NationStates Jolt Archive

Democracy: The New Revolution of the Proletariat

Since the communist movement came to prominence in the mid 1800’s we have often stressed the importance of the revolution against the ruling classes. Many violent revolutions have been fought in the past century in the name of communism, but they have all been utter failures because of the loss of the communist ideals after the victory. The Soviet Union is a prime example. The revolution started out well. Lenin and his Bolshevik party were heroes of the workers’ movement, but after Lenin’s death, Stalin took over and set the Soviet Union on a course of fascism and state repression. Similar events have occurred immediately after every successful communist revolution. Why has this happened? Why do the ideals of the revolution become skewed and distorted after victory?
My answer to this question is the nature of the revolution itself. Because the revolutionaries gain power through military force, they of course need an army. The leadership of an army is absolute. Armies are unsuccessful if there isn’t a rigid command hierarchy. So the revolutionaries implement a rigid hierarchy with the party officials at the top. When they win, they choose the course of the new state. The army essentially becomes the state because it is the revolutionary movement and carries within it the ideals of the revolution. The generals of the army become dictators and the meaning of the revolution is completely lost.
How can we stop this you ask? Democracy is the answer. If a communist party comes to power democratically, there are no crimes against humanity, and it is a true representation of the people. If a communist revolution succeeds democratically, the people stay in control, and the state is modified in their favor. If they do not like how the communists are doing things, they will be ousted when their term in office is expired.
How will this “democratic revolution” succeed? With the participation of the worker of course. The worker is the backbone of the economy. To harness the strength of the worker, the communist movement must make them realize that under a communist state; they will prosper and be paid adequately for the labor they are performing. Why hasn’t the oppressed worker risen up already? Because they are crushed under the capitalist jackboot! They are restricted by means of education and social class. They are prisoners of their own upbringing. They have no way of uniting. They are blind to the fruits their labor will bring under communism. We must educate the worker ourselves and introduce communism to them.
Hope is not lost Comrades! We witness everywhere. I see two turning points: Nepal and Venezuela. Although the revolution in Nepal is violent, the democratic parties of the country have sided with the Maoists because they are friends of democracy. We are also seeing the involvement of the masses. Average citizens are fighting for the cause. Nepal is truly a beacon of hope for the communist movement. We also see the success of the Bolivarian socialist revolution of President Hugo Chavez. Comrade Chavez has created social reforms that have swept across the nation helping the worker drastically. Truly this is a momentous achievement. A democratically elected president is truly helping his people in a way never seen before. He is a hero of the socialist movement!

You are correct in that communism failed because of the violence associated with its implementation, but incorrect in saying that a "peaceful" communist state can ever exist. Violence is inherent to communist ideology. What Marx and others advocate is essentially rule by the proleteriat. The problem with this is, human nature is mirrored by capitalism and any society in which the proletariat was in control would be drastically unstable. Enter the military. The only means to stop human nature from kicking in and overthrowing the proletariat in a communist nation is through a strong central military. This is why all communist nations require a dominant military which then precipitates violence.

The communist movement is not about violent revolution, even though Marx advocated it. We have changed since the 1840's like every other political force on the face of the earth... communists are a peaceful group for the most part

[QUOTE=Michaelic France] Many violent revolutions have been fought in the past century in the name of communism, but they have all been utter failures QUOTE]

Actually I think during the spanish civil war, several regional communist governments in the north of spain were very sucsessful and true to marxist principles. untill the soviets fighting along side the spanish republians anihalated them in the hope that hitