humanity isn't there yet, that's why we can't move into communism as we are now. Too many greedy, self-centered and sociopathic people out there whose only motivation is profit and self-interest. And capitalism is largely to blame for that.

The difference between a capitalist and a communist:

Capitalists see humans as inherently greedy individuals who can only be motivated by getting more for themselves. Therefore, capitalism is the perfect system to channel this selfishness into productivity for society. There must be winners and losers because only when people live in fear of losing will they stay productive.

Communists see humans as inherently good and capable of growth. They see humanity as advancing past the stage of only being motivated by greed to an altruistic stage. This can't happen overnight, but can over time, perhaps centuries as we grow and break down barriers of exploitation and develop new and more equitable ways of relating to one another. Once all forms of repression and exploitation are ended we have no reason for artificial constructs like states, governments, police, etc. which are inherently repressive in themselves.

I'll choose the communist view any day over the capitalist one. It's time humanity grew up and stopped being self-centered.

<<<Anarchic Socialism, you're mixing an economic system - Capitalism - with a political system - imperialism. They're totally different things.>>>

I think capitalism is inherently imperialistic. We simply do it in a more subtle manner now. We don't officially colonize nations or control their economies outright. Instead we use pressure from the IMF and open local branches of multi-national corporations to do the dirty work, in order to avoid the appearance of imperialism.

On a side note, I think that capitalism creates its own version of socialism. It's called corporatism. It stifles the very competition and free markets that capitalists claim to support. Corporations have become a de facto world government and the power they yield over nation states is incredible. So in that sense, Marx was right about us moving into socialism if you define socialism as central planning. The corporate board rooms are the new states and they decide the public policy of nations. They just don't call it socialism, but it is very similar to the exact thing capitalists claim to be against.

<<<You do realise that for achieving your version of Communism, you need to persuade the people like me.>>>

Boghmia, putting aside the argument of whether or not Romania was truly communist or not, I'm interested in getting your thoughts on something -

In Eastern Europe, Communists now are getting an average of around 20% of the votes in elections, and in a few cases they are actually winning majority control of these countries. In many, if not most of them, the Communist Parties are the second largest party.

If their version of "communism" was so awful (which I'm not saying it wasn't), then why are so many people voting for communist candidates?

well comunism and socialism are often used interchangebly in my vocabulary (sorry its due to being a socialist/communist in a country where there was a large stalinist party called the communist party) so amongst ourselves we'll call ourselves communists as we are but in general due to the fact that comunism is often associated with stalin and gulags and so on we're called socialists (we are even called the SWP (socialist workers party)))

true socialism/communism would still have government

this is how we have as a group worked out from available information and logical surmise a sucsessfull revolutionary society would work

people would elect people to workers councils to govern these would be subject to instant recall if at any point they didn't do what was agreed

really big things would be decided either by a really big workers council or by a referendom of everyone.

government couldn't take over and do things that were unpopular as there would be no armed forces and minimal police (basicly detectives and forensic type people) so no force to use against the people.

also people would be acting as militia which would mean that no one would be able to force the majority to do something against its will.

<<<well comunism and socialism are often used interchangebly in my vocabulary (sorry its due to being a socialist/communist in a country where there was a large stalinist party called the communist party) so amongst ourselves we'll call ourselves communists>>>

Understood. In the U.S. the SWP has split at least three times into several different parties, we have two or three Maoist parties, as well as the 'mainstream' CPUSA, and numerous smaller socialist and communist parties and tendencies. It's really hard to keep up with it all. Too many parties in my opinion. And the funny thing is capitalists say we all think alike and there is no dissent! Nothing could be further from the truth.

Does the CPUSA have any seats or representation in Congress?

Instead of addressing each of your points, which I've done in NUMEROUS posts, let me try once again to state my position.

Don't make things up. You've addressed nothing, you simply shriek the same nonsense over and over, and insult anyone who doesn't drink the Kool-Aid.

I have lived in a variety of "socialist" communities, in a college set up to function that way, on a kibbutz in Israel, and in a Scandinavian country with a quite advanced socialist system and minimal commercialism. And I will say there is a huge difference in the way people think, act towards each other, and live their lives. My experience shows me that people were kinder, happier, more compassionate, less materialistic, less greedy, less antagonistic. I also didn't find that socialism stifled creativity or ingenuity, in fact I found quite the opposite to be true. I found that people were much more curious and inspired than those who spend all day long in a specialized job of drudgery and then come home and plop themselves in front of a television.

Utter fluff. I've tended to find that most capitalists I met were kind, civilised people. You do love non-falsifiable "points". You cannot base a viable political/economic theory on the idea that human nature will fundamentally change. You have not addressed this point, and you resort to insults, and praising yourself any time it is brought up.

I think people are happier under a socialistic or communistic type society.

Yeah, right. :rolleyes: That's why East Germany erected a Wall to stop their people leaving the compassionate, non-materialistic, non-greedy, non-antagonistic East Germany for the West, and why Killer Kommie Kastro sends his Navy to murder anyone who can lash together a raft and try for the United States.

This fluff won't convince anyone with a working brain-cell.

So essentially my view of socialism is based on morals, ethics, and spirituality.

No, it isn't. You've said as much. It is based on envy, avarice, and greed. You see a wealthy man, and say "no one should have that! It should be taken from him, and redistributed!"

you won't be living in a society which makes you feel those things are necessary or desireable

Which underlines my point, your entire argument (if such a term could be fairly applied to the nonsense you're posting) is based on a fundamental change in human nature, and you constantly refuse to address that fundamental flaw.

1. Arrogance: Give me a break. You are one of the most arrogant people I've ever had the displeasure of chatting with. So take a look in the mirror if you want to see arrogance.

Don't be an arse. If you cannot respond to someone's points, be man enough to admit you're wrong. Don't go around accusing others of being arrogant.

2. Has something to lose: Yes, anyone would have to be blind to think that some people in capitalism have more to lose than others. By denying that you are being dishonest. No one can deny that some people have a bigger slice of the pie than others.

Nope. Still ad-hominem, and therefore it profits you nothing in an argument.

3. Has a mind addled by "capitalist propaganda": 1st off we've gone through 50 years of red-baiting. No one can deny that. Secondly, capitalist advertisiing does set up a system of creating wants and desires in order to influence consumer behavior. I know plenty of people in advertising and have worked some in that field myself. No one denies this to be the case. The average American is exposed to hundreds of marketing messages each day. To say that it has no effect on a person's thinking is to be in total denial. And there is tons of literature out there about this. I suggest you read some of it instead of spouting off.

Sorry, ad-hominem doesn't prove your points, it doesn't disprove mine. It simply makes you look like an immature little shit, who can't hack having his views questioned.

I challenge anyone to name a single Communist state that has existed that has been truly communist. I can't think of a single state where true communism was practiced. The ideal is a very noble one, but the fact that there hasn't ever been a true communist state is something that you'll have to get around, because the people for capitalism will point it out.

Posting without first reading the thread is bad etiquette. I've addressed this point numerous times. Pointing to theoretical communism without addressing the huge flaws in the theory (these flaws being so great as to make it utterly incompatible with reality) will profit one nil in a discussion of communism.

You, and AS are effectively asking us to judge capitalism by its worst works, and communism by its best intentions. What an exercise in futility!

Another thing anti-communists bring up is that communism = totalitarianism. That's simply untrue. Communism is the exact opposite of totlitarianism.

You must address the practical realities. Any system which is based on the total denial of private property rights, and denying the right to peacefully persue economic self-interest, must use totalitarian methods, or it will simply fall. You can't push this "higher-man" crap. You must deal with man as he is.

Would it not be theoretically possible, were a free-market superpower and a big country full of communists to coexist?

Not for long. The communist's would start leaving when they realise they can have a better life in the free-market superpower.

I agree completely with this statement. If theres one thing i cant stand it idiots trolling on about the USSR when debating communism.

Bollocks, and I've addressed this many times, and have had no serious response. What happened in the USSR, and the rest of the communist nations was an attempt to reconcile the theories of communism with the reality on Earth. Its flaws were flaws in the theory, and its crimes were necessary in order to make the reality and the theory come together (or as best they could make the theory and reality come together). Even Pol Pot and Stalin fit into this category (Pol Pot more than Stalin). If you hold to the theory, you must accept, and support what the Communists did, you must logically rejoyce at the Killing Fields! Stalin's purges too! (except to the extent they jeopardised communism by "beheadding" the Red Army)

However, in a system which preaches that greed and self-interest is a good thing, there are going to naturally be people who put their own interests above others and throw ethics and even legality out the window.

Capitalism is not an ideology, it springs naturally from human behavior, and the nature of this planet.

This to me is one of the inherent problems in capitalism

No, it isn't an inherient problem in capitalism, it is a problem in certain people, people of criminal nature, and it has mechanisms of dealing with them.

Yes they were vital, but A. they only joined in after they got attacked, so No brownie points for you at all really. and B. THEY PROFITED. so you lose points

Because it is America's duty to save Europe from its own idiocy? You lot allowed Hitler to rise to power, and you lot failed at each stage to stop him. It was right for America to save you from yourselves, but it was not their duty, it was in their interests, that's all America has a duty to fight for, itself and its interests. It does not have a duty to rectify European inter-war pacifism, and European stupidity.

Capitalism=fire half the people but make them do the same amount of work as was done before.
State capitalism=produce twice as much (despite the fact there is no demand for that much)
True socialism=everyone works 2.5 hours a day

I think this explains why socialism is a good thing

It merely explains why you would fire half the people, if you owned the place. I refute your idea that demand is static, for the simple reason that this has never been demonstrated to be the case. I'd keep all the people on, and produce much more, while lowering the price at the same time.

If the demand didn't exist, I'd put the remaining workforce to some other product.

What you've posited is an economic fallacy common to socialists, that there is always a fixed amount of work to be done, no more, no less.

Well then with respect its people like you who make sure socialism doesnt work!

Why is it that socialists and communists always resort to insults when the flaws in their faith are pointed out? I shall point this out again: ad-hominem doesn't prove your points, and it doesn't refute opposing points. It merely makes you look like an immature little dickhead who can't hack scrutiny.

this is why the "tiger" economies collapsed they were producing so much that there wasn't any market for it after a while so they couldn't make a profit from doing so.

The problem was currency speculating by people like George Soros, and as Bogmihia said, they have bounced back.

capitalism is by its very nature wastefull as it has no central planning

In a capitalist nation, there are millions of plans, some will fail, but enough succeed each generation to vastly increase our wealth, and resources misallocated can often go to other producers. In a system of central planning, absolutely every detail must be perfect in every way for people just to have enough food, and that all they get, just enough! If the plan fails, then disaster is the result. Central planning in the USSR turned the world's largest food-exporter in to the largest food-importer. Bread-basket to bread queues!

It's a lie to say communism has been tried and failed.

More ad-hominem! You now accuse us of being liars because we disagree! Most people would admit failure, or withdraw from the thread!

Communists see humans as inherently good and capable of growth.

Not correct, this is merely an attempt to reconcile your theory with reality, and a pretty poor job you've made of it!

On a side note, I think that capitalism creates its own version of socialism. It's called corporatism.

Corporatism has about as much to do with the free-market as communism has to do with reality.

So in that sense, Marx was right about us moving into socialism if you define socialism as central planning.

Incorrect, each firm has its individual plan, this has always been the case in capitalism. Every firm has its own plan, from the Corner shop, to IBM.

<<<You do realise that for achieving your version of Communism, you need to persuade the people like me.>>>

Boghmia, putting aside the argument of whether or not Romania was truly communist or not, I'm interested in getting your thoughts on something -

In Eastern Europe, Communists now are getting an average of around 20% of the votes in elections, and in a few cases they are actually winning majority control of these countries. In many, if not most of them, the Communist Parties are the second largest party.

If their version of "communism" was so awful (which I'm not saying it wasn't), then why are so many people voting for communist candidates?
Firstly, a correction: they're not exactly Communist parties, they're only leftist. In Romania, for example, the Social-Democrat Party obtained over 30% of the votes (but it's still in the opposition :cool: ).

The problem with the Eastern-European countries is that their economies have been damaged by five decades of Communism. After Communism finally collapsed, these countries were unable to compete with the larger, healtier economies of the Western countries and for this reason, many inefficient mammoth factories had to be closed down or downsized (in the neighbourhood of my city there was, for example, an oil refinery capable of refining more than Romania's necessary for oil; it was, however, inefficient and it never worked at full capacity).

Closing down factories means increasing the unemployment, which leads to a lower standard of living for a large part of the population. That segment of the population will naturally be more inclined to vote for a party offering social security, which is why you see the leftist parties obtaining such good scores - but not unusual scores for Europe. There are leftist governements in many Western-European countries too. Why leftist governements in Eastern Europe should be pointed out specifically?

In conclusion, I ask you to provide me with evidence that the Eastern European people want a return of the old Communist regimes. Since they're democratic countries now, it shouldn't be too hard for them to achieve their desires, by voting for a party advocating full nationalization of the economy and the reintroduction of the five-year plans, don't you think?

<<<It is based on envy, avarice, and greed.>>>

That's ridiculous. You contradict your own argument which says that it is capitalism which is based on greed. You and others defending capitalism have admitted that yourself.

<<<You cannot base a viable political/economic theory on the idea that human nature will fundamentally change.>>>

This is the flaw of your entire argument. Your viewpoint is based entirely on the premise that socialism/communism and all of humanity are static and don't change. I've pointed out numerous examples of how society's views can and do change. Socialism is only 100 years old. It took capitalism centuries to reach the point where it is now. Why do you presume that socialists are unable to learn from past mistakes, but will instead keep making the same mistakes for eternity? That makes no sense.

You say that human nature is to be capitalistic. I say it is the nature of humans to rebel. The entirety of known history is one revolution after another. I can't think of one country which hasn't experienced revolution in one sense or another. It is in our nature to rebel against authority. Society is constantly taking two steps forward, followed by a step back with a more conservative period, which is always followed by a revolutionary period.

You present to us card cutout sterotypes of socialism and think we are naive enough to buy into that kind of propaganda. I think most people are intelligent enough to realize that socialism is a living, breathing and still-forming system.

Humans are not midless cogs working under some invisible capitalist machine which controls our thoughts. We are able to think, to reason, and to change. And we will never stop making change until we have achieved the communist state. That doesn't mean everyone working for change understands what the final goal is. It just means that we are evolving into a more just and fair world, which means we continue to move toward the Left. Sure, there will be setbacks, but it will continue until we reach communism.

One needs only look at what happened to the Soviet Union after Stalin put them back on the road to capitalism. Small capitalist reforms were slowly reintroduced into Soviet Society year after year and just look at the disasterous results that had: The USSR went in a few short years from a backward peasant to becoming the greatest superpower on the planet under communism. They were leaders in art, science and sport. Just look at the Olympic teams the Eastern bloc had then, compared to what they have now, just a sad shadow of its former self. When they reintroduced capitalism it broke the will of the people. Greed tookover and the results are clear - you now have a nation of gangsters, prostitutes, drug addicts, and beggars. Capitalism has caused a major destruction of that country. It is one of the greatest tragedies of human history.

And the real losers are the people of the Eastern Bloc who believed the lies and promises of the free market. They learned a hard lesson - that capitalism only benefits some people and some countries. The rest are exploited and suffer for the benefit of the few.

My advice to any country that is faced with a choice of selling out to free market "liberal" capitalism is to resist that urge and go into the other direction. Sure, the IMF will give you money for a temporary economic recovery, but in the long term they will suck you dry and leave you with nothing. What the world needs is MORE socialism, not less.

Trotsky should have become leader of the USSR, instead of Stalin. Perpetual Revolution is the very essence of being a human. And it will never stop until we reach communism. Even socialist governments will be overthrown by the Left to make them even more socialist. What people are learning is that socialist governments tend to become stagnant and conservative and fall back into capitalists ways. That is why we must continually push them further and further left. Each time we do, the middle is set a little more Left. When we can no longer push society and further Left, when there is nothing left to rebel against, when every aspect of the old ways of thinking are totally gone from society, when we are as far to the Left as we can possibly get, that is when we reach communism. And under such a system it will be impossible for one person to exploit another, so there is no going back.

Communism is the total self-actualization of mankind. Capitalism is still down at the bottom of our heirachy of needs. Communism strives to bring us to the top.

At one time capitalism was the Left. It was the direction of progress. But capitalism has achieved all it can. It is now time to move us into the next level, socialism. It may take decades or centuries for this to happen but we are not going to stop until we get there.

History is nothing but one long march towards Communism! The sooner people like you accept this, the sooner we can all work together to build socialism. Until that time though, there will be nothing

The difference between a capitalist and a communist:

Capitalists see humans as inherently greedy individuals who can only be motivated by getting more for themselves. Therefore, capitalism is the perfect system to channel this selfishness into productivity for society. There must be winners and losers because only when people live in fear of losing will they stay productive.

Communists see humans as inherently good and capable of growth. They see humanity as advancing past the stage of only being motivated by greed to an altruistic stage. This can't happen overnight, but can over time, perhaps centuries as we grow and break down barriers of exploitation and develop new and more equitable ways of relating to one another. Once all forms of repression and exploitation are ended we have no reason for artificial constructs like states, governments, police, etc. which are inherently repressive in themselves.


When you find a way to overcome instinct and genetic programming, let me know. You're obviously barking up a tree if you think that just by educating people you can eliminate things like desire.

This is the flaw of your entire argument. Your viewpoint is based entirely on the premise that socialism/communism and all of humanity are static and don't change. I've pointed out numerous examples of how society's views can and do change. Socialism is only 100 years old. It took capitalism centuries to reach the point where it is now. Why do you presume that socialists are unable to learn from past mistakes, but will instead keep making the same mistakes for eternity? That makes no sense.

People have had relatively minor changes on viewpoints, based in the main on fashion. You can't conflate that to a fundamental change in human nature.

One needs only look at what happened to the Soviet Union after Stalin put them back on the road to capitalism.

He didn't, he deepened socialism in the USSR, and extended it abroad.

snip

Nothing more than blind faith, and propagandistic fluff. Honestly, do you think that evangelising will acutally persuade anyone?

Socialism - You have two cows. Give one to your neighbour.

Communism - You have two cows. Give both to the government.
The government gives you milk.

Capitalism - You sell one cow and buy a bull.

Facism - You have two cows. Give milk to the government.
The government sells it.

Nazism - The government shoots you and takes the cows.

New Dealism - The government shoots one cow, milks the other,
and pours the milk down the sink.

Anarchism - Keep the cows. Steal another one.
Shoot the government.

Conservatism - Freeze the milk. Embalm the cows.

Liberalism - Give away one cow. Get the government to
give you a new cow. Now give them both away.

<<<they're not exactly Communist parties, they're only leftist. In Romania, for example, the Social-Democrat Party obtained over 30% of the votes >>>

I'm not talking about the Social Democrats, although they also are a sign that Eastern Europe is moving more toward the left.

What I'm talking about is Communist Parties. They now have majority in Moldova, countries like the Czek Republic the communists are polling at 20%, same in East Germany with the PDS. In Russia the Communist Party is huge and can challenge the authoritarian parties on the national level. Now a new phenomenon is sweeping called Ostalgie, where people are missing the culture and values of life under socialism.

If anything, I think people are coming to realize that the promises of capitalism are nothing but one big lie. Some people do better, but most do worse because of it. That's the way it is and nothing will ever change that fact because it is a system based on greed and therefore inherently unfair.

You still don't answer the question. Why are so many people still putting their faith in communism if it is so terrible. Millions of people across the planet are fighting for communism. Some in armed struggle, others through education and working for social change

Is anarcho-socialism the same as anarcho-communism?

I thought anarcho-socialism would be an oxymoron, as socialism is a stage of popular control over the government.

<<<You have two cows. Give both to the government.
The government gives you milk.>>>

Under communism there is no government. It's a system of human cooperation without government or business.

<<<You have two cows. Give both to the government.
The government gives you milk.>>>

Under communism there is no government. It's a system of human cooperation without government or business.

Well, if we were all as nice as Jesus, your vision of Communism would be achieved. But people just aren't that nice - and it's not something you can educate out of them, or it would have already happened.

<<<I thought anarcho-socialism would be an oxymoron, as socialism is a stage of popular control over the government.>>>

Many anarcho-communists believe that socialism is a phase in which we dissolve business so we can therefore dissolve government. If we simply dissolved government and left business, then they would become a defacto government. Therefore we use one to eliminate the other. Socialism is simply the means to reach communism. It isn't the goal.

<<<You have two cows. Give both to the government.
The government gives you milk.>>>

Under communism there is no government. It's a system of human cooperation without government or business.

The problem is that either government or business will be necessary for the distribution of the milk.

<<<I thought anarcho-socialism would be an oxymoron, as socialism is a stage of popular control over the government.>>>

Many anarcho-communists believe that socialism is a phase in which we dissolve business so we can therefore dissolve government. If we simply dissolved government and left business, then they would become a defacto government. Therefore we use one to eliminate the other. Socialism is simply the means to reach communism. It isn't the goal.

Either way isn't anarcho-socialism a contradictory term?

And the elimination of business is undertaken through popular control of the government, is it not.

<<<Does the CPUSA have any seats or representation in Congress?>>>

CPUSA does not have open members of conress. They support the campaigns of the more progressive ones. Bernie Sanders is openly socialist though, although he runs as an independent. Sen. Paul Wellstone, who was very likely murdered for his beliefs, was strongly supported by the CPUSA.

The other large communist party, the Revolutionary Communist Party, a Maoist party, does believes that the election process is stacked against the people and that participation in it only gives it credibility. They believe only a full scale revolution is the answer to changing this society.

<<<ither way isn't anarcho-socialism a contradictory term?>>>

No, I don't see it that way. Anarchism is about challenging authority and breaking down the power structure. That's what socialism does. True, it creates another power structure, but that's why we will end socialism and move into pure communism. It's a process that happens over time, not overnight.

<<<The problem is that either government or business will be necessary for the distribution of the milk.>>>

No, communism sees a cooperative network of equal individuals developing new modes of production and distribution without the interference of government, business, markets or the profit-motive.

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!

Communism is flaued but it work a hell lot better then camptalism. Camitalism is full if currupt pig-dog people living the high life, meanwhile the majority is in the slums and are starving.

<<<now, it shouldn't be too hard for them to achieve their desires, by voting for a party advocating full nationalization of the economy and the reintroduction of the five-year plans, don't you think?>>>

It is also a myth to think that electoral "democracy" is true democracy. It is an unfair system where those with the most money are able to dominate the process, gerrymander in their favor, control the media to create false realities, and use an army of propagandists to smear their opponents.

I think here in the U.S. that socialism will come not so much as a revolution, but more as a renaissance. More and more people will beging to see the flaws in the system and start looking for other solutions. Many of them will read about socialism and communism and start believing that there is hope for something better.

Eventually those people will in small ways stop cooperating with the system. They'll purposely make mistakes at work, they'll whistleblow on illegal business practices, they'll begin resisting through civil disobedience and eventually the entire capitalist system will come apart at its seams and collapse. Then we will step in and bring socialism.

Recent history is proof that this can happen. Look at the 60's. Millions of people dropped out of society and started building a counter-culutre. Others even took up armed insurrection. This was a time when we came very close to seeing a total revolution in this country. It didn't succeed, but I think out of that people did change. There's no denying that the 60's didn't change America.

And even more recently, we've had the Rodney King riots and the Seattle anti-global riots. And more people marched against the Iraq war than they did Vietnam, all mobilized in a short time because of the internet. Just because the capitalist media didn't report much on it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I think we are moving towards socialism. And when we get there, we need to end all economic ties with foreign corporations, and nationalize the ones in this country. We need to cut our ties with the autocratic Middle Eastern states and get our oil from Venezuela. That would take care of the terrorism problem. Then we need to end the embargo against Cuba and make them our main trading partner. Because of their proximity to the U.S. we wouldn't be spending billions in oil costs to import products from around the world. Also, it would help the Cuban people and move them farther on the road to achieving socialism! It's a win-win situation for us all.

Communism is flaued but it work a hell lot better then camptalism. Camitalism is full if currupt pig-dog people living the high life, meanwhile the majority is in the slums and are starving.


Camitalism? No idea what that is.

Well the last I checked the poverty rate in Communist or ex-communist countries is about 60% or higher.
And get this in CAPITALIST countries the poverty rate is only about 13%.

If you think 13% are the majority, then I feel sorry for your math teacher.

And I hope you stop spouting that stupid untrue Commie propaganda ;)

[QUOTE=Anarchic Socialism]<<<well comunism and socialism are often used interchangebly in my vocabulary (sorry its due to being a socialist/communist in a country where there was a large stalinist party called the communist party) so amongst ourselves we'll call ourselves communists>>>

salut.

forgive me if i miss a point made earlier this thread, but judging from the posts i have seen many folks here are well acquainted with western socialism/communism. some very interesting points have been made so far. now, if i may add a few of my own...

first, most of the posts deal primarily with state/politics and its relationship with economics, but seem to imply a separation between the two. i believe that when ideal/theoretical communism speaks of democracy, it does so in a way that directly deals with the necessary relationshp between politics and economics. that is, it is impossible to have a political democracy (i do not refer to liberalism here) if gross economic inequality exists. political democracy by itself ensures the privlege and position of economic wealth since it does nothing to stop the power/influence of the most wealthy in society. political democracy can only be achieved through first ensuring economic equality and economic democracy.

next, on the relationships between socialism and communism, again, i may be mistaken, but it seems if we follow a marxian interpretation, then socialism is the system that preceeds/ushers in communism, no? and, when the late socialist states in eastern europe claimed to be "communist" they were in fact claiming to have communism as the ideal/ultimate goal. (which helped to differentiate them from liberal socialist states ala sweden) it was not a statement on the current system.

the key problem, i believe, to the second point above is that once socialism with its dictatorship of the proletariat is established, what is to prevent it from becoming a permanent ruling class? and once this happens, the road to eventual communism is blocked forever. this last point was argued by mao zedong during his battles with deng.

thanks for reading my long-winded first post here. pa!

Anarchich Socialism, your post is called Wish Thinking. And pretty much garbage, to anyone with a functioning intellectual mind. Look at the facts, America is becoming more and more conservative and religious (especially the children, psychologists say this is partly due to many children rebelling against there parents agnosticism or not feeling welcome or safe in the dark).

Also you seem to think that the American military will just let revolutionaries or rioters have there fun. THIS IS NOT FRANCE. In America the military come and shoots the fools and not deal or broker with them. The American mindset would never allow Communism, not even Socialism.
You promote Communism in a Midwest or Souther couny, you are lucky you don't get shot by the still grieving Mothers and Fathers who lost children, or children who lost parents, or just family members who lost family members. Vietnam and Korea, are way to fresh in American memory, also the successful anti-communism propaganda, will not even allow you to recruit poor prolets. Only the odd dumb ass will join you or believe in Communism in the States.

It is comparable to Israel having a Nazi party, America has fought so long and bitterly against communism, you cannot be dumb enough to think it will ever forget, maybe in a 1000 years, or such, but nowhere in the near future.

<<<ither way isn't anarcho-socialism a contradictory term?>>>

salut once more,

No, I don't see it that way. Anarchism is about challenging authority and breaking down the power structure. That's what socialism does. True, it creates another power structure, but that's why we will end socialism and move into pure communism. It's a process that happens over time, not overnight.

interesting points, but i believe anarchism is a bit more varied, as most good ideas are. first, all forms of anarchy begin with the assumption that central governments create more harm than they solve. it is not automatically or universally an opposition to rules, structure, or all hierarchies.

second, ultimately, any sort of debate of this sort boils down to assumptions on human nature. within anarchism two major schools of thoughts exist. the most commonly cited one is that "folks are basically ok." hence, goes their argument, since folks are ok, sociable, cooperative, "barney-esque" etc. there is not need for a central government. people can run their own lives. on this level, the assumption on human nature is not completely different from that for liberalism/capitalism.

the second group advocates anarchy says that folks are not so nice. indeed, often they are brutish and cruel and clumsey and greedy. and THAT, they contend, is why there should be no central government. all governments are made by/for, and run by/for, people. since people are not nice, it is dangerous to place the power and authority of a central government in their hands. better to remove such large institutions from exisitance and let people be evil more as individuals.

simply put, if people are not good, then it is better to keep large powerful institutions away from them, and let them do their evil on a smaller scale.

pa.

You still don't answer the question. Why are so many people still putting their faith in communism if it is so terrible. Millions of people across the planet are fighting for communism. Some in armed struggle, others through education and working for social change
I did answer. I told you that because the Communist economy was so inefficient, it collapsed. The people most affected are - naturally - voting for a leftist party offering them greter social security.

What I'm talking about is Communist Parties. They now have majority in Moldova, countries like the Czek Republic the communists are polling at 20%, same in East Germany with the PDS. In Russia the Communist Party is huge and can challenge the authoritarian parties on the national level. Now a new phenomenon is sweeping called Ostalgie, where people are missing the culture and values of life under socialism.
They may be called Communist, but their measures are not Communist, but merely leftist. They haven't nationalized any company yet, as far as I know, and haven't reintroduced the planned economy. What some people are missing is the secure job they used to have - i.e. money.

[QUOTE=Cybach]Anarchich Socialism, your post is called Wish Thinking. And pretty much garbage, to anyone with a functioning intellectual mind. Look at the facts, America is becoming more and more conservative and religious (especially the children, psychologists say this is partly due to many children rebelling against there parents agnosticism or not feeling welcome or safe in the dark).


sadly, i agree. it is clear that is any sort of revolution comes to the United States, it will be one that pushes for a far(ther) right wing government, not a commie one.

Capitalists see humans as inherently greedy individuals who can only be motivated by getting more for themselves. Therefore, capitalism is the perfect system to channel this selfishness into productivity for society. There must be winners and losers because only when people live in fear of losing will they stay productive.

Do you know what the invisible hand of the market is? Because it's a widely accepted economic principle.


Communists see humans as inherently good and capable of growth.

Capitalists do too.


They see humanity as advancing past the stage of only being motivated by greed to an altruistic stage.

Altruism isn't necessary for the wellbeing of all productive members of society. Again, read up on your economics.

Anarcho-Socialism isnt an OXYMORON. it has been practiced and has succeeded in small tribes and settlements, and as soon as capitalism was introduced, the places became hell-holes.

Accumulation of capital and the instinct of survival leads to revolution. At one point, the workers will have no choice but to revolt if they have to survive. Granted the revolutionaries are not necessarily communists, but revolution is unavoidable and is the direct result of capitalism. Communists aim at ending the cycle of revolutions.

At one point, the workers will have no choice but to revolt if they have to survive.
Who's trying to kill the workers? And why? :confused:

Anarcho-Socialism isnt an OXYMORON. it has been practiced and has succeeded in small tribes and settlements, and as soon as capitalism was introduced, the places became hell-holes.
Maybe it happened as in Eastern Europe. Their economies were not strong enough to compete with a market economy and collapsed.

Capitalists. Oh dear we are producing more than we sell, Sack some people.
Whats that? theres no other work and theres a food shortage? Do we care? NO.

Maybe it happened as in Eastern Europe. Their economies were not strong enough to compete with a market economy and collapsed.

THEY ARE NOT COMMUNIST. For the last time, not just you but other simple-minded capitalists believe that russia and eastern europe were communist.
Can you grasp that you may be wrong? They were State-Capitalist, the difference is Vast.

Capitalists. Oh dear we are producing more than we sell, Sack some people.
Whats that? theres no other work and theres a food shortage? Do we care? NO.
"What's that?" said Stalin. "There's a shortage of grains? Just take more from the peasants. So what if a few million will die?"

Capitalists. Oh dear we are producing more than we sell, Sack some people.Whats that? theres no other work and theres a food shortage? Do we care? NO.

The United States is capitalist and doesn't have food shortages, and doesn't have high unemployment. Neither do Australia, the UK, Canada, or Japan.

The difference is non-existant. The term "state-capitalism" is merely a convenient label for communists to place the inevitable failures of communism.

No, but if there WAS a food shortage they still would do it.

No, but if there WAS a food shortage they still would do it.

Well, it's better to cut a few thousand workers and keep the company afloat rather than let it go under and put a few hundred thousand employees out of work along with thousands in related industries.

The difference is non-existant. The term "state-capitalism" is merely a convenient label for communists to place the inevitable failures of communism.

Not true. Read the above thing

Capitalists. Oh dear we are producing more than we sell, Sack some people.
Whats that? theres no other work and theres a food shortage? Do we care? NO.

Socialists. Oh dear we are producing far less than we need because we robbed and exiled everyone who was any good at business.

You call thatr reasoning? I suggest you read Hazlitt. http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/Economics_in_one_lesson.pdf

Can you grasp that you may be wrong? They were State-Capitalist, the difference is Vast.

The problem is that somebody must coordinate the economical activities. If you abolish private property, then people still have to appoint somebody to direct the activities. That person will then wield much more power than an ordinary state president or corporation manager, because he/she will be controlling the entire economy. Can we trust somebody to have so much power and yet to remain impartial? Considering that all the people competing for a leadership position are already ambitious, absolutelly not.

<<<ither way isn't anarcho-socialism a contradictory term?>>>

No, I don't see it that way. Anarchism is about challenging authority and breaking down the power structure. That's what socialism does. True, it creates another power structure, but that's why we will end socialism and move into pure communism. It's a process that happens over time, not overnight.

Anarchism is the lack of hierarchy, whatever that system may be. Socialism requires a great deal of hierarchy in order to mold society into what communists want.

Like you said, socialism is the creation of another power structure, while anarchism is the elimination of power structure, so anarcho-socialism is contradictory.

Anarcho-Socialism isnt an OXYMORON. it has been practiced and has succeeded in small tribes and settlements, and as soon as capitalism was introduced, the places became hell-holes.

Excellent rebuttal, you skipped around the point of my statement, and attacked something I didn't even say with assertions that are completely unbacked.

<<<i believe, to the second point above is that once socialism with its dictatorship of the proletariat is established, what is to prevent it from becoming a permanent ruling class? >>>

This is why we need perpetual revolution until communism is achieved. The reason the East European governments failed is because they embraced capitalism, even if in subtle ways. In order to succeed they should have moved further and further towards communism from the very beginning. Instead, they thought they could implement pieces of capitalism without it polluting the entire society. Capitalism simply doesn't work, except to benefit some people at the expense of others. Capitalism needs to be eradicated in every form before we can reach communism. We need MORE socialism, not less!

I'll address the other points later, gotta run.

<<<Anarchism is the lack of hierarchy, whatever that system may be. Socialism requires a great deal of hierarchy in order to mold society into what communists want.>>>

No, in the long run socialism is necessary to destroy the hierachies of the market. Once those are destroyed communism will move in to destroy the heirarchies of socialism.

It's a necessary stage. If you moved directly into communism without a period of socialism it would fail. People aren't mentally ready for that leap because they still think in terms of self-interest over humanity. It could take hundreds of years before we are at that point.

The reason the East European governments failed is because they embraced capitalism, even if in subtle ways. In order to succeed they should have moved further and further towards communism from the very beginning. Instead, they thought they could implement pieces of capitalism without it polluting the entire society.
Tell me about it! What capitalist policies did Romania embrace before 1989? I'm a Romanian myself and yet I can't think of anything. The Central European countries did adopt certain reforms in the '80s - and now they have better economies and higher standards of living than Romania.

This is why we need perpetual revolution until communism is achieved. The reason the East European governments failed is because they embraced capitalism, even if in subtle ways. In order to succeed they should have moved further and further towards communism from the very beginning.

Ok, so those governments quickly turned into disasters because they had mixed economies which didn't totally eradicate market economics once and for all. Now explain how most of Western Europe, Australia, The United Kingdom, Japan and the USA have run highly successful mixed economies for a long time and show no signs of failing to do so.


Instead, they thought they could implement pieces of capitalism without it polluting the entire society.

Well Germany, France, Britain and Australia seem able to do it just fine. In the UK we have a combination of a welfare state and a market economy, and we're not exactly descending into awful crisis right now.


Capitalism needs to be eradicated in every form before we can reach communism.


How democractic.

<<<Anarchism is the lack of hierarchy, whatever that system may be. Socialism requires a great deal of hierarchy in order to mold society into what communists want.>>>

No, in the long run socialism is necessary to destroy the hierachies of the market. Once those are destroyed communism will move in to destroy the heirarchies of socialism.

It's a necessary stage. If you moved directly into communism without a period of socialism it would fail. People aren't mentally ready for that leap because they still think in terms of self-interest over humanity. It could take hundreds of years before we are at that point.

Everyone is dodging my point. I don't care if it is necessary, I don't care about its purpose. All I am saying is that socialism cannot be anarchic. You say that communism will move into destroy the hierarchies of socialism, yet you somehow manage to say that socialism can be anarchic.

<<<Tell me about it! What capitalist policies did Romania embrace before 1989? I'm a Romanian myself and yet I can't think of anything.>>>>

Did you have to buy products with money? Did some people have more than others? Was everyone equal or did some people have more privilege than others? THAT'S CAPITALISM. They may call it socialism, but it is capitalism. What they should have done is moved toward socialism to end the things that were bad in Romania. Instead, they responded with more capitalism! That's absurd. The very things you complain about are the result of not being socialist enough!

Did you have to buy products with money? Did some people have more than others? Was everyone equal or did some people have more privilege than others?
Yes, maybe if people's privileges had been removed, my father (an engineer) would have earned at least as much as a waiter. As things were, he was earning less. :rolleyes:

The zealot's reply to failure. :rolleyes: Not faithful enough, insufficient "Hail Karl's".

Romania's old system appears to have a superficial resemblence of capitalism, but no real capitalism. It was socialism.

Did you have to buy products with money? Did some people have more than others? Was everyone equal or did some people have more privilege than others? THAT'S CAPITALISM. They may call it socialism, but it is capitalism.

Capitalism is a system of unfettered trade and commerce which honours the sanctity or property. In Nazi Germany some people had more than others, and Nazi Germany did not run a system of capitalism. As for the use of money, virtually every system of government in modern history has done that. It's not exclusive to capitalism.

Who's trying to kill the workers? And why? :confused:
Nobody. It's not a conspiracy. It's the accumulation of the capital. Do I have to explain it?
In short :
The capitalist advances the capital for the worker to use.
With the capital, the worker produces wealth. The capitalist then shares the wealth produced in three parts : One part is for the workers, one part is for his own consumption and one part is for more capital, that he advances again in order to produce more wealth.
The market decides how the capitalist shares his wealth. Competition drives investment up and worker's share down. Everybody is honest in the deal.
I advise that you read "the capital". All the mechanisms about the cycles of capitalism and how the price of the workers is deconnected from the wealth they produce and how they are left with exactly the minimum for their survival and for their reproduction is explained in details. It also explains a lot of interesting stuffs that can't be detailed as much here.

You've not explained it well at all.

Capitalism is simply about voluntary trading of goods and services (capitalist acts between consenting adults).

Wealth is generated through these voluntary transactions of goods and services. The owners of a manufacturing firm buy raw materials, and the services form people (who are called workers), and in turn sell the finished goods to restart the cycle.

Competition doesn't necessarily drive anyone's share up or down. Labour costs will tend to increase if there's less labour around and vice versa (and we can further break this down into specific types of services that certain people offer, which is why a doctor gets paid more than a janitor, the doctor's skills and talents are scarce, while anyone can be a janitor).

Incidently, could you justify this statement, "Competition drives investment up and worker's share down."?

Of course, the answer to Bogmihia's question is that communists kill the workers by the million.

Actually, I would advise, that anyone who want to debate communism make sure he understands what communism is.
Google will give you this link :
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
(not a very long read)
If you think communism is about the USSR and the cold war or that communism is about anti-americanism, you probably don't know what you are talking about.

You've not explained it well at all.
I'm sorry about that, but there are books for that. I do my best, but those forums are not very adequate for that.

Capitalism is simply about voluntary trading of goods and services (capitalist acts between consenting adults).It is what you say it is, but there is more to it than that. We can see how voluntary trading is affecting society with some further analysis. Massive trading involves massive production and affects society in many ways.

Wealth is generated through these voluntary transactions of goods and services. The owners of a manufacturing firm buy raw materials, and the services form people (who are called workers), and in turn sell the finished goods to restart the cycle.This is one cycle. On the second cycle, the capitalist buys more raw materials. On the third, he buys more and then he can buy more and more and more.

Competition doesn't necessarily drive anyone's share up or down. Labour costs will tend to increase if there's less labour around and vice versa (and we can further break this down into specific types of services that certain people offer, which is why a doctor gets paid more than a janitor, the doctor's skills and talents are scarce, while anyone can be a janitor).The market will ensure that there are enough workers. Workers are produced like any other good traded on the market. When there is not enough doctor, the capitalists will make doctor schools and university and they will produce more of them.

Incidently, could you justify this statement, "Competition drives investment up and worker's share down."?

I will do it very very short.
Capitalists compete for mass production. The one who produces cheaper wins over the one who produces more expensive. More massive production drives prices down. Capitalists have to invest more in order to produce more and cheaper or they get out-competed by other capitalists. This is why competition drives investment up.
Workers are traded on the market and they compete for work. The cheaper they are the more chance they have to be employed. As they compete, those who are too expensive in relation to those who are cheap get fired and those who are cheaper get employed. This is why workers are cheaper and cheaper.
Of course, you can always read the capital for a more detailed demonstration.

Of course, the answer to Bogmihia's question is that communists kill the workers by the million.
Could you justify that random statement please?

And don't read it as a Christian reads the Bible, or a Muslim the Koran. Read it critically, analyse it, try to see where the cracks are, what the flaws are.

In short, Marx starts badly, he makes a pig's breakfast of the middle, and the less said about the end the better.

His basic premise is total cabbage:

Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat.

In fact, society was moving more and more into three classes, and they are not akin to two opposing camps waiting for battle.

He makes many more errors:

Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.

He seems to be describing this as a weakness. It is in fact a strength, by being inheriently able to defy single control control, capitalism forces many firms to make their own individual plans. Some may fail, but enough succeed to provide us with abundance.

Command economies on the other hand, provide in abundance only misery.

In fact, Marx never really explains why central planning is better.

It is enough to mention the commercial crises [recessions] that, by their periodical return, put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly

Same mistake again. Capitalism is a self-regulating system, recessions tell the market that they're doing something wrong. Under capitalism, the masses are the ones who really control the economy, each dollar is a vote.

Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce

Strike Three, You're Out.

Over-production is also a good thing, it means that necessities are available if things turn for the worse, it also means there is choice.

Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him

Marx, being an ivory tower academic his whole life is such an expert on factory work :rolleyes: . What an arrogant prick.

The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer

Here is another demonstration of Marx's ignorance. The price of one's labour depends on how "in demand" one's skills and services are, and how scarce they are. If your only skill is "spoken and written English", you won't get paid much. If your skills are scarce, or heavily in demand, you can command higher wages.

Why people think Marx is some sort of genius is beyond me. He didn't even understand basic supply and demand.


The part I really like is some of the things he says about the Communist Party:

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

Ludicrous fantasy. 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. This is a very serious "have your cake and eat it too" fallacy; you cannot simultaneously give more power to the masses and to the government! Marx felt that free markets are undemocratic and unfair, but in reality, free markets are actually more democratic than governments, communist or otherwise. They actually respond to the whims of the masses, while governments only make promises. Look at Wal-Mart; its profits dwarf that of every rich person's boutique and specialty store in America. Now look at your federal capital: is there any venue there where your average Wal-Mart customer would be taken seriously?

they have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole

BAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAA

If you really believe that, I can sell you shares in the Brooklyn Bridge. Only $300 per share.

Marx then lists the 10 Communist Commandments (what we may consider to be practical communism)

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

-Total seizure of property removes incentive to work, obviously. Another point, of one owns a piece of land, one did something to get the resources to exchange for the land. What right has the state to seize this when they did nothing for it? It also removes an important incentive, namely owning your own home some day.

2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax

-Seizure of salary removes incentive to work, obviously.

3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance

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

4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

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

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

Of course, democratic states can govern badly too, and this causes people to leave them. The general response of democratic states is to get their acts together, and do a better job of governing. I have used previously the example of death taxes. In 1978, one Australian state abolished death taxes, so old people went there, and with them went a lot of the aged care industry, and with that services to support it and the employees of it. Other Australian states noticed this, and by 1981, all Australian states had abolished death taxes.

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

Marx anticipated the need for a totalitarian state to enforce communism, which is why the crimes of various states were a direct consequence of communism, rather than the abberations of evil men as some communist apologists would tell us.

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 never a good thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-See "Great Leap Forward" in communist China, and Killing Fields in Cambodia.

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

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

Marx fails to explain why the state will be more efficient than competative private enterprise (another glaring ommission from this charlatan). He further fails to explain why an all-powerful state (which he clearly advocates) won't abuse its powers, and why it will simply abolish itself at the appointed time.

He doesn't explain why we should accept his false dilemma of a ridiculous misrepresentation of capitalism versus communism. Throughout the manifesto is a consistant fallacy, the idea that pointing out any perceived flaw in capitalism (even if it is really a strength) automatically makes an argument for communism.

The market will ensure that there are enough workers. Workers are produced like any other good traded on the market. When there is not enough doctor, the capitalists will make doctor schools and university and they will produce more of them.

You like reductio ad absurdum? It makes a good substitute for argument. Shortages of labour will operate to do a number of things, like introduce more technology, and create incentives for immigration.

Workers are traded on the market and they compete for work. The cheaper they are the more chance they have to be employed. As they compete, those who are too expensive in relation to those who are cheap get fired and those who are cheaper get employed. This is why workers are cheaper and cheaper.

Except that workers have much more purchasing power now, than in years past, they are getting more an more expensive.

You've made no connection with the increase in investment and the reduction in labour prices. In fact, the wish to increase in production will of course increase the demand for labour to make that production, driving prices up.

TO THE ORIGINAL POSTER:

I think as you can see on these boards, the arguments against communism are weak and artificial. You can easily shoot all of them down by logic. They boil down to just four main arguments:

1.) "Communism just doesn't work": That's an invalid argument because it has never been tried. Communism is a state of humanity, it is not a country or even a form of government because it means the elimination of all governments.

What we had were states practicing varying degrees of socialism, but who maintained essentially the same structures in society. The reason these societies "failed" because they weren't socialist ENOUGH. Instead of moving toward communism they allowed 'reformers' to come in and convince them to establish market reforms. And we can all see the disasterous results of that.

2.) "Communists kill people": Again, a totally illogical and emotion-based argument. People died because of power struggles. When people's power and wealth is threatened they react with violence and that violence is met in return with more violence. Anti-communists like to throw out figures saying communists killed this many people during a certain time. What they leave out is that in those figures are huge numbers, maybe a majority, of the people who were killed were communists and communist sympathizers. Communists have no monopoly on killing and to say so is absurd. Far more people have been killed throughout history by capitalism than by communism. Were their bad "communist" leaders who committed violence? Yes, but so were there capitalist ones. Why do supporters of capitalism not condemn all of capitalism for the actions of those people? This is simply an argument which does not hold. Also, under a communist system where there are no governments, no armies, no countries to commit war, wouldn't it be a logical assumption to assume there would be LESS killing?

3.) "People are basically greedy...." Another false argument. It doesn't take into account that humans have a social conscience. It assumes that all of humanity is nothing but a bunch of cogs in a corporate machine who only respond to market stimuli to act in their own self-interest, mindlessly controlled by some invisible hand. It fails to take into account that people have morals, ethics, and an innate desire to rebel against injustice. It also fails to take into account that views and attitudes are constantly shifting. History proves that people are constantly shedding the old ideas in favor of new ones. Human history truly is one long march toward communism, even if it is an unconscious urge. I think greed is an artificial motivation instilled in us by capitalism. Our true nature is compassion, altruism, community, they need to connect with others, and the need to rebel against injustice. All of these factors compel us toward the only logical conclusion we can come to: COMMUNISM.


4.) "Socialism is economically unfeasable" The same argument was made for the maintenance of slavery. People thought that the South could never work economically if we ended slavery. Again, this argument relies on the capitalist assumption that everything is static. Socialism is only a hundred years old and will develop newer and better ways of making an economy work. One could have looked at Capitalism after the Great Depression and said "capitalism is economically unfeasable", but what did the capitalists turn to to get them out of the situation they produced? SOCIALISM! When socialist governments run into trouble it is most always because of a.) economic sabotage from the outside such as embargos, b.) domestic sabotage by the former bourgeoisie such as counter-revolutions, or c.) Because they listen to 'reformers' and turn to neo-liberal market reforms.



So, as you can see, there are no valid arguments against communism. They are all emotion-based and fall flat when looked at through the lens of reason. The true base of anti-communist sentiment is two things: a.) people who grew up indoctrinated by anti-communist propaganda and b.) people who feel like they will lose their privilege and wealth under the move toward communism.

Communism is the greatest possible achievement of humankind and the resistance against it is only proof of the power it has to change the world. All great movements in history have been met with scorn and they are rarely popular in the beginning. But history is long and as long as their are injustices and inequality and unfairness in the world there will be people working to bring us toward communism.

You like reductio ad absurdum? It makes a good substitute for argument. Shortages of labour will operate to do a number of things, like introduce more technology, and create incentives for immigration.
I don't have much time to argue indeed. I'm sorry about that. I wish I could have more time and have a good argument with you about communism. I think you are mistaken though. I believe shortage of labor creates incentives for out-sourcing and drives the price of labor down, but I won't elaborate on this tonight, Maybe another day.

Except that workers have much more purchasing power now, than in years past, they are getting more an more expensive.
I believe it has something to do with the social struggle which is happening since 200 years. Minimum wages, inheritance tax, social education and more.

You've made no connection with the increase in investment and the reduction in labour prices. In fact, the wish to increase in production will of course increase the demand for labour to make that production, driving prices up.
I believe that in the long term, price are doomed to fall. There will be some periodic increase, like any good traded on the market when there is shortage, but in the long term, the market drives the prices down as production of workers is organized.

<<<The American mindset would never allow Communism, not even Socialism.
You promote Communism in a Midwest or Souther couny, you are lucky you don't get shot by the still grieving Mothers and Fathers who lost children, or children who lost parents, or just family members who lost family members.>>>


You make the same error that all the anti-communist posters make - you think that attitudes are static and don't shift. You give too much importance to the time and place you live in and not enough to the totality of human history.

If you look back on history, mankind has always taken two steps forward and one step back. There has been nothing but a series of revolutions overthrowing old orders and replacing them with something more fair. Conservative thinking always thinks we "have arrived" at perfection, but they've always been proven wrong. It will not stop until we reach communism - a state where no person has authority over another.

And btw, I'm born and raised in the South of the USA in a very conservative environment, voted Republican my first time, I'm well-educated and a productive and successful member of capitalist society, but I was able to change my world view and see that communism is the only logical conclusion we can come to. It is the wave of the future and I will work to achieve that goal even if it is opposed to my own self-interests.

My communist beliefs are not essentially Marxist. I think most of Marx's theory is best applicable to the context of the time he lived. Most of what I take from Marx is his critique of the power structure, the necessity of a socialist phase to even the playing field, and the ultimate stage of communism. But Marx was not the end of communist thought, he was simply the first person to put these ideas, which I think are also rooted in original Christianity into an attempt to create a scientific format. There have always been communists. They simply didn't have a word for it.

I don't have much time to argue indeed. I'm sorry about that. I wish I could have more time and have a good argument with you about communism. I think you are mistaken though. I believe shortage of labor creates incentives for out-sourcing and drives the price of labor down, but I won't elaborate on this tonight, Maybe another day.

Shortages of labor indirectly drive outsourcing because of supply and demand. Labor shortages drive up labor costs, which make it more expensive to hire workers in a particular region. Naturally, the high demand for workers eventually encourages growth in supply to meet demand with more people entering the field. However, since acute labor shortages only occur when there is unsustainably rapid growth in a field, or a speculative enthusiasm (like IT during the late 1990's), the market will eventually slowdown, resulting in a surplus of workers. However, labor costs do not fall and to cut costs companies will lay off expensive workers and look for ones who can do the same work for less; this is the motivation behind outsourcing. Not all outsourcing is international; larger companies often outsource to smaller ones to do work for less money and get rid of their own departments.

However, outsourcing occurs at all parts of the business cycle; the volume of it was the same in the 1990's as it was during the recession.

I believe that in the long term, price are doomed to fall. There will be some periodic increase, like any good traded on the market when there is shortage, but in the long term, the market drives the prices down as production of workers is organized.

Productivity actually drives faster employment growth as long as the economy grows faster than the rate of productivity. It also acts as deflationary pressure, resulting in lower prices and greater purchasing power which drive further gains in employment and spending. Eventually, the productivity gains translate in to considerably higher wages as employment tightens and inflation remains subdued.

It is the wave of the future and I will work to achieve that goal even if it is opposed to my own self-interests.

The only way you'll get everyone to work in opposition to their own self-interests without any mechanism of enforcement is to genetically breed it out of humans and make them mindless, soulless creatures with no interest in self - not even in their own survival.

A simple child is born with some degree of selfishness - and it's never totally eliminated. You'll just have to kill 99 percent of the humans on the planet - maybe more, to accomplish your goal.

<<<breed it out of humans and make them mindless, soulless creatures with no interest in self - not even in their own survival.>>>

That's the difference between capitalists and communists. You see greed as good and you see lack of it as being "mindless and soulless." I think quite the opposite is the case. I think people inherently want to see humanity improve. It is the very essence of what makes us human. Your greed is nothing more than a learned value instilled in us by capitalism. It's time for growth and Communism is how we will do it.

<<<breed it out of humans and make them mindless, soulless creatures with no interest in self - not even in their own survival.>>>

That's the difference between capitalists and communists. You see greed as good and you see lack of it as being "mindless and soulless." I think quite the opposite is the case. I think people inherently want to see humanity improve. It is the very essence of what makes us human. Your greed is nothing more than a learned value instilled in us by capitalism. It's time for growth and Communism is how we will do it.

Greed is not something instilled by capitalism.

Even a small baby knows greed.

<<<Even a small baby knows greed.>>>

A small baby does not know greed! They simply know hunger.

Are you familiar with Maslow's heirarchy of Needs. It goes like this:

Starting from the lowest base needs to the highest:

physiological > security > love/belonging > esteem > actualization


Capitalists seem to be stuck on the bottom level and discount humanity's ability to expand their consciousness. From what you describe we're all just a bunch of neanderthal's who are incapable of developing any values and need the state/police/church/employer/market to control us. I think we have the potential to develop past that. It may take a long time to undo the spiritual damage capitalism has done to the human psyche, but I do think it will happen. If not, we may as well just use our military to enslave the rest of the planet so they can serve our every need. That's the logical conclusion of your point of view.

Anarchic Socialism, even an attempt to address arguments would be nice. All you are doing is ignoring my posts (presumably because you think "can't refute it, so I'll pretend it isn't there"), and insulting again those who don't hold your fundamentalist beliefs.

<<<to address arguments would be nice. All you are doing is ignoring my posts (presumably because you think "can't refute it, so I'll pretend it isn't there"), and insulting again those who don't hold your fundamentalist beliefs.>>>

I've addressed your points in numerous and lengthy posts. If you are talking about your posts on Marx's theory, I've already stated that I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you. I'm not an orthodox Marxist by any means, I think Marx had touched on some good points, but his theories are mostly relevant to 19th Century economics, so it's a futile attempt to argue about these points. So

Furthermore, I don't base my communism necessarily on economics. I see communism as the end of economics. Basically I see economists as wealthy people who are hired by other wealthy people to convince the rest of the people to support economic policies which will benefit wealthy people. So I see no point in arguing economics with you. My economic goals are the opposite of yours. What you see as success, I see as failure. What you see as failure I see as success.

My communism is based on ethical, spiritual and philosophical grounds. I simply see communism - the end of all heirarchy - as the only just system. This is a stance which I have come to through study, contemplation and critical thinking. That's hardly what can be called fundamentalism.

I've listed my points and I've addressed each and every one of your arguments and explained to you why I think they are flawed. I don't really think there is anything more that can be said. We simply have a different moral outlook on humanity and there's no amount of arguing that is going to convince either of us otherwise.

You haven't provided a logical, and consistant response. All you've posted is shrieking messages about how human nature will fundamentally change, and with communism we can all reach the nth level of zen hueydueylouieness, fluff about how you think communism is ethical (how can a system based on a massive theft and envy possibly be ethical?), and insults to those who refuse to believe. Religious fundamentalists do the same thing, except they make it entertaining, all that talk of hell, and fire, and little men in red pyjamas sticking pitchforks in my arse. They make a real effort to convince you that you are unworthy, they put a bit of flair into it, a bit of je nais se qua.

Economics is simply the science of scarcity, and inequal distribution of the resources and manpower on earth. Your views on economics only highlight your ignorance, along with your blind faith in communism.

That's hardly what can be called fundamentalism

Yet you have acted like a fundamentalist.

The series of strawmen, and distortions you posted above are hardly going to help this man.

To the original poster:

Your best route is voluntary socialism, like Kibbutzim, and communes. Be careful about your examples, they must be voluntary from both sides, meaning they must be voluntary

In the sense that all the adults are there of their own free will, and
In the sense that they impose none of the consequences of their way of life on others, with things like state subsidies


You should be OK, if you do that.

<<<you've posted is shrieking messages... of zen hueydueylouieness, fluff about how you think communism is ethical (how can a system based on a massive theft and envy possibly be ethical?), and insults to those who refuse to believe. Religious fundamentalists do the same thing, except they make it entertaining, all that talk of hell, and fire, and little men in red pyjamas sticking pitchforks in my arse. They make a real effort to convince you that you are unworthy, they put a bit of flair into it, a bit of je nais se qua.>>>

The hypocrisy and irony of that post is quite amusing. When you can actually make a point that makes sense, let me know.

<<<(how can a system based on a massive theft and envy possibly be ethical?)>>>

And in your view capitalism isn't theft? LMAO!

Now, as to your arguments. Every one of them have been decimated - here you go again:

They boil down to just four main arguments:

1.) "Communism just doesn't work": That's an invalid argument because communism has never been tried. Communism is a state of humanity, it is not a country or even a form of government because it means the elimination of all governments.

What we had were states practicing varying degrees of socialism, but who maintained essentially the same structures in society. The reason these societies "failed" because they weren't socialist ENOUGH. Instead of moving toward communism they allowed 'reformers' to come in and convince them to establish market reforms. And we can all see the disasterous results of that.

2.) "Communists kill people": Again, a totally illogical and emotion-based argument. People died because of power struggles. When people's power and wealth is threatened they react with violence and that violence is met in return with more violence. Anti-communists like to throw out figures saying communists killed this many people during a certain time. What they leave out is that in those figures are huge numbers, maybe a majority, of the people who were killed were communists and communist sympathizers. Communists have no monopoly on killing and to say so is absurd. Far more people have been killed throughout history by capitalism than by communism. Were their bad "communist" leaders who committed violence? Yes, but so were there capitalist ones. Why do supporters of capitalism not condemn all of capitalism for the actions of those people? This is simply an argument which does not hold. Also, under a communist system where there are no governments, no armies, no countries to commit war, wouldn't it be a logical assumption to assume there would be LESS killing?

3.) "People are basically greedy...." Another false argument. It doesn't take into account that humans have a social conscience. It assumes that all of humanity is nothing but a bunch of cogs in a corporate machine who only respond to market stimuli to act in their own self-interest, mindlessly controlled by some invisible hand. It fails to take into account that people have morals, ethics, and an innate desire to rebel against injustice. It also fails to take into account that views and attitudes are constantly shifting. History proves that people are constantly shedding the old ideas in favor of new ones. Human history truly is one long march toward communism, even if it is an unconscious urge. I think greed is an artificial motivation instilled in us by capitalism. Our true nature is compassion, altruism, community, they need to connect with others, and the need to rebel against injustice. All of these factors compel us toward the only logical conclusion we can come to: COMMUNISM.


4.) "Socialism is economically unfeasable" The same argument was made for the maintenance of slavery. People thought that the South could never work economically if we ended slavery. Again, this argument relies on the capitalist assumption that everything is static. Socialism is only a hundred years old and will develop newer and better ways of making an economy work. One could have looked at Capitalism after the Great Depression and said "capitalism is economically unfeasable", but what did the capitalists turn to to get them out of the situation they produced? SOCIALISM! When socialist governments run into trouble it is most always because of a.) economic sabotage from the outside such as embargos, b.) domestic sabotage by the former bourgeoisie such as counter-revolutions, or c.) Because they listen to 'reformers' and turn to neo-liberal market reforms.


Like I said, you present nothing, just regurgitated red baiting. Your commie boogeyman isn't fooling anyone. Nobody is naive enough to buy your hollow arguments.

And in your view capitalism isn't theft? LMAO!

So you agree that communism and socialism is based on theft? Capitalism on the other hand is based on individual property, and voluntary trading.

That's an invalid argument because communism has never been tried. Communism is a state of humanity, it is not a country or even a form of government because it means the elimination of all governments.

Rubbish. I addressed the invalidity of communist theory several times. It is simply not compatible with reality because it requires a fundamental change in human nature. No one has seriously made the argument that this is possible, and that if possible, it will happen as the communists intend. It is nothing more than wishful thinking writ large.

Again, a totally illogical and emotion-based argument. People died because of power struggles. When people's power and wealth is threatened they react with violence and that violence is met in return with more violence. Anti-communists like to throw out figures saying communists killed this many people during a certain time. What they leave out is that in those figures are huge numbers, maybe a majority, of the people who were killed were communists and communist sympathizers. Communists have no monopoly on killing and to say so is absurd. Far more people have been killed throughout history by capitalism than by communism. Were their bad "communist" leaders who committed violence? Yes, but so were there capitalist ones. Why do supporters of capitalism not condemn all of capitalism for the actions of those people? This is simply an argument which does not hold. Also, under a communist system where there are no governments, no armies, no countries to commit war, wouldn't it be a logical assumption to assume there would be LESS killing?

That argument is horseshit for at least 100 million reasons. I have already made the case (as yet unrefuted) that the crimes of communist regimes are caused by communism, and are required to make it work.

You say that many of the dead were communists, and you think that is persuasive in proving your point? All it shows is that communist leaders who will always fail to bring a good life to the people, need scapegoats. That's why they purge their own people. It is nothing more than scapegoating. It is no coincidence that Stalin's purges coincided with the worst of his economic measures, which left mass famine in their wake. The people would blame someone, so Stalin made sure it wasn't him.

Another false argument. It doesn't take into account that humans have a social conscience. It assumes that all of humanity is nothing but a bunch of cogs in a corporate machine who only respond to market stimuli to act in their own self-interest, mindlessly controlled by some invisible hand. It fails to take into account that people have morals, ethics, and an innate desire to rebel against injustice. It also fails to take into account that views and attitudes are constantly shifting. History proves that people are constantly shedding the old ideas in favor of new ones. Human history truly is one long march toward communism, even if it is an unconscious urge. I think greed is an artificial motivation instilled in us by capitalism. Our true nature is compassion, altruism, community, they need to connect with others, and the need to rebel against injustice. All of these factors compel us toward the only logical conclusion we can come to: COMMUNISM.

Strawman. You have caterwauled that humans must fundamentally change, and will fundamentally change. History has shown a change in some attitudes, this does not automatically support the argument that human nature will fundamentally change. The rest of your "point" is nothing more then blind faith, which is fine as long as it is admitted as such. It is certainly not logic, or a substitute for it.

The same argument was made for the maintenance of slavery. People thought that the South could never work economically if we ended slavery. Again, this argument relies on the capitalist assumption that everything is static. Socialism is only a hundred years old and will develop newer and better ways of making an economy work. One could have looked at Capitalism after the Great Depression and said "capitalism is economically unfeasable", but what did the capitalists turn to to get them out of the situation they produced? SOCIALISM! When socialist governments run into trouble it is most always because of a.) economic sabotage from the outside such as embargos, b.) domestic sabotage by the former bourgeoisie such as counter-revolutions, or c.) Because they listen to 'reformers' and turn to neo-liberal market reforms.

More strawmen. I, and others have shown why socialist economics don't work. The Great Depression was caused by state interference in the economy, and made to last in the US until the war started by government intervention.

Let us look at Germany and Britain after the war. Both had suffered greatly during the war, and had devastated economies. Germany embraced the free market, and was booming for years (The Marshall Plan aid amounted to no more than 2% of Germanyis GDP), Britain on the other hand adopted more socialism and as a direct result, still had wartime rationing when Britain's next war (Korea) started!

I suggest you start reading Hazlitt, Hayak, and Mises, because your economic skills are nonexistant. You've admitted as much yourself when you said "Basically I see economists as wealthy people who are hired by other wealthy people to convince the rest of the people to support economic policies which will benefit wealthy people."

The UK has a queen.
Seriously how can you make a, argulent like that? What about comparing the USSR and Mozambique?

Surreal, man.

(Quotes are your friend)

communism is theoretically perfect. the perfect democracy. the perfect system.

it has never worked because when attempted it is tried in isolation. a communist island in a sea of capitalists.

true communism simply is not applicable in the world today. no nation has EVER been communist. (that said very few nations have been democracies).

it is all about the way it must be formed. a strong leader will rise and install a 'communist' government, it takes an even stronger one to try to then give up ruling of the country to the people.

the only true problems with communism come from human greed and imperfections. for some reason human society seems to need someone to tell it what to do. it can't manage itself. thus the introduction of communism would have to be a gradual process. allowing society to be weaned off of the 'must have leader' instinct that has been bred into us by centuries of monarchies and all other forms of government that actually involve ANY classes at all.

Such an assessment can only come from a superficial, uncritical even fawning reading of Marx, or none at all.

You should read further up the thread.

Lastly, don't slander the human race just because they won't be beaten, tortured, starved, and shot into shape for communism. Blaming reality won't get you past the inherient flaws in the theory.

the perfect democracy.

Too bad democracy sucks.

(communism isn't a perfect system for many reasons, but the blind faith it places in democracy is one of the big reasons)

<<<So you agree that communism and socialism is based on theft?>>>

Absolutely not. Capitalism is based on theft. It sets up a system in which only those who already have can prosper and funnels wealth to the top. It forces the majority into a form of wage slavery in which they must trade their time for a fraction of the wealth they produce. Socialism is simply the correction to this flaw in capitalism.



<<<It is simply not compatible with reality because it requires a fundamental change in human nature.>>>

Pure and utter rubbish. Human nature is to seek out the companionship of other humans and to work together for survival. Greed and sociopathic behavior is not our nature as you say, it is simply the reaction of people born into a system which pits us against each other in a fight for survival where most of the wealth is held by a small number of people.

You're refusal to think that attitudes can change is also b.s. Forms of governing, distribution of goods and economies have changed numerous times over history. To think we are at a stagnant point and can do no better is to deny the entirety of human history. This is where your argument falls flat on its face.



<<<the crimes of communist regimes are caused by communism>>>

Again pure rubbish. For one thing, the regimes you speak of were socialist, not communist. Why you can't seem to learn the difference is a mystery to me. Secondly, it is capitalism which causes violence simply because it pits people against one another by its very essence. It creates separate classes of people competing for resources. Until that is ended you will always have crimes and violence. The fallacy of your argument is that you see attempts to correct that as the cause of violence when in fact it is capitalism itself which creates the situations in the first place.



<<<You have caterwauled that humans must fundamentally change, and will fundamentally change. History has shown a change in some attitudes, this does not automatically support the argument that human nature will fundamentally change>>>

Again, a totally irrational argument. Any third grade history lesson shows that human society has changed radically over time. History is nothing but one revolution after another throwing out old ways of thinking in favor of new. You have presented absolutely no evidence that this stage is the end of human history.



<<<I suggest you start reading Hazlitt, Hayak, and Mises>>>

All of these apologists propose an acceptance of an unfair system, a system in which some will have better lives than others, some will be put under the authority of others. No amount of intellectual discourse can ever justify that some should have authority and control over others. Only pure communism can end that system.

I suggest you read some Noam Chomsky. With a razor sharp argument he slices the ideology of both the market fundamentalists and capitalist apologists AND the orthodox marxists.

Your problem is you live in a black and white world where you totally ignore the problems of capitalism and look at socialism as stagnant dogma instead of a living and developing movement to correct the flaws and injustices capitalism brings with it. You continually accuse me of the "strawman" argument without any evidence, yet you yourself set up a strawman argument that all communists are the soviet union and stalin and demand they defend it. Such an argument is irrational. It would be the same as I asking you to defend Hitler or Herbert Hoover. You also accuse me of being a blind faith fundamentalist, yet I have admitted the flaws I find in socialism and have said it is an organic system, not a fixed one. You on the other hand refuse to see any flaws in capitalism. Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that you are contented with the status quo, so you will say anything irrational or emotion-based to discredit anyone who challenges it. I say it is you who has a fundamentalist belief in capitalism. But your zealousness for market fundamentalism doesn't hold up when exposed to the light of reason.

As long as some people are oppressing, exploiting, bossing, or controlling others there will be people rebelling against it. And people will not stop rebelling until we have reached communism. If it takes 50,000 years, humanity will still be making revolution to gain equality. You say greed is human nature, I say it is REVOLUTION.

I suggest you read some Noam Chomsky. With a razor sharp argument he slices the ideology of both the market fundamentalists and capitalist apologists AND the orthodox marxists.

I've read all of Chomsky's work, and I think he's a completely unrealistic idiot who has no idea of how real life works or how people behave.

<<<I've read all of Chomsky's work, and I think he's a completely unrealistic idiot who has no idea of how real life works or how people behave.>>>

lol. You're entitled to your opinion, but to blow it all off with a statement like that says a lot more about you than it does about his about his writings.

<<<I've read all of Chomsky's work, and I think he's a completely unrealistic idiot who has no idea of how real life works or how people behave.>>>

lol. You're entitled to your opinion, but to blow it all off with a statement like that says a lot more about you than it does about his about his writings.

I've written papers blowing off individual books. It is largely a waste of time. He should have stuck to what he knew - linguistics - instead of pretending he could save the world.

To the original poster:

About the only logical argument that capitalists can come up with in its favor is that it increases productivity and creates more goods. However, they fail to address how this happens and who benefits from this.

Productivity is increased simply because they set up a system which forces the majority to work long hours by the threat of potential starvation. They create a dog-eat-dog world where if you don't produce for THEM you will be out on the street and potentially die. They also suppress people from forming other options, such as cooperatives or even small business by creating an increasingly regressive tax structure which makes it more and more difficult for small business to survive. In addition they set up shop in direct competition with small business solely for the purpose of putting them out of business, such as in the case of Wal Mart who has the deep pockets needed to underprice smaller competitors.

They set up an electoral system which requires huge sums of capital to even run a candidate, so naturally the candidates who run are getting their capital from whom? The capitalists! And the policies they enact naturally benefit the wealthy who fund them. The cycle of capitalism is that they enact more and more policy in the favor of the wealthy bosses and society becomes more and more polarized until a revolution eventually takes place. Reforms are then enacted and people are happier for a while, until gradually the ruling classes are able to chip away at the economic structure making it back in favor of themselves, and then the whole thing starts all over again. This is the cycle of capitalism. Socialism seeks to break that cycle by creating an even playing field where wealth cannot be funneled back to a ruling class. Yes, it is true that former socialist governments have not been successful at this yet. But it is an absurd proposition to say that we should just throw our hands up and call it quits. We need to keep trying until we break the cycle.

