NationStates Jolt Archive

Perhaps forced prostitution is a better alternative to socialism?
Well, from what Communists tell me, their system is basically forced prostitution already, except for the part where I would get paid. They tell me that other people are entitled to my money, my property, and my labors. It's not much of a leap for them to tell me that men are entitled to my genitals, since they've already co-opted the rest of my body for their personal use.

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.


The United States has never been a fascist nation. As for the USSR, they fitted the bill a lot better, yes.


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.

Only when it turned back to capitalism it saw failure? I assume you're referring to the NEP of 1921, which was required BECAUSE the country was facing economic failure and social crisis. The NEP was the only thing which let the USSR survive the 1920s.

And thats a bad thing ;p Hey it wouldnt be JUST the women. The men too

Well, from what Communists tell me, their system is basically forced prostitution already...they expect me to do work I don't want to do in order to support people who think they're entitled to benefit from my efforts. It's not much of a leap for them to tell me that men are entitled to benefit from my genitals against my wishes.

It's not prostitution since they won't be paying for it - there won't be money in a pure Communist system.

What it all boils down to is that they see themselves as "haves" and don't want to share.

So forcing us at gun-point to share is the solution? Nice. :rolleyes:

Why don't all the communists just pack up, go to a place with no civilization (ideally, somewhere like Antarctica), set up their classless, stateless, utopia, and leave the rest of us alone? Wouldn't that make everyone happy?

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'm very honored that you see me as the only non-red with a clue, but Disreliland, Bottle and all the others have a point too, even if mine is the only one you personally can construe as reasonable.

It's not prostitution since they won't be paying for it - there won't be money in a pure Communist system.
Yeah, I editted my post when I realized that.

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.
Whatever we have to do to help the oppressed female proletariate, I'll be there with tool-in-hand, ready to help my fellow (wo)man. :D

The United States has never been a fascist nation. As for the USSR, they fitted the bill a lot better, yes.



Only when it turned back to capitalism it saw failure? I assume you're referring to the NEP of 1921, which was required BECAUSE the country was facing economic failure and social crisis. The NEP was the only thing which let the USSR survive the 1920s.

Yes US isnt fascist. Of course. They just have the most right wing government in Europe and America. And an idiot who rigs elections for president, and declares war on random countries, and discriminates against gay people.
AS aversed to a Maniac who discriminates against people, rigs elections, declares war and is very right wing. Yup. Very different

Disraeliland did a good job of going over every one of Marx's ten commandments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax

-Seizure of salary removes incentive to work, obviously.

3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance

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

4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

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

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

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

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

-Monopolies are always destructive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-See "Great Leap Forward" in communist China.

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

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

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

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

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

Well, from what Communists tell me, their system is basically forced prostitution already, except for the part where I would get paid. They tell me that other people are entitled to my money, my property, and my labors. It's not much of a leap for them to tell me that men are entitled to my genitals, since they've already co-opted the rest of my body for their personal use.
That's really silly. This point is adressed in the manifesto. Have you read it? You don't seem to understand what is property. A body is not a property. Your post is ridiculous. How much would you take for a blowjob BTW?

<<<The United States has never been a fascist nation.>>>

Many people believe we are in fascism in the USA right now. In fact, most people I know think that, and it isn't just something communists are saying.

Staged elections, extreme patriotism, marriage of corporation and state, rigid authoritarianism, abuse of human and civil rights (abu ghraib, guantanomo, patriot act), militarism, drum-beating of necessity for war, fear of foreginers, anti-semitism (arabs are semitic), use of religion to control people, attacks against the Left.

There's a definite case that we are now living under fascism. All the signs are there.

And again:

Yet another idiot who thinks people should be forced into communist ways, and promotes communism by divorcing it from reality. Every political system claims that by following it, people will have the best future possible, a perfect society.

Why should communism by judged by this intention, while other systems are judged on results?

You judge communism by the nirvana Marx claimed it would bring, but when judging National Socialism, I'll bet you point to Auschwitz, rather than the perfect racial order Hitler claimed National Socialism would bring.

All political systems should be judged on results, including communism with its record of over 100 million corpses, famine, wars, terror, repression, and economic ruin whereever it is tried. Claiming it is not communism is fallacious, for reasons I outlined earlier (and no one has seriously contested).

Communism has no moral basis. There can be no moral basis in removing all rights to property, free expression, and freedom of movement (all required by communism)

Communism doesn't make everyone truely equal, and even if it did, it would have no moral basis. There is no moral basis is forcing equality on people who are all different. People who are different are by definition not equal, each is superior in some areas, inferior in others.

In fact, an individual person is not equal with himself at different times.

Forcing equality on people who are in fact different, and therefore not equal cannot have a moral basis, especially when those inequalities are not inheriently harmful.

Communism is a horrible idea, for the reasons I outlined previously in the thread. The only way communism can be attempted is by removing all freedoms.

Communist regimes must exist in isolation from free capitalist nations, because the best and brightest in the communist society will go to a free capitalist nation where their talents are respected. If they can't go, discontent with the communists will grow. East Germany is the most obvious example of the communist's need for repression. While East Germany banned emigration to West Germany and enforced that ban with the Berlin Wall, East Germany survived for over 40 years. Without the wall, East Germany collapsed in months.

The only way to force equality on everyone is to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator. You certainly can't force people to improve, they must do that themselves for their own reasons.

Explain this: why should I live in a society in which I am no better than an idle drunk, or a criminal, as you suggest I should? Why should I not aspire to be the best I can be instead of submitting to medeocrity?

Where is the moral basis in reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator? How can society benefit from this? Why would the individual benefit from this? Where is the inherient virtue in equality, as opposed to each aspiring to be the best he can be?

And thats a bad thing ;p Hey it wouldnt be JUST the women. The men too

I think that we would all take turns in the "barrel".

This guy decides to move to AS's ideal Communist paradise. On his first day, he gets aquainted with all the facilities around the town he will be living in. The guy asks AS showing him around, "What do you guys do around here when you get really horny?", to which AS replies, "Well, there is this barrel in the town square for communal use, just insert your genitals in the side with the hole."

Weeks pass, and the new guy is getting real horny and remembers the barrel. He goes to the town square and sees the barrel. Soon, he is copulating with the barrel. Its simply the best feeling he had ever experienced, it was truly a success!

After he was done, zipped up and merrily walking along, he tells AS, "That barrel really was great! I could do it every day!"

To which AS replies, "Yeah, you can every day except Thursday." Confused, the new guy asks why, to which AS replies, "Because its your turn in the barrel on Thursday."

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.
Hmm. I don't really see myself as a "have," because defining myself that way seems silly. Yes, there are things that I "have" that I do not wish to share with every shmuck who asks (my Playstation, my groceries, my vagina...), but I don't think that makes me a selfish jerk.

Indeed, in my experience the only people who have called me selfish are people who are themselves making selfish demands that I am refusing to cave to. They want me to give up my weekend working on a project that THEY failed to complete on time. They want me to donate my body to fight the war THEY support. They want me to give the money I earn to support the family THEY made. And if I don't want to give in to their selfish demands, if I don't want to pay for their mistakes, if I don't want to spend my time cleaning up their messes, well, then I'm a selfish bitch.

If it's "knee-jerk reactionism" to say, "No, you may not take my stuff whenever it pleases you," then so be it. If I'm a meaniehead for wanting to keep what I earn, then I'm more than willing to bear the label. It really doesn't even bother me to be called names for being assertive.

Maybe it's because I'm a girl, and I've learnt to deal with being called "frigid," "dyke," and many other less charming names whenever I deny use of my body to a male with a healthy sense of entitlement. As a female, I've spent my whole post-pubescent life dealing with those who feel they own my body and have the right to tell me how to act, work, play, and think. Communists use some different lines, sure, and they wrap the whole thing up in some befuddled double-talk about "equality," but it's all basically the same stuff I hear from the guys in the bar who think I'm obligated to distribute my pussy to anybody who needs it.

<<<The United States has never been a fascist nation.>>>

Many people believe we are in fascism in the USA right now. In fact, most people I know think that, and it isn't just something communists are saying.

Staged elections, extreme patriotism, marriage of corporation and state, rigid authoritarianism, abuse of human and civil rights (abu ghraib, guantanomo, patriot act), militarism, drum-beating of necessity for war, fear of foreginers, anti-semitism (arabs are semitic), use of religion to control people, attacks against the Left.

There's a definite case that we are now living under fascism. All the signs are there.

S'what i said

I think that we would all take turns in the "barrel".

This guy decides to move to AS's ideal Communist paradise. On his first day, he gets aquainted with all the facilities around the town he will be living in. The guy asks AS showing him around, "What do you guys do around here when you get really horny?", to which AS replies, "Well, there is this barrel in the town square for communal use, just insert your genitals in the side with the hole."

Weeks pass, and the new guy is getting real horny and remembers the barrel. He goes to the town square and sees the barrel. Soon, he is copulating with the barrel. Its simply the best feeling he had ever experienced, it was truly a success!

After he was done, zipped up and merrily walking along, he tells AS, "That barrel really was great! I could do it every day!"

To which AS replies, "Yeah, you can every day except Thursday." Confused, the new guy asks why, to which AS replies, "Because its your turn in the barrel on Thursday."

As i say, is that a BAD thing ;p

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.

And yet, in alluding to the natural world in regrds to the animal, I allude to an omni-present, unmutable state of affairs not subject to the fluctuation in human society.

Incidentally, I would accept the rule of a monarch, heriditary or not, unquestionably, and would advocate it in precedece to the inherently inefficient and mediocre democracy currently utilised.

Furthermore, have monarchs and kings truly vanished? Do we not cavort under the rule of the high born in place of the consumate, as Bush portrays? Do we not accept the precedence of the sportsman over his peers due to talent?

Yes US isnt fascist. Of course. They just have the most right wing government in Europe and America. And an idiot who rigs elections for president, and declares war on random countries, and discriminates against gay people.
AS aversed to a Maniac who discriminates against people, rigs elections, declares war and is very right wing. Yup. Very different

Right wing doesn't imply fascist. Right and left don't mean anything anymore. Is a liberal left wing? What about a classic liberal? A classic liberal is right wing, but so is a conservative. It's all semantics.

As for election rigging, that's dubious at best. There's no proof or disproof. Militarism isn't exclusively fascist, and the USA doesn't discriminate against gays as far as I know.

Given that the USA lent us a hand in WWII when they didn't even have to, and decided to do some fascist bashing pretty much for the hell of it, I don't feel they're really a typical fascist nation.

That's really silly. This point is adressed in the manifesto. Have you read it? You don't seem to understand what is property. A body is not a property. Your post is ridiculous.

Tsk tsk, Psylos. You're better than this. Grow a sense of humor.


How much would you take for a blowjob BTW?
Oh no, he's accusing me of being a whore! That'll teach me to be all uppity! Women who talk about sex are all whores, and now--by asserting my right to control my own body and labors--I have thrown in my lot with those scarlet-letter-emblazoned hussies! Oh, woe is me! I am woe!

Communism requires everyone to work with no individual benifit. So how would a communistic utopia deal with those who are capable of working but refuse to?

Barrell joke

You are a comic god.

Marx failed to explain why an all-powerful state, led by men with total power over all the people, would simply go away at a particular moment.
This is the part of communist philosophy that I find absolutely hillarious.
I have yet to hear a single explaination as to how this would work in the real world, and it's always the number one question I ask that gets "glossed over" on this forum. Could somebody put their capital (or lack thereof) where their mouth is for once, and step up to plate on this valid question?

Right wing doesn't imply fascist. Right and left don't mean anything anymore. Is a liberal left wing? What about a classic liberal? A classic liberal is right wing, but so is a conservative. It's all semantics.

As for election rigging, that's dubious at best. There's no proof or disproof. Militarism isn't exclusively fascist, and the USA doesn't discriminate against gays as far as I know.

Given that the USA lent us a hand in WWII when they didn't even have to, and decided to do some fascist bashing pretty much for the hell of it, I don't feel they're really a typical fascist nation.
Are you REALLY that silly? Duuhhh the americans didnt need too. THEY made a profit out of the War. That makes em as bad as the NAzi-Germans. Maybe MORE cos the Nazi-Germans thought they were right, the americans must've known that was wrong. PLUS they were attacked at pearl harbour and so decided to get off there butts and do something. THATS why they entered the war

This is the part of communist philosophy that I find absolutely hillarious.
I have yet to hear a single explaination as to how this would work in the real world, and it's always the number one question I ask that gets "glossed over" on this forum. Could somebody put their capital (or lack thereof) where their mouth is for once, and step up to plate on this valid question?

It works in tribes. Silly ;p PLUS it will work eventually when people with pigheadd capitalist ideologies Die out. Which they will do ;) i mean to speed up the process a little ;p

<<<by definition not equal, each is superior in some areas, inferior in others.In fact, an individual person is not equal with himself at different times.Forcing equality on people who are in fact different, >>>

You are confusing sameness with equality. And who are you to decide which abilities are more valuable than others? People place value on different things. It's entirely arbitrary, so any monetary value you set up giving more wealth to some people is completely an artificial construct. And the hypocrisy of it all is oftentimes the wealthiest people in society are the LEAST PRODUCTIVE. This is what happens when a leisure class develops living off of inheritance. Capitalists don't like to talk about that though.

People are catching on. There will be setbacks, but in the long run we come closer and closer to a better understanding of fairness.

Human history is nothing but one long march toward Communism!

It works in tribes. Silly ;p PLUS it will work eventually when people with pigheadd capitalist ideologies Die out. Which they will do ;) i mean to speed up the process a little ;p

So you are advocating a return to tribal societies?

This is the part of communist philosophy that I find absolutely hillarious.
I have yet to hear a single explaination as to how this would work in the real world, and it's always the number one question I ask that gets "glossed over" on this forum. Could somebody put their capital (or lack thereof) where their mouth is for once, and step up to plate on this valid question?

To explain, as the fractious remnants of the central comittee of 1917 portray, the leadership necessitated by communism is flawed, since it requires the human to be bereft of self interest, self aggrandisement and self propogation, a state no human can be.

Moroever, Marx's theory (one uses the term only in lieu of a lack of any more dergatory term) is reliant upon philanthropy amongst the bourgeoise, in the dictatorship of the proletariat, who are inevitably disaffected middle class intellectuals and the adherence of all to its system, yet refutes it in the repression of the proletariat by the bourgeise.

An intellectual trend? I think not, more a rallying post for all those who deem themselves aggreived in capitalism, whether by chance or incompetance.

Are you REALLY that silly? Duuhhh the americans didnt need too. THEY made a profit out of the War. That makes em as bad as the NAzi-Germans. Maybe MORE cos the Nazi-Germans thought they were right, the americans must've known that was wrong. PLUS they were attacked at pearl harbour and so decided to get off there butts and do something. THATS why they entered the war

The 1940's Americans were worse that the Nazis. Riighht.

Warcrime breakdown of WWII.

Nazi Germany:
Millions of Jews, Gypsies, gays and polticial opposition members robbed, made slaves and summarily executed.
Reoccupation of the Rhineland
Invasion of Czechoslovakia
Invasion of Poland
Anschluss of Austria
Invasion of France
Attempted Invasion of Great Britain
Attempted Invasion of the USSR

America:
Several thousand Germans killed.
Made some money.

Yup, the figures add up! America is Number One War Criminal of all time!

It works in tribes. Silly ;p PLUS it will work eventually when people with pigheadd capitalist ideologies Die out. Which they will do ;) i mean to speed up the process a little ;p
Is this really the best answer you've got? Could somebody else tackle the question while remaining in the real world, please?

Human history is nothing but one long march toward Communism!

Reading such bilge makes our dear friend Adolf seem positively rational.

Yeh and after the march, one big firing range for all the capitalists :)

THEORY OF POLITICAL EVOLUTION! rawr.

Capitalist-Capitalist Marriage.
Offspring Capitalist 99% of time.

Capitalist-Socialist Marriage.
Offspring Socialist most of time.

Socialist-Socialist
Offspring Socialist 99% of time

PLUS the fact that capitalists are normally hesistant to do anything in case there stocks go down means that socialists have time to get guns and... well you can guess

PLUS it will work eventually when people with pigheadd capitalist ideologies Die out. Which they will do ;) i mean to speed up the process a little ;p

Good luck - You'll need it.

The 1940's Americans were worse that the Nazis. Riighht.

Warcrime breakdown of WWII.

Nazi Germany:
Millions of Jews, Gypsies, gays and polticial opposition members robbed, made slaves and summarily executed.
Reoccupation of the Rhineland
Invasion of Czechoslovakia
Invasion of Poland
Anschluss of Austria
Invasion of France
Attempted Invasion of Great Britain
Attempted Invasion of the USSR

America:
Several thousand Germans killed.
Made some money.

Yup, the figures add up! America is Number One War Criminal of all time!Buy making money they endorsed the German way :) simple enough. PLUS they made britain pay back war debts.

And who are you to decide which abilities are more valuable than others? People place value on different things. It's entirely arbitrary, so any monetary value you set up giving more wealth to some people is completely an artificial construct. And the hypocrisy of it all is oftentimes the wealthiest people in society are the LEAST PRODUCTIVE. This is what happens when a leisure class develops living off of inheritance. Capitalists don't like to talk about that though.

You seem to contradict yourself in this paragraph. Maybe I'm missing something.

On the one hand, you say that value is subjective (which I totally agree with), and that monetary value is arbitrarily assigned based on demand (more or less). However, at the same time you insist that "the wealthiest people in society are the LEAST PRODUCTIVE." How can you say that, when value is subjective?

What if I feel that a wealthy person sitting around being wealthy is producing more than a janitor wiping up the floors for minimum wage?* What if I feel that they produce more, through their begrudging tax contributions and tax-exempt piddling charity donations? What if I feel they contribute more by aristocratically employing underpaid workers and propogating the ludicrous SUV culture that steeps our lives? Why should your system of value be regarded as superior to my system of value? Why should your set of ideals be applied to "equalize" our society, and not mine?


*Please note for the record that I'm NOT SAYING I REALLY BELIEVE THIS. I'm just pointing out what appears to be a logical flaw in your post.

<<<I have yet to hear a single explaination as to how this would work in the real world, and it's always the number one question I ask that gets "glossed over" on this forum. Could somebody put their capital (or lack thereof) where their mouth is for once, and step up to plate on this valid question?>>>

It's already happening in eco-villages and intentional communities across the planet as experiments in how to make communism work. Also, people are learning consensus decision making, still in its infancy, but it will eventually replace winner takes all 'democracy'. And the Hutterites have been practicing communism for centuries and quite succesfully. Reaching world communism is no easy task. It's something that takes hundreds of years, maybe thousands. It's not something that can happen overnight or be forced on the world with a gun. It's a process of humanity learning and growing over time. That was the mistake of early communists, they thought they could force it to happen. It's not like that. It's a very slow process.

Yeh and after the march, one big firing range for all the capitalists :)

Yay, peaceful fraternity for everyone. Oh.


PLUS the fact that capitalists are normally hesistant to do anything in case there stocks go down means that socialists have time to get guns and... well you can guess

Children and the mentally ill are not allowed to buy guns. From your posts I get the feeling you fall into both categories.

PLUS it will work eventually when people with pigheadd capitalist ideologies Die out. Which they will do ;) i mean to speed up the process a little ;p
I'm not trying to be bossy here, but saying this kind of thing is not going to help matters at all. If anything, it will slow down any "progress" toward your ideals, because people have this funny thing about not liking to have their lives threatened, even if it is done obliquely.

The 1940's Americans were worse that the Nazis. Riighht.

Warcrime breakdown of WWII.

Nazi Germany:
Millions of Jews, Gypsies, gays and polticial opposition members robbed, made slaves and summarily executed.
Reoccupation of the Rhineland
Invasion of Czechoslovakia
Invasion of Poland
Anschluss of Austria
Invasion of France
Attempted Invasion of Great Britain
Attempted Invasion of the USSR

America:
Several thousand Germans killed.
Made some money.

Yup, the figures add up! America is Number One War Criminal of all time!

Dear lord, you are aware that both proportionally and numerically communism has engendered moe deaths than fascism, enacted more pogroms, committed more atrocities, and invaded more states? And yet fascism is deplored as evil, while communism's transgressions are left be in the face of nigh on a century of repression and frankly maleficient political tripe. Are we, in the "modern, objective society", truly objective, or fettered by the perceptionr s imposed upon us by the victors?

<<<What if I feel that a wealthy person sitting around being wealthy is producing more than a janitor wiping up the floors for minimum wage?* What if I feel that they produce more, through their begrudging tax contributions and tax-exempt piddling charity donations? What if I feel they contribute more by aristocratically employing underpaid workers and propogating the ludicrous SUV culture that steeps our lives?>>>

Your still basing your assumptions of value on the values of capitalism. I'm for shedding all value judgments, but we can only do that when there is an even playing field, not before.

[QUOTE=
. That was the mistake of early communists, they thought they could force it to happen. It's not like that. It's a very slow process.[/QUOTE]

Egad a Conservative-COmmie! i though you guys were all gone! naah what we need is a Revolutionary, to speed things up.

You see a *(Insert favourite item here)* across a muddy slope.
VERY muddy.
You can either go throug hthe slope, or walk round for a couple of hours till you come to the bridge.

I choose slope every time.

Now replace *insert favourite thing* with Communism, a mudd slope with a Revolution and you'll see my point

Buy making money they endorsed the German way :) simple enough. PLUS they made britain pay back war debts.

Right. The German way of selling arms to Germany's enemies.

And as a proud Brit I can tell you honouring our debts was the least we could have done. The USA saved us from total destruction at the hands of Hitler and Mussolini.

<<<What if I feel that a wealthy person sitting around being wealthy is producing more than a janitor wiping up the floors for minimum wage?* What if I feel that they produce more, through their begrudging tax contributions and tax-exempt piddling charity donations? What if I feel they contribute more by aristocratically employing underpaid workers and propogating the ludicrous SUV culture that steeps our lives?>>>

Your still basing your assumptions of value on the values of capitalism. I'm for shedding all value judgments, but we can only do that when there is an even playing field, not before.

even playing field = discriminatory against all those above the average

elevate and lower all to the same level, and you do an injustice to those whom have worked, and whose descendants reap the rewards

Dear lord, you are aware that both proportionally and numerically communism has engendered moe deaths than fascism, enacted more pogroms, committed more atrocities, and invaded more states? And yet fascism is deplored as evil, while communism's transgressions are left be in the face of nigh on a century of repression and frankly maleficient political tripe. Are we, in the "modern, objective society", truly objective, or fettered by the perceptionr s imposed upon us by the victors?

Relax. I know that the USSR was a far worse regime than the Third Reich. The post I was responding to specifically accused the USA of the 40's of being worse than Nazi Germany, so I was addressing that.

And as Another Brit, I can tell you the americans came in years late and stole the glory! we wouldve won eventually. A. Hitler had throat cancer.
B. Germany was collapsing BEFORE america interrupted.
C. Russia was getting tired of toying with the german soldiers.
D. MASS revolutions like the polish revolution BEFORE america joined!

<<<even playing field = discriminatory against all those above the average>>>

Pure demagoguery. You are making a judgment as to what is "average" based on your opinion or some artificial construct.

Now replace *insert favourite thing* with Communism, a mudd slope with a Revolution and you'll see my point

Yeah - the mud slope is called State Socialism, and everyone drowns in the mud.

Relax. I know that the USSR was a far worse regime than the Third Reich. The post I was responding to specifically accused the USA of the 40's of being worse than Nazi Germany, so I was addressing that.

The USSR still has supporters to this day and can be argued as a noble thing!
The Nazi-Germany Regime has Near none! and would be LYNCHED if they came out! THAT shows that people think Hitler was worse than Stalin.
Stalin had Ideology on his side!
Hitler just used a Scapegoat Jewish problem!
Stalin invaded countries to impose the Right way upon them.
Hitler invaded to Kill people and expand his empire
Stalin Had a big bushy moustache!
Hitler had a square one ;p

<<<I have yet to hear a single explaination as to how this would work in the real world, and it's always the number one question I ask that gets "glossed over" on this forum. Could somebody put their capital (or lack thereof) where their mouth is for once, and step up to plate on this valid question?>>>

It's already happening in eco-villages and intentional communities across the planet as experiments in how to make communism work. Also, people are learning consensus decision making, still in its infancy, but it will eventually replace winner takes all 'democracy'. And the Hutterites have been practicing communism for centuries and quite succesfully. Reaching world communism is no easy task. It's something that takes hundreds of years, maybe thousands. It's not something that can happen overnight or be forced on the world with a gun. It's a process of humanity learning and growing over time. That was the mistake of early communists, they thought they could force it to happen. It's not like that. It's a very slow process.

Okay, just glad to hear someone say that communism isn't going to happen for many, many, many generations. That's why I think arguing for it is a bit like arguing for light-speed travel today.
By that time, I do see communism as a definite possibility. I'm a believer that something like communism will be the preferred political model once we have the technology capable of freeing humanity from work. That technology would need to be readily available to everyone, and it would need to be self-replicating (so that humans wouldn't be exploited by working to produce worker-robots for other people). Until we get there, though, communism doesn't seem worthy of much more than a far-futuristic novelty.

And as Another Brit, I can tell you the americans came in years late and stole the glory! we wouldve won eventually. A. Hitler had throat cancer.
B. Germany was collapsing BEFORE america interrupted.
C. Russia was getting tired of toying with the german soldiers.
D. MASS revolutions like the polish revolution BEFORE america joined!

Operation Sea lion, the planned invasion of Britain, was a high priority on Hitler's agenda before the intervention of the USA. Britain stood almost alone on the Wesern Front, and the constant battle for air and sea superiority was crippling us. A couple more years of German bombing would have finished us easily.

And as Another Brit, I can tell you the americans came in years late and stole the glory! we wouldve won eventually. A. Hitler had throat cancer.
B. Germany was collapsing BEFORE america interrupted.
C. Russia was getting tired of toying with the german soldiers.
D. MASS revolutions like the polish revolution BEFORE america joined!

A. I cannot answer that, however, given the absence of an autopsy, that is conjecture at best.
B. Indeed not, Germany was expanding throughout Russia, yet to be halted, consilidating its tenure across Europe, and only actively opposed navally and in North Africa.
C. Russia was nigh on destroyed prior to Stalingrad, had it not been for Hitler's utter myopia in declaring war upon the USA as a dutiful yet foolish ally and in interfering with tactical affairs, Russia would never have recovered.
D. MASS revolutions never occurred, and when an insurgence of any magnitude did occur, it was repressed brutally, as the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was.

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.

This is the unreasonable bullshit that I hate yet cannot help but respond to. Communists refuse to account for the distribution processes, financing processes, decision making processes, administrative processes, and communication processes that are apparent in all economic systems. There is infinitely more resources that go into the making of a product than the simple direct application of labor. Get the thirty most skilled mechanics in the world and have them work together on producing cars. Then get 27 unskilled laborers, a financial officer, an operations officer, and an accountant and see who builds more cars. Then have the 30 mechanics decide on distribution of those cars, and see how many people actually get to recieve those cars. And don't tell me that the mechanics keep the cars, because you can't eat a car.

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.

Yes, so we will have communities of beautiful yards and backed up sewers.

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".

Capitalism does not create unnecessary jobs. Jobs are only created because people want a product or service that is presently unprovided by the market.

But of course your gripe is with people and how they misuse freedom. They don't really need that foot massager so it must be immoral for them to want it or purchase it.

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.

Capitalism is based upon individual property rights, private ownership of capital. Taxation is the revoking of individual property rights, it is the public taking of capital. Therefore, taxation is not compatible with capitalism.

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.

Alright, under capitalism, if wages drop, prices drop, because aggregate supply and demand keeps them in equilibrium. So when the worker gets lower wages, those wages still buy the same amount on the aggregate.

In communism there is no pressure to reach the equilibrium. Resource distribution is handled by the government, so there is nothing tieing wages to prices. This means that, if we are correct and socialism lowers production, wages will remain the same, in effect causing inflation, massive demand, and a lowered standard of living.

But I suggest we avoid the economics of the socialism/capitalism debate, before I start banging my head against a wall.

<<<even playing field = discriminatory against all those above the average>>>

Pure demagoguery. You are making a judgment as to what is "average" based on your opinion or some artificial construct.

Indeed not, pure and unfettered logic.

The russians and the Brits woulda finished em off. soon enough Hitlers complete ignorance and/or slow paaainful death woulda meant that other countries would join in. And im very doubtful america would do ANYTHING unless attacked first.

You say communism cant work cos not everyone does there bit? America didnt do its bit. Thats why it cant work, because of lazy individuals that are greedy and are glory hoggers. IE capitalists.

Stalin is noble blah blah

Hitler and Stalin were both monsters, and it's really pretty useless arguing who was worse. Statistically Stalin was responsible for more civillian deaths in his own country, which is the only thing I based my passing "Stalin was worse" comment on.

As for anti-semitism, Stalin sent plenty of Jews to the gulag too.


Stalin invaded countries to impose the Right way upon them.

You know much about the invasion of Poland? It was a joint Soviet-Nazi operation with the goal of splitting Poland for the poltical gain of both states.

<<<Okay, just glad to hear someone say that communism isn't going to happen for many, many, many generations. That's why I think arguing for it is a bit like arguing for light-speed travel today.
By that time, I do see communism as a definite possibility. I'm a believer that something like communism will be the preferred political model once we have the technology capable of freeing humanity from work. That technology would need to be readily available to everyone, and it would need to be self-replicating (so that humans wouldn't be exploited by working to produce worker-robots for other people). Until we get there, though, communism doesn't seem worthy of much more than a far-futuristic novelty.>>>

Okay, finally a reasonable post. Most of this thread has been about arguing the Soviet Union, which most all communists today that I know of think was flawed. It would be like me asking capitalists to defend Hitler or Pinochet. It basically creates a straw man and goes nowhere.

Personally, I think it's a good thing for people to dream of a future world which is better. And the on-going experiments of how it can work are a necessary and important part of human growth. Those living at the edge of culture and those who dream are often visionaries of the future. Think how much of yesterday's science fiction is reality today.