This is inherent in capitalism across the board. They claim you are "free" to do as you please, and theoretically you are. The problem is that they have set up a system which makes it pretty much impossible to practice the freedom they claim to give you.

And while the majority toils away just living paycheck to paycheck, those at the top have the wealth to work if they choose or do basically what they want. Yes, capitalism brings freedom and wealth, but for who?

The main issue to be understood by middle and working class people is that it is not in the interest of capitalists to create a world where we don't have to worry about money. A 'good' capitalist system is where the majority of people are constantly living in fear of losing their homes, starving to death, or going bankrupt. This is the only way capitalism works. If we didn't worry about those things we wouldn't be producing enough for them to maintain their great wealth. THAT is their idea of a perfect system, and I say it is nothing more than wage slavery.

To the original poster, communists don't really argue for the benefits of communism, they only rail against the horrible injustice they see in the wealth inequities of capitalism.

<<<instead of pretending he could save the world.>>>

We know well your opinion about saving the world. You think we're all a bunch of corporate drones who live only for our own greed and willingly sell out our fellow humans for the few crumbs that are thrown from the top by the masters.

It's no wonder that someone with your worldview would hate it when Chomsky exposes the system for what it really is. You'd rather we all live with blinders in a "Matrix"-like capitalist fantasy land where resistance is futile.

<<<instead of pretending he could save the world.>>>

We know well your opinion about saving the world. You think we're all a bunch of corporate drones who live only for our own greed and willingly sell out our fellow humans for the few crumbs that are thrown from the top by the masters.

It's no wonder that someone with your worldview would hate it when Chomsky exposes the system for what it really is. You'd rather we all live with blinders in a "Matrix"-like capitalist fantasy land where resistance is futile.

Hardly.

About the only logical argument that capitalists can come up with in its favor is that it increases productivity and creates more goods.

That and it is a morally just system that allows the people the benefits of their own labor.

Productivity is increased simply because they set up a system which forces the majority to work long hours by the threat of potential starvation.

Productivity is increased because innovation and hard work are rewarded, not because laziness is punished. Every system will punish laziness.

Productivity is increased because the system finds economic efficiency within a free market.

They create a dog-eat-dog world where if you don't produce for THEM you will be out on the street and potentially die.

They create a systme where if you don't produce for SOCIETY, you will be out on the street and potentially die. The only way money is made is by providing utility for the consumer.

They also suppress people from forming other options, such as cooperatives or even small business by creating an increasingly regressive tax structure which makes it more and more difficult for small business to survive.

No true capitalist supports taxation. Taxation is a defeatist measure to protect those who will not protect themselves.

In addition they set up shop in direct competition with small business solely for the purpose of putting them out of business, such as in the case of Wal Mart who has the deep pockets needed to underprice smaller competitors.

Oh GOD! Stop the bastards before they lower prices any more! God help us if the consumer gets the lowest price possible.

This is inherent in capitalism across the board. They claim you are "free" to do as you please, and theoretically you are. The problem is that they have set up a system which makes it pretty much impossible to practice the freedom they claim to give you.

Survival is hard, it takes a lot of work, especially when surviving as comfortably as most of the western world survives.

That's the difference between capitalists and communists. You see greed as good and you see lack of it as being "mindless and soulless."

As a capitalist and in defence of capitalism I assume nothing about human nature. All I assume is that everyone has the right to conform to their human nature as they see fit. Capitalism allows for altruism and it allows for greed. There is nothing un-capitalistic about a rich businessman giving a portion of his wealth to someone less better of than him. The only thing which is un-capitalistic is when a government or a team of revolutionaries MAKE him give it.

Absolutely not. Capitalism is based on theft. It sets up a system in which only those who already have can prosper and funnels wealth to the top. It forces the majority into a form of wage slavery in which they must trade their time for a fraction of the wealth they produce. Socialism is simply the correction to this flaw in capitalism.

Theft is the taking of property without consent. Your political ideas aim to abolish property, while capitalism intends to maintain it. How can capitalism be theft?


Pure and utter rubbish. Human nature is to seek out the companionship of other humans and to work together for survival. Greed and sociopathic behavior is not our nature as you say, it is simply the reaction of people born into a system which pits us against each other in a fight for survival where most of the wealth is held by a small number of people.

Human nature isn't complete, heartless greed an neither is it total surrender to the will of other people. Humans band together out of mutual self-interest, a combination of fraternity and individualism.


Again pure rubbish. For one thing, the regimes you speak of were socialist, not communist. Why you can't seem to learn the difference is a mystery to me.

You acknowledge that socialism is the next step before communism. The crimes of socialism were commited as part of the quest for communism. Whether they were commited by communists or by those seeking it is of little consequence.


Again, a totally irrational argument. Any third grade history lesson shows that human society has changed radically over time. History is nothing but one revolution after another throwing out old ways of thinking in favor of new. You have presented absolutely no evidence that this stage is the end of human history.

Others may well be arguing a conservative stance, but here I agree with you. Human society is constantly evolving and changing. Modern capitalism is a very recent innovation which only really started to take shape with the advent of the industrial revolution. Just to say that human society is prone to radical replumbing is not to say that communism is the right way to replumb it, though.



Your problem is you live in a black and white world where you totally ignore the problems of capitalism and look at socialism as stagnant dogma instead of a living and developing movement to correct the flaws and injustices capitalism brings with it.

This coming from a man who asserts vigourously that communism is the ONLY way to prevent violence and criminality.

Human nature isn't complete, heartless greed an neither is it total surrender to the will of other people. Humans band together out of mutual self-interest, a combination of fraternity and individualism.

If it was human nature to have everyone cooperate unselfishly with everyone else, I would be having sex with every woman I felt like - she could hardly say no, because she would be completely unselfish. I, on the other hand, would be acting out of my biological need to procreate (I would also add that these women would willingly carry my children - not just have sex with me).

If it was human nature to have everyone cooperate unselfishly with everyone else, I would be having sex with every woman I felt like - she could hardly say no, because she would be completely unselfish. I, on the other hand, would be acting out of my biological need to procreate (I would also add that these women would willingly carry my children - not just have sex with me).

Did yoy read what I just posted? I was refuting radical collectivists like AS by saying that human nature ISN'T all selfless co-operation.

Did yoy read what I just posted? I was refuting radical collectivists like AS by saying that human nature ISN'T all selfless co-operation.
Yes, that's why I provided an example.

Theft is the taking of property without consent. Your political ideas aim to abolish property, while capitalism intends to maintain it. How can capitalism be theft?
When you "own" a beach, you are not exercising your natural right to property, you are denying it to just everybody else.

Human nature isn't complete, heartless greed an neither is it total surrender to the will of other people. Humans band together out of mutual self-interest, a combination of fraternity and individualism.Still this sense of self interest has evolved iduring human history. Owning slaves is no more something one would consider as possible. You can not declare yourself king of the land anymore without being laugh at. Society plays a big role in your sense of justice and self interest.

You acknowledge that socialism is the next step before communism. The crimes of socialism were commited as part of the quest for communism. Whether they were commited by communists or by those seeking it is of little consequence.

socialism is not a crime.

When you "own" a beach, you are not exercising your natural right to property, you are denying it to just everybody else.

So in your view, when a woman says she "owns" her body, she is not exercising her natural right to property, she is just denying her genitals to everybody else?

socialism is not a crime.

I assure you it is. Man is not, assert most assuredly, not born equal, now should we be considered equal, as the case of the sportsmen, the academic or the politician convey. That man is, to any extent comparableas an equal race is a mere fallacy perpertrated and advocated by those whose ambition was so far in excess of their capacity that the ensueing failure engendered a degree of bitterness the severity of which serves to expalin the inherent lunacy to socialism. Do we, the "civilised" world, consider it deplorable that one lion asserts his authority and territory over antother due to his physical attributes? I am compelled to answer myself, no, we do not. However, in the case of humanit, the socialist and communist assert such ownership and precedence to be a facade and transgression upon our natural equality, an equality that their irreligious state asserts, and yet the natural world they claim to personify contradicts.

<<<is a morally just system that allows the people the benefits of their own labor.>>>

Wrong, it pays people just enough to survive but sends the rest of the benefits of their labor to capitalist owner. And it sets up a system where most people have no other choice but to sell their labor in this system. A just system would allow the people the right to the entire fruit of their labor, not just a tiny fraction.


<<<Productivity is increased because innovation and hard work are rewarded>>>

Wrong again. Productivity is increased because people are kept under a constant state of fear of poverty. Take that away and productivity will decrease if the only motivation to work is for money. Under communism the motivation to work is because you want to, much like a person takes care of their yard, their hobbies or their children. There is no threat of poverty and no reward of money to compel them to do it. They simply do it because they choose to.


<<<They create a systme where if you don't produce for SOCIETY, you will be out on the street and potentially die.>>>

That statement is correct except you need to replace the word SOCIETY with CAPITALIST or OWNER. People slaving their lives away creating gizmos, gadgets and gizmos are not necessarily producing anything of value for society. They're just creating a artificial reasons for the capitalist system to continue. The ultimate problem with capitalism, aside from the moral question of the inequality it creates, is that technology is constantly eliminating the need for human labor. So capitalism has to justify itself by creating all kinds of silly jobs which have no benefit to society. This, btw, is also a flaw in Marxist theory as well. There simply is no need for humans to be working as much as they are now, but that's a secret the rulers want to keep hidden in order to keep us all "productive".


<<<No true capitalist supports taxation.>>>

Another myth. Capitalism is dependent on taxation, just as socialism is. It's necessary to correct the flaws in the market, bail out their corporations, fund armies to protect their assets, and to funnel the wealth upward. Capitalists claim to be against taxation, but what they mean is that they are against taxation on THEMSELVES. Communism is the only system which can work without taxation because it isn't based on a monetary system.


<<<God help us if the consumer gets the lowest price possible.>>>

This is another fundamental problem with capitalism. In the endless pursuit of more profits and in order to get the consumer the lowest prices possible, you end up destroying all competition and paying the consumer the lowest wages possible. In the end you get exactly what you claim will happen under socialism.

socialism is not a crime.

I didn't say it was. I was referring to the crimes commited by some socialist states in history and in the present.

Under communism the motivation to work is because you want to, much like a person takes care of their yard, their hobbies or their children. There is no threat of poverty and no reward of money to compel them to do it. They simply do it because they choose to.

Ha. Under communism the motivation to work is if you don't, the all-powerful state will hurt you for not contributing to the greater good. I know, I know, in TRUE communism there is no state. Well, I contend that in TRUE reality there is no communism, how about that...

People slaving their lives away creating gizmos, gadgets and gizmos are not necessarily producing anything of value for society. They're just creating a artificial reasons for the capitalist system to continue.

No, they are producing things of value for society because society places values on those things. Kind of like how you paid for that computer gizmo and the internet hookup gadget. You didn't buy those because you wanted to create an artificial reason for the system to continue. You bought them because you valued them.

The ultimate problem with capitalism, aside from the moral question of the inequality it creates, is that technology is constantly eliminating the need for human labor.

Is THAT the problem of capitalism? Not enough need for the proletariat? Gosh.

Capitalists claim to be against taxation, but what they mean is that they are against taxation on THEMSELVES. Communism is the only system which can work without taxation because it isn't based on a monetary system.

Capitalists are against the kind of unnecessarily high taxes that socialists and communists always seem to demand. And I'm not sure what you mean by communism can work without taxation... it doesn't appear to ever have worked, period. So sure, you can make up qualities about a mythical system, but I can too. For example, in TRUE capitalism, there don't need to be any taxes either because government doesn't bail out corporations and the market doesn't need to be corrected. See? I doubt it.

<<<Man is not, assert most assuredly, not born equal,>>>

The problem with this statement is that you are setting the standards by which we judge 'equal'. In the capitalist system we define equal by dollar amount, but that's an artificial construct.