The USSR still has supporters to this day and can be argued as a noble thing!
The Nazi-Germany Regime has Near none! and would be LYNCHED if they came out! THAT shows that people think Hitler was worse than Stalin.
Stalin had Ideology on his side!
Hitler just used a Scapegoat Jewish problem!
Stalin invaded countries to impose the Right way upon them.
Hitler invaded to Kill people and expand his empire
Stalin Had a big bushy moustache!
Hitler had a square one ;p

Actually, beyond the race theory,discrimination and war Hitler did little wrong as a ruler.

Incidentally, does thye sentiments of the indoctrinated majority justify anything, given that the majority of Arabs in some staes advocate terrorism and fundamentalism? If you can justify something along those lines, you are more deficient than I assumed.

Stalin enacted ant-semitic pogroms concurrently to Hitler, yet he won the war, and is accordingly lauded.... propaganda anyone?

Stalin invaded nations to impose a political philosophy few but the degenerate dregs advocate, and the majority fear, Hitler invaded forthe age old and justifiabe notio of imperialism.

And the germans never used NUkes. did they? It wasnt a just war for ANYONE.

Russia helped Germany in the beginning, Germany well obviously was wrong.
America Used nukes. France had no chance of winning (EU standards for a Just war)
and ALL of the Allies said no at the end when Himmler offered a peace pact, the dissolution of the government, provided allies stay OUT of berlin

It would be like me asking capitalists to defend Hitler or Pinochet. It basically creates a straw man and goes nowhere.

Which would be stupid, because Hitler was not a capitalist.

<<<What if I feel that a wealthy person sitting around being wealthy is producing more than a janitor wiping up the floors for minimum wage?* What if I feel that they produce more, through their begrudging tax contributions and tax-exempt piddling charity donations? What if I feel they contribute more by aristocratically employing underpaid workers and propogating the ludicrous SUV culture that steeps our lives?>>>

Your still basing your assumptions of value on the values of capitalism. I'm for shedding all value judgments, but we can only do that when there is an even playing field, not before.
Maybe I wasn't clear: the point I was trying to make is that you first stated "all values are subjective" and then proceeded under the assumption that YOUR value system (making an "even playing field") is superior. You CANNOT shed "value judgments," no matter what system you are working under, but perhaps we are simply running into a semantic problem here. Can anybody else, perhaps, help me out with this? Or am I just confusing everybody? :P

The russians and the Brits woulda finished em off. soon enough Hitlers complete ignorance and/or slow paaainful death woulda meant that other countries would join in. And im very doubtful america would do ANYTHING unless attacked first.

The war with Russia would have finished the Axis, you're right. But not before Hitler destroyed the United Kingdom.


You say communism cant work cos not everyone does there bit? America didnt do its bit. Thats why it cant work, because of lazy individuals that are greedy and are glory hoggers. IE capitalists.

The extent of your argument is basically "You wanna know why capitalism sucks? It's because capitalists are greedy horsefuckers who don't do anything!"

I could call communists names all day, but it would make me look as stupid as you do. Take a leaf out of AS's book and at least make posts which have SOME content, even if the content is all wrong.

I could call communists names all day, but it would make me look as stupid as you do. Take a leaf out of AS's book and at least make posts which have SOME content, even if the content is all wrong.

Agreed. And for God's sake, EA, please try to use proper grammar.

<<<because Hitler was not a capitalist.>>>

Yeah, that's why he banned the Communists and socialists. That's why Prescott Bush, G.W. Bush's grandfather funded him heavily as did many capitalist financiers in order to "stop the spread of communism."

I don't consider Stalin to be a communist. So round and round and round we go. Arguing about nothing. My exact point.

Communism will never make it globally. Its inhearent flaws witl prevent it from ever moving out of small self suffecent communities of like minded individuals.

For it to make the leap, it requires driven people who work hard for what they believe in and are willing to take risks. People with these traits already exsist and thrive in a capitalistic society. No reward for risk will forever hold communism back.

Look. STATE-CAPITALISM is not COMMUNISM. any argument regarding USSR is wrong really :)

<<<because Hitler was not a capitalist.>>>

Yeah, that's why he banned the Communists and socialists. That's why Prescott Bush, G.W. Bush's grandfather funded him heavily as did many capitalist financiers in order to "stop the spread of communism."

I don't consider Stalin to be a communist. So round and round and round we go. Arguing about nothing. My exact point.

Just because capitalist financiers funded him doesn't mean he was a capitalist. If communist financiers had funded him, would that have made him a communist?

<<<Take a leaf out of AS's book and at least make posts which have SOME content, even if the content is all wrong.>>>

Name a single thing I've said which is wrong. I haven't seen one person refute anything I've said except with their own opinion. Not one. It may not fit into their worldview or what they want, but not one thing has been proven wrong. That's just pure opinion.

<<<because Hitler was not a capitalist.>>>

Yeah, that's why he banned the Communists and socialists. That's why Prescott Bush, G.W. Bush's grandfather funded him heavily as did many capitalist financiers in order to "stop the spread of communism."

I don't consider Stalin to be a communist. So round and round and round we go. Arguing about nothing. My exact point.

Stalin, and conjecturally Lenin and Mao, are the personifications of communism, and accordingly manifest its idiosyncrasies.

Why not stop the "spread of communism"? Were in the situation and means to do so, I can assure you I would.

Okay, finally a reasonable post. Most of this thread has been about arguing the Soviet Union, which most all communists today that I know of think was flawed. It would be like me asking capitalists to defend Hitler or Pinochet. It basically creates a straw man and goes nowhere.

Personally, I think it's a good thing for people to dream of a future world which is better. And the on-going experiments of how it can work are a necessary and important part of human growth. Those living at the edge of culture and those who dream are often visionaries of the future. Think how much of yesterday's science fiction is reality today.
Now that we have that established, this conversation becomes much, much more fun. I would also add to the scenario I've proposed that the future-tech vision also solves the "power problem". I believe that the ruling elite would be able to give up their status once the socialist state acheived the goal of providing each human being with their own life-sustaining, needs-meeting, productive technological solution.
Ony then could I assume that there would be no need for status or power whatsoever, because there would be no real advantage to holding on to it.
When luxury is the status quo, provided freely by a non-human working class, there won't be a need for exploitation.
I do, however, feel that we aren't even ready for socialism right now, and capitalism is the "most fair" system of government that we can acheive for right now. In that way, I'm very, very practical.


BTW, I don't know if you were quoting like that for style, or if you haven't found the http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/jolt/editor/quote.gif button yet. ;)

<<<Take a leaf out of AS's book and at least make posts which have SOME content, even if the content is all wrong.>>>

Name a single thing I've said which is wrong. I haven't seen one person refute anything I've said except with their own opinion. Not one. It may not fit into their worldview or what they want, but not one thing has been proven wrong. That's just pure opinion.

And yet if all other posts are inherently opinion and accordingly fallible, surely that would imply that your somewhat deplorable posts are similarly fallible, and accordingly wrong?

I don't consider Stalin to be a communist.

You're right here. Stalin wasn't a communist, mainly because he introduced a system of hierarchical management into industry - clearly a regression away from communist utopia. There's no but here - you're just right. Stalin perverted the course to communism. But Lenin was a communist and he did horrible things as well.

<<<Take a leaf out of AS's book and at least make posts which have SOME content, even if the content is all wrong.>>>

Name a single thing I've said which is wrong. I haven't seen one person refute anything I've said except with their own opinion. Not one. It may not fit into their worldview or what they want, but not one thing has been proven wrong. That's just pure opinion.

Well, if you're already so advanced and selfless, why don't you hand over all your possessions to the next person who comes by? If you are so right, I'm sure it will catch on before you starve to death.

Right. You want well constructed facts? fine.
No communist State has ever existed, because thats a contradiction without direct-internet-referendum-democracy.

Ussr was state capitalist.
If you disagree with this, you dont know enough about it.

As such, because no communist state has existed, it cant have made any mistakes.

Whereas Capitalism has made a Bundle of mistakes.

If a truly communist area were to emerge, it would probobly end up crippled because of Capitalism.

<<<Just because capitalist financiers funded him doesn't mean he was a communist.>>>

Hitler was simply an outgrowth of the threat of the growing socialist movement of that time. Whenever capitalists are threatened with the loss of their wealth and power they resort to violence and you guys blame it on Communists!!!! As if, communists have a desire to just kill people for the hell of it. Anytime one group threatens the power of another we have seen violence. That's an historical fact. Very seldom has there been radical change in society where the people are willing to give up their privileged positions without putting up a fight. That's not just because of Communism, that's because the established oligarchs don't want to give it their control.

Well, if you're already so advanced and selfless, why don't you hand over all your possessions to the next person who comes by? If you are so right, I'm sure it will catch on before you starve to death.

No :) put simply. Just No. Because he needs his possesions. COmmunism is a Deduction, its an Addition.

Right. You want well constructed facts? fine.
No communist State has ever existed, because thats a contradiction without direct-internet-referendum-democracy.

Ussr was state capitalist.
If you disagree with this, you dont know enough about it.

As such, because no communist state has existed, it cant have made any mistakes.

Whereas Capitalism has made a Bundle of mistakes.

If a truly communist area were to emerge, it would probobly end up crippled because of Capitalism.

No true capitalism has ever existed either, as capitalism requires full respect of individual property rights, so as long as there is taxation and government interference in the economy, it is not true capitalism.

<<<Just because capitalist financiers funded him doesn't mean he was a communist.>>>

Hitler was simply an outgrowth of the threat of the growing socialist movement of that time. Whenever capitalists are threatened with the loss of their wealth and power they resort to violence and you guys blame it on Communists!!!! As if, communists have a desire to just kill people for the hell of it. Anytime one group threatens the power of another we have seen violence. That's an historical fact. Very seldom has there been radical change in society where the people are willing to give up their privileged positions without putting up a fight. That's not just because of Communism, that's because the established oligarchs don't want to give it their control.

Communists killed my grandparents.

My grandparents weren't resorting to violence. When they were dragged from their classrooms, they were teaching math to children. Then they were bound with barbed wire and shot in the head, after a long speech decrying their teaching of math as counterrevolutionary.

They weren't oligarchs - didn't own any property other than a small home and some chickens.

<<<Well, if you're already so advanced and selfless, why don't you hand over all your possessions to the next person who comes by? If you are so right, I'm sure it will catch on before you starve to death.>>>

Not that this even deserves a response, but we're talking about creating a more cooperative society, moving towards more fairness, not being recklessly suicidal.

<<<Take a leaf out of AS's book and at least make posts which have SOME content, even if the content is all wrong.>>>

Name a single thing I've said which is wrong. I haven't seen one person refute anything I've said except with their own opinion. Not one. It may not fit into their worldview or what they want, but not one thing has been proven wrong. That's just pure opinion.

You stated as fact that capitalism is the root of all violence. Capitalism as an ideology has existed for a few hundred years, and violence has existed since the first tyrannosaurus ate the first stegosaurus. Or whatever ate whatever else first.

You said that the whole of human history existed as a march towards communism. That's opinion, but I'm willing to guess that most people think you're wrong.

You asserted that Hitler was a capitalist. Hitler advocated a strong central government, the nationalisation of key industries and the systematic execution of minorities, none of which are tenets of capitalism.

You've said a lot of wrong stuff.

However, I regret having posted that everything you said was wrong - some of what you say has merit.

Communists killed my grandparents.

My grandparents weren't resorting to violence. When they were dragged from their classrooms, they were teaching math to children. Then they were bound with barbed wire and shot in the head, after a long speech decrying their teaching of math as counterrevolutionary.

They weren't oligarchs - didn't own any property other than a small home and some chickens.

They werent commies. They were State-Capitalists.
Very different.

They werent commies. They were State-Capitalists.
Very different.
They didn't call themselves state capitalists, nor did the members of other Communist parties around the world call them state capitalists. They were Communists.

Right. You want well constructed facts? fine.
No communist State has ever existed, because thats a contradiction without direct-internet-referendum-democracy.

The Internet is an integral part of communism? Oh yes, I remember
Engels's famous proclaimations about the internet.


Ussr was state capitalist.
If you disagree with this, you dont know enough about it.

The Russian Revolution was the first ever communist revolution. It defined what a practical communist revolution was. It didn't end up as a communist utopia, but it was instigated by communists, and initially run by communists.


If a truly communist area were to emerge, it would probobly end up crippled because of Capitalism.

Damn straight. Everyone would constantly try and flee to capitalist nations, kind of like Russians did then and Cubans do now.

They didn't call themselves state capitalists, nor did the members of other Communist parties around the world call them state capitalists. They were Communists.

Just because people call it something doesnt mean its true.

The earth is flat :D
The king is Divinely Chosen :D
ect

<<<But Lenin was a communist and he did horrible things as well.>>>

I agree. I think Lenin had good intentions, but he was doing something which had never been tried before under conditions which were essentially war-like. He made a lot of mistakes. My point is: why can't communists learn from past mistakes and make Communism and/or Socialism better? Hasn't capitalism made mistakes too and learned from them? Why do capitalists think that we're all some stereotype of a Russian bolshevik who just wants to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over? I don't personally want to live in the USSR either. I think there were good things about it and I think there were bad things about it. I say let's take the good things and build on them, and let's take the bad things and learn not what to do.

Here's a point for "communists". Everyone thinks that communists want government control of all industry and the execution of political opposition because most world leaders who have called themselves communists have done this. An ideology is defined by the acts of those who adopt it, so if all you really want to do is create a peaceful utopia full of bicycles, why don't you call yourselves something different?

You asserted that Hitler was a capitalist. Hitler advocated a strong central government, the nationalisation of key industries and the systematic execution of minorities, none of which are tenets of capitalism.

Firstly, the execution of minorities has nothing to do with economic systems. Secondly, the nationalisation of certain industries was part of Hitler's Realpolitik, not any ideological aim: he wanted to re-arm, and that was the most direct way of going about it.

The left wing of the NSDAP was wiped out with Gregor Strasser - as Hitler said himself, "The Nazi Party is based on the principle of private property."
The Nazis always had a strong link to big business (see IG Farben), and the main base of Nazi voters was the Mittelstand (bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie) rather than the urban workers, who typically voted KPD and SPD. Hitler hated the notion of communism: indeed, the theory of equality and sharing labour is about as far from enslaving other races as you can get.

It is true that the Nazis did enact some protectionist and Keynesian policies, but they were very much dedicated to capitalism.

The Internet is an integral part of communism? Oh yes, I remember
Engels's famous proclaimations about the internet.



The Russian Revolution was the first ever communist revolution. It defined what a practical communist revolution was. It didn't end up as a communist utopia, but it was instigated by communists, and initially run by communists.



Damn straight. Everyone would constantly try and flee to capitalist nations, kind of like Russians did then and Cubans do now.

You are not only taking State-Capitalism and calling it Communism, you are taking it to an Extremity,

What about PURE capitalism? No tax, No welfare, No law Nothing. Oh yeh lets go on about that as though thats what capitalism actually is Yeh RAAWWR!!

Just because people call it something doesnt mean its true.

The earth is flat :D
The king is Divinely Chosen :D
ect

Yeah, grin grin grin. This guy's grandparents were executed for no reason, for crying out loud.

Yeah, grin grin grin. This guy's grandparents were executed for no reason, for crying out loud.

i know. and it is appaulling. But it wasnt done by Commies

<<<They didn't call themselves state capitalists, nor did the members of other Communist parties around the world call them state capitalists.>>>

The question is not what people called themselves, it is about what type of economic policy they put into place. What they had was a form of state-capitalism. There's no denying it. They simply mimicked the capitalist structure and made the Party the new ruling class. That wasn't communism by any means. In fact, far from it.