When mankind was developing we may have needed such constructs to survive, but what we are saying is that this is no longer necessary. Communism seeks to turn this upside down and create a new paradigm which takes views judgments such as "this person is better than that one" as a totally subjective and personal view. It's only the structure of our economic system which gives the illusion that some people are more equal than others. From a humanist perspective, all people are equal regardless of the value society places on them.

<<<Under communism the motivation to work is if you don't, the all-powerful state will hurt you >>>


Wrong again. You obviously have not read the thread. Under pure communism there IS NO STATE, NO GOVERNMENT, NO POLICE, NO TAXES, NO MONEY, NO COUNTRIES. It is a worldwide system of cooperation between individuals. There is no all-powerful state to hurt you because there is no state. You are confusing communism with Soviet state capitalism.

You are confusing communism with Soviet state capitalism.

How the fuck did the Soviets have "state capitalism." A nationally-planned economy, where every industry was fully run by the government, is by no stretch of the imagination "capitalist."

How the fuck did the Soviets have "state capitalism." A nationally-planned economy, where every industry was fully run by the government, is by no stretch of the imagination "capitalist."

AS wants to believe that all these Communist revolutions and all the Communist nations are not Communist, so he can escape the bitter legacy of tens of millions of people slaughtered in a very short time. Can't have any bad PR, you know.

<<<Under communism the motivation to work is if you don't, the all-powerful state will hurt you >>>


Wrong again. You obviously have not read the thread. Under pure communism there IS NO STATE, NO GOVERNMENT, NO POLICE, NO TAXES, NO MONEY, NO COUNTRIES. It is a worldwide system of cooperation between individuals. There is no all-powerful state to hurt you because there is no state. You are confusing communism with Soviet state capitalism.

I know thats your party line. But you didn't, and I did not either, specify "pure" (unattainable, utopian) communism.

Soviet COMMUNISM was communism because it was run by people who (like yourself) claimed to be in favor of communism, and were part and party of the Communist Party. Calling it state capitalism is just a pathetic attempt to throw all the failings of communism as it has been attempted onto the shoulders of capitalism. "State capitalism" when used to describe what the Soviets had is at best an oxymoron and at worst an example of your own hypocritical denial of history.

AS wants to believe that all these Communist revolutions and all the Communist nations are not Communist, so he can escape the bitter legacy of tens of millions of people slaughtered in a very short time. Can't have any bad PR, you know.

Exactly.

<<<Not enough need for the proletariat?>>>

So what do YOU propose? Starve them to death? It's very clear that capitalism easily devolves into fascism.

My form of communism looks toward the next step past the proletariat - bourgeoise divide. It's really closer to libertarianism and anarchism instead of orthodox Marxism. I simply think we need to set up a system where NO ONE has authority over anyone else, with the exception of parents over children. We aren't ready for this type of society yet, as is quite obvious reading the views of many on this thread, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards it and plan for a better society sometime in the future.

<<<AS wants to believe that all these Communist revolutions and all the Communist nations are not Communist, so he can escape the bitter legacy of tens of millions of people slaughtered in a very short time. Can't have any bad PR, you know.>>>

Capitalism set up the situations for these killings to take place. As long as there is inequality and an unfair system people are going to get killed. That's just the way it is. To blame communism, a system which seeks to end all armies, all rulers, all exploitation and violence, for these things is illogical and demagoguery.

So in your view, when a woman says she "owns" her body, she is not exercising her natural right to property, she is just denying her genitals to everybody else?
Well duuuuh. The natural rights to which all men are entitled include water, food, shelter, and pussy. If the government does not provide equal access to women's genitals, then the government is oppressing the working man.

<<<Not enough need for the proletariat?>>>

So what do YOU propose? Starve them to death? It's very clear that capitalism easily devolves into fascism.

My form of communism looks toward the next step past the proletariat - bourgeoise divide. It's really closer to libertarianism and anarchism instead of orthodox Marxism. I simply think we need to set up a system where NO ONE has authority over anyone else, with the exception of parents over children. We aren't ready for this type of society yet, as is quite obvious reading the views of many on this thread, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards it and plan for a better society sometime in the future.

Capitalism does not "devolve" into fascism. Fascism and capitalism are polar opposites. Under fascism, there is a myriad of wage controls, price controls, rations, merging of state and corporate power (whereas in true capitalism, the economy is free of government of intervention, with no corporate welfare, no business regulations, etc.), etc.

The problem with this statement is that you are setting the standards by which we judge 'equal'. In the capitalist system we define equal by dollar amount, but that's an artificial construct.

What a load of malarkey.

Without any consideration of money or economics, there are some ways in which some people are better than others. If I need to eat, and someone offers to cook a meal for me (in your utopian society, people would be offering to help each other all the time), whose meal would I rather eat - someone who knew how to cook, or someone who was an idiot at the stove?

Is there something women can do that men cannot? Can a man carry a child inside for 9 months without major surgical modification? Can he bring the fetus to term in his own body? Where's the money involved there? Sounds like biology to me.

If we're playing around in a field, and I say, "Let's race to the other side of the field for fun," is there any reason why the better runner would not more consistently win?

Well duuuuh. The natural rights to which all men are entitled include water, food, shelter, and pussy. If the government does not provide equal access to women's genitals, then the government is oppressing the working man.

Bottle, do you think that AS watches too much of The Man Show?

So in your view, when a woman says she "owns" her body, she is not exercising her natural right to property, she is just denying her genitals to everybody else?No that is not what I said. I talked about a beach. A popular misconseption which is adressed in the manifesto. You confuse possessions with property. A body has an individual nature, like pants or tooth brushes. A factory has a social nature, so is a beach and so are oil fields.

It's very clear that capitalism easily devolves into fascism.

You're forgetting that the whole of the capitalist world fought hard at great cost to destroy the skirge of fascism in the Second World War. Millions of brave men from capitalist nations lost their lives at the hands of fascists. Now, if capitalism and facism are so compatible, why did the USA, Great Britain, the other allied European powers and Australia not just throw out the welcome mat for Hitler, Mussolini and their vile companions? Fascism and capitalism are political opposites.


My form of communism looks toward the next step past the proletariat - bourgeoise divide. It's really closer to libertarianism and anarchism instead of orthodox Marxism. I simply think we need to set up a system where NO ONE has authority over anyone else, with the exception of parents over children. We aren't ready for this type of society yet, as is quite obvious reading the views of many on this thread, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards it and plan for a better society sometime in the future.

As a proper libertarian, I also want a society where nobody has power over anybody else, except to prevent theft, fraud and assault. In your utopia, society has the right to thieve.

<<<Not enough need for the proletariat?>>>

So what do YOU propose? Starve them to death? It's very clear that capitalism easily devolves into fascism.

Wait, so you're saying it must be either: need for human labor, or starve humans to death? I smell a false dichotomy.

It's not clear at all that "capitalism easily devolves into fascism." I would say that pretty much any system easily devolves into fascism, but I bet you would define fascism differently than I would to begin with.


My form of communism looks toward the next step past the proletariat - bourgeoise divide. It's really closer to libertarianism and anarchism instead of orthodox Marxism. I simply think we need to set up a system where NO ONE has authority over anyone else, with the exception of parents over children. We aren't ready for this type of society yet,

Which is exactly why we SHOULDN'T strive towards it. Planning for a system which requires *ALL OF HUMANITY* to change it's very nature is a bit like planning for Christopher Reeves (post accident, pre-death) to run in the Olympics.

Capitalism does not "devolve" into fascism. Fascism and capitalism are polar opposites. Under fascism, there is a myriad of wage controls, price controls, rations, merging of state and corporate power (whereas in true capitalism, the economy is free of government of intervention, with no corporate welfare, no business regulations, etc.), etc.

HMmMMM Odd really that capitalists expect us to believe in TRUE capitalism and are pigheadedly ignorant and RAWR!!! to us when we say True communism "No it isnt! you lie you just dont want bad press! Waaah" trip em with there own wire. Either Take back one statement or the other capitalist pigdog

HMmMMM Odd really that capitalists expect us to believe in TRUE capitalism and are pigheadedly ignorant and RAWR!!! to us when we say True communism "No it isnt! you lie you just dont want bad press! Waaah" trip em with there own wire. Either Take back one statement or the other capitalist pigdog

I'm pretty sure that's a flame. If you're going to flame me, please learn how to use proper grammar first.

<<<How can capitalism be theft?>>>

Current capitalist wealth was built on slavery, occupation, colonialization, and force. They have set up a system which perpetuates itself and keeps the powerful in wealth and the vast majority at subsistence level.


<<<If we're playing around in a field, and I say, "Let's race to the other side of the field for fun," is there any reason why the better runner would not more consistently win?>>>

You are basing inherent worth on external skills. What I'm saying is that all people are equal regardless of their skills or ability.


<<<Capitalism does not "devolve" into fascism.>>>

Capitalism has a long history of devolving into fascism. The current U.S. is a perfect example of this. By its very nature capitalism is dependent on economic growth and will trample over any individual or any country in order to attain it. This was the exact problem with the USSR. They bought into this economic growth need and in doing so created a totalitarian state. Their problem was that they didn't move to the Left, they moved to the Right.

<<<Soviet COMMUNISM was communism because it was run by people who (l>>>>

Communism means NO STATE, so your argument holds no validity. The beginning of the USSR saw a peasant backward country turn into the world's greatest superpower. It was only when they turned back to capitalism they saw failure. And look at them now. They bought into the myth of the free market and it has been a total disaster. The truth about free market capitalism is that it only benefits SOME people and SOME nations. Others have to be at the bottom. That's why capitalism will never be an acceptable system. It is inherently unfair.

I assure you it is. Man is not, assert most assuredly, not born equal, now should we be considered equal, as the case of the sportsmen, the academic or the politician convey. That man is, to any extent comparableas an equal race is a mere fallacy perpertrated and advocated by those whose ambition was so far in excess of their capacity that the ensueing failure engendered a degree of bitterness the severity of which serves to expalin the inherent lunacy to socialism. Do we, the "civilised" world, consider it deplorable that one lion asserts his authority and territory over antother due to his physical attributes? I am compelled to answer myself, no, we do not. However, in the case of humanit, the socialist and communist assert such ownership and precedence to be a facade and transgression upon our natural equality, an equality that their irreligious state asserts, and yet the natural world they claim to personify contradicts.
What you say is natural is only natural in your own system. Kings were natural during the feodal stages and yet they vanished. Private property is natural today. Whatabout tomorrow? The natural world we claim to personify is not past or present, it is the future.

Well duuuuh. The natural rights to which all men are entitled include water, food, shelter, and pussy. If the government does not provide equal access to women's genitals, then the government is oppressing the working man.
Beautiful, and sigworthy. ;) :D

<<<HMmMMM Odd really that capitalists expect us to believe in TRUE capitalism and are pigheadedly ignorant and RAWR!!! to us when we say True communism "No it isnt! >>>

Exactly. Their arguments have been ripped to shreds and slither back under rocks when the light of reason is shined upon them.

What it all boils down to is that they see themselves as "haves" and don't want to share. So they'll make up any lie, use any type of red baiting, set up emotion-based illogical arguments - anything but admit the truth. Of all of them, only dogburg makes an argument which even comes close to being somewhat reasonable. The rest of them are pure knee-jerk reactionaries.

I think i could cope with Capitalism under the following conditions.
100% Inheritance tax.
Abundance of all materials in ALL nations.

Well duuuuh. The natural rights to which all men are entitled include water, food, shelter, and pussy. If the government does not provide equal access to women's genitals, then the government is oppressing the working man.
Perhaps forced prostitution is a better alternative to socialism?

Beautiful, and sigworthy. ;) :D
Hmm, but I forgot to add the part about how women (like food, water, and other inanimate resources) are communal property to be distributed by (male) governments. Somebody reading my original post might be mistakenly lead to believe that it could work in the reciprocal direction, with women being somehow entitled to male genitals. And that would be downright silly.

Perhaps forced prostitution is a better alternative to socialism?
Well, if it's to each according to his need, from each according to her ability, the women in a truly Communist society are going to spend a lot of time in forced sex - not prostitution, since the men won't be paying for it.