The closest thing we've seen to pure communism would probably be the Scandinavian countries during the 60's and 70's. I think they achieved a level of society probably the closest to being classless and equitable that we've seen on a large scale. Eastern Europe and the USSR kept the class system, authoritarianism and never came close to the ideals of communism. They also instituted totalitarianism which is not a communist idea, even if it has been linked to it because of the Soviets.

i know. and it is appaulling. But it wasnt done by Commies
Sure was. If you say they weren't, you're just an apologist for murdering in the name of Communism.

You are not only taking State-Capitalism and calling it Communism, you are taking it to an Extremity,

What about PURE capitalism? No tax, No welfare, No law Nothing. Oh yeh lets go on about that as though thats what capitalism actually is Yeh RAAWWR!!
If you were half as articulate as AS, maybe you'd get better responses.
You're also betraying your ignorance of capitalism (true capitalism), which requires protection against force or fraud. That's the law, and it needn't be complex, either. You seem to have read far too much on one school of thought, and assumed the other. Do your homework, please, before posting.

You are not only taking State-Capitalism and calling it Communism, you are taking it to an Extremity,

What about PURE capitalism? No tax, No welfare, No law Nothing. Oh yeh lets go on about that as though thats what capitalism actually is Yeh RAAWWR!!

When did I ever advocate PURE capitalism? I'm happy living in a mixed economy with cops, firemen and politicians who can help me maintain and defend my belongings.

As for "USSR NOT COMMUNISM DURRR" - the Russian Revolution was a revolution by communists, to get communism. I agreed that the USSR's end product was not utopian communism, my point is that the people behind the USSR were communists who wanted communism.

Hitler was simply an outgrowth of the threat of the growing socialist movement of that time. Whenever capitalists are threatened with the loss of their wealth and power they resort to violence and you guys blame it on Communists!!!!

Capitalist policies of Adolf Hitler:

We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries

We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

Dirty capitalist.

Eastern Europe and the USSR kept the class system, authoritarianism and never came close to the ideals of communism. They also instituted totalitarianism which is not a communist idea, even if it has been linked to it because of the Soviets.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the USSR abolished the class system with avengeance. The kulak class, the ruling class, the borgeious class - they all got killed.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the USSR abolished the class system with avengeance. The kulak class, the ruling class, the borgeious class - they all got killed.
Then introduced a new one; the Nomenklaturas.

<<<Sorry to burst your bubble, but the USSR abolished the class system with avengeance. The kulak class, the ruling class, the borgeious class - they all got killed.>>>

This is true, but what I am saying is that they imposed themselves as a NEW ruling class, the Soviet Party. THEY controlled the business, they lorded over the people. All in the name of Communism! And the irony of it is that THAT IS NOT COMMUNISM. Under communism, no one has authority over others. So it's senseless to argue about the Soviet Union, because I don't consider that to be communism. Yes, many of the originals were well-intentioned, but many other people just saw it as a wave to ride to get rid of the old system. They were no more dedicated to communism than you are. They just saw it as a system to take power. And those purges of Stalin's that people like to talk about were largely purges of COMMUNISTS, real communists. Stalin purged the party of the Left Wing of the communist party. That's why those people were called Left Wing Communists.

So in a sense, many, many of the people Stalin slaughtered were true Communists. Stalin killed a lot of people, but to say that it was a simple case of communists killing non-communists is simply untrue. Many of the people Stalin killed were Communists who believed Stalin was moving away from goals of socialism and communism.

<<<Sorry to burst your bubble, but the USSR abolished the class system with avengeance. The kulak class, the ruling class, the borgeious class - they all got killed.>>>

This is true, but what I am saying is that they imposed themselves as a NEW ruling class, the Soviet Party. THEY controlled the business, they lorded over the people. All in the name of Communism! And the irony of it is that THAT IS NOT COMMUNISM. Under communism, no one has authority over others. So it's senseless to argue about the Soviet Union, because I don't consider that to be communism. Yes, many of the originals were well-intentioned, but many other people just saw it as a wave to ride to get rid of the old system. They were no more dedicated to communism than you are. They just saw it as a system to take power. And those purges of Stalin's that people like to talk about were largely purges of COMMUNISTS, real communists. Stalin purged the party of the Left Wing of the communist party. That's why those people were called Left Wing Communists.


You're not going to convince the majority of non-Communists today that Stalin was not a Communist. Ever.

<<<You're not going to convince the majority of non-Communists today that Stalin was not a Communist. Ever.>>>

One need only look at his economic policies. That's not communism. Plus he was a totalitarian. Communism, at least my version of it, is opposed to totalitarianism in every form.

Communism = no government, no police, no money, no leaders, no armies, no countries, no bosses, no employees, no authority.

So please tell me how can Stalin be considered 'communist' if he practiced all the above? He may have been socialist and state-capitalist, but looking at his record that wasn't communism. Whether or not Stalin even believed in Communism or just used the Party as a way to control the country is not known. What we do know is that people who wanted a more communistic society were killed by Stalin. That's an indisputable fact. To me, Stalin represented the right wing of the Soviet government. The Left were centered around Trotsky.

<<<Communism, at least my version of it, is opposed to totalitarianism in every form.>>>

Yes,your version of Communism but no one elses.

Everyone elses form of Communism is Totalitarian in practice. From Stalin, to Mao, to Tito (Yugoslavia), to Pol Pot (Cambodia), to the Ceauşescu's (Romania), and every single person to try and apply Communism in real life has restored to Totalitarianism to do because that is the ONLY way you can enforce such an unworkable economic model.

<<<has restored to Totalitarianism to do because that is the ONLY way you can enforce such an unworkable economic model.>>>

Yes, they have resorted to totalitarianism, but we have to look at the context of what was going on and why they did this. After seizing power, or having power given to them, as in the case of the Eastern Europeans, the old order was still there ready to take back power at any moment and there was constant pressure from the outside, encouraging the people to rise up. So, the only way these "leaders" saw that they could hold the country together was with an iron fist.

Also, you have to look at the context of most of these societies at the time they became socialist. Most of them were feudal, backward and authoritarian at the time of their revolutions. So it's no surprise that the people who took over governed the same way. That's all they knew. These countries didn't have much history in the capitalist phase, which (and yes, I'm saying something good about capitalism) leads a country through a phase where they develop a form of 'democracy'. Capitalism is a stage where a society goes through such things as labor disputes, legal battles, battles over constitutional rights, etc. All these struggles during capitalism DO teach us lessons in how a society works. My viewpoint though is that the democracy we achieve under capitalism is only a halfway point. It gives an appearance of democracy, but it isn't complete. You have theoretical freedom and a voice in your government, but it is severely restricted by money and distribution of wealth. So yes, capitalism is definitely a step toward freedom, but it isn't the final step.

As far as communism being an unworkable system, yes in the context we are living in right now it is. In order to turn the world communist tomorrow, you would need to do it by force and it wouldn't work very well anyway and what you would get wouldn't be communism anyway, no matter if you called it that. This is the mistake of the original communists, who thought they could force communism upon society. I'm agreeing that that is not feasible. Instead, it is a slow process of breaking down power structures and it's going on every single day by people who don't even realize they are working toward communism. Libertarians, anarchists, feminists, small business entrepreneurs, anti-global activists - anyone who questions power structures is in a sense breaking it down the power structure in some way. Even the internet itself is a great democratizer allowing more people to reach others with their ideas instead of depending on a centrally controlled media system. Sites like ebay allow people with very little capital to trade with others all over the world.

These are the ways I see we will achieve communism. Even capitalist techonology itself makes communism more and more feasible. It's a very slow process and I doubt any of us will be alive by the time we reach communism, but I think we are moving in that direction. I think what this whole debate has been missing is that people are seeing communism as a synonym for totalitarianism or as the same as the Soviet Union. That was an unworkable system, but that doesn't mean that we can't develop a system which will work.

And it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be done by force or armed revolution. I think there will continue to be armed revolutions as long as there is injustice, but that's not how communism will be achieved. Instead it's going to be a slow process of technological advancement, new modes of manufacture and distribution being invented, and a gradual paradigm shift toward a more progressive world view. There will be periods of conservatism, but they will always be followed by periods of progress. It's already happening all around us. That's what I mean when I say all of human history is nothing but one long march towards Communism.

<<<They didn't call themselves state capitalists, nor did the members of other Communist parties around the world call them state capitalists.>>>

The question is not what people called themselves, it is about what type of economic policy they put into place. What they had was a form of state-capitalism. There's no denying it. They simply mimicked the capitalist structure and made the Party the new ruling class. That wasn't communism by any means. In fact, far from it.

The closest thing we've seen to pure communism would probably be the Scandinavian countries during the 60's and 70's. I think they achieved a level of society probably the closest to being classless and equitable that we've seen on a large scale. Eastern Europe and the USSR kept the class system, authoritarianism and never came close to the ideals of communism. They also instituted totalitarianism which is not a communist idea, even if it has been linked to it because of the Soviets.

State-capitalism is an oxymoron. Capitalism is laissez faire (hands off). Capitalism is an economy without government interference. Each and every last aspect of the Soviet Union's economy was under the total control of the government. On the other hand, genuine capitalism (laissez faire) would have no tariffs, no business regulations, no antitrust laws, no corporate welfare, no minimum wage, no merger of state and corporate power, etc. It would entail the complete separation of corporate and state power, i.e., laissez faire (hands off). Government intervention in the economy is not laissez faire (in fact, it's the opposite, it's hands on). Call the U.S.S.R. communist or non-communist, whatever, but calling it capitalist is nothing short of full-blown idiocy.

<<<State-capitalism is an oxymoron. Capitalism is laissez faire (hands off). Capitalism is an economy without government interference. Each and every last aspect of the Soviet Union's economy was under the total control of the government.>>>

State capitalism is a social system combining capitalism (the wage labor system of producing and appropriating surplus value) with state ownership. A relatively recent text by Stephen A. Resnick and Richard D. Wolff, Class Theory and History, explores state capitalism in the former USSR, continuing a theme that has been debated within Marxist theory for most of the past century. Most communists today and even many capitalists believe that the USSR was state capitalist.

An alternate definition is that state capitalism is a close relationship between the government and private capitalism, such as one in which the private capitalists produce for a guaranteed market, where many (but not an overwhelming proportion) of large enterprises are government-owned. An example of this would be the military-industrial complex where autonomous entrepreneurial firms produce for government contracts and are not subject to the discipline of competitive markets.



<<<genuine capitalism (laissez faire) would have no tariffs, no business regulations, no antitrust laws, no corporate welfare, no minimum wage, no merger of state and corporate power, etc. It would entail the complete separation of corporate and state power, i.e., laissez faire (hands off).>>>

What you are describing is in fact, pure communism. Capitalists co-opted this idea of no-government, but in reality capitalism has always been dependent on the state and government. If one were to institute this type of anarcho-capitalism without governmental control you would end up reverted back to feudalism, with simple rule by armed gangs. Whoever had the most guns would rule their turf. About the only place we have laissez faire capitalism is Somalia.

You're also confusing the state with the government. They aren't necessarily the same. You can totally abolish the state, but the corporations would simply become the new government and take over the business of governing. Only difference is that the rulers would be in the corporate board rooms instead of elected by the people. Capitalism is dependent on economic growth and eventually the market tops off. Without governmental interference, ala Keynes, it will crash. Therefore, capitalism will always be tied to government. They may not call it government - they may call it the IMF, the WTO, the central bank or whatever, but capitalism can never function apart from government. Only pure communism can do that.

I think communism is now moving into a 21st Century paradigm. We're not looking at "taking over the government" as the goal of socialism. Instead we're looking at socialism as creating alternatives which make the role of government obsolete. Technology is the driving force of this new technosocialism. More democratic forms of media such and the open publishing sources of the Independent Media Center and blogging are examples. New modes of distribution, such as ebay and multi level marketing - capitalist inventions to be sure, but they are paving the way toward a real "socialist" and eventually communist society. NGO's are springing up to replace governmental functions. Government becomes more and more obsolete to both socialists and capitalists. Government is being eliminated now from both the Right and the Left. Electoral politics seems irrelevant to a growing number of people. And armed revolution seems out of reach as well. Socialism is going to be created within the framework of capitalism and outside of government until it eventually makes them both obsolete.

The problem is that some people are trying to debate communism in a 20th Century context. We're well past that stage now.

<<<State-capitalism is an oxymoron. Capitalism is laissez faire (hands off). Capitalism is an economy without government interference. Each and every last aspect of the Soviet Union's economy was under the total control of the government.>>>

State capitalism is a social system combining capitalism (the wage labor system of producing and appropriating surplus value) with state ownership. A relatively recent text by Stephen A. Resnick and Richard D. Wolff, Class Theory and History, explores state capitalism in the former USSR, continuing a theme that has been debated within Marxist theory for most of the past century. Most communists today and even many capitalists believe that the USSR was state capitalist.

An alternate definition is that state capitalism is a close relationship between the government and private capitalism, such as one in which the private capitalists produce for a guaranteed market, where many (but not an overwhelming proportion) of large enterprises are government-owned. An example of this would be the military-industrial complex where autonomous entrepreneurial firms produce for government contracts and are not subject to the discipline of competitive markets.



<<<genuine capitalism (laissez faire) would have no tariffs, no business regulations, no antitrust laws, no corporate welfare, no minimum wage, no merger of state and corporate power, etc. It would entail the complete separation of corporate and state power, i.e., laissez faire (hands off).>>>

What you are describing is in fact, pure communism. Capitalists co-opted this idea of no-government, but in reality capitalism has always been dependent on the state and government. If one were to institute this type of anarcho-capitalism without governmental control you would end up reverted back to feudalism, with simple rule by armed gangs. Whoever had the most guns would rule their turf. About the only place we have laissez faire capitalism is Somalia.

You're also confusing the state with the government. They aren't necessarily the same. You can totally abolish the state, but the corporations would simply become the new government and take over the business of governing. Only difference is that the rulers would be in the corporate board rooms instead of elected by the people. Capitalism is dependent on economic growth and eventually the market tops off. Without governmental interference, ala Keynes, it will crash. Therefore, capitalism will always be tied to government. They may not call it government - they may call it the IMF, the WTO, the central bank or whatever, but capitalism can never function apart from government. Only pure communism can do that.

I think communism is now moving into a 21st Century paradigm. We're not looking at "taking over the government" as the goal of socialism. Instead we're looking at socialism as creating alternatives which make the role of government obsolete. Technology is the driving force of this new technosocialism. More democratic forms of media such and the open publishing sources of the Independent Media Center and blogging are examples. New modes of distribution, such as ebay and multi level marketing - capitalist inventions to be sure, but they are paving the way toward a real "socialist" and eventually communist society. NGO's are springing up to replace governmental functions. Government becomes more and more obsolete to both socialists and capitalists. Government is being eliminated now from both the Right and the Left. Electoral politics seems irrelevant to a growing number of people. And armed revolution seems out of reach as well. Socialism is going to be created within the framework of capitalism and outside of government until it eventually makes them both obsolete. Socialism is in the process of redefining itself outside of "big government".

The problem is that some people are trying to debate communism in a 20th Century context. We're well past that stage now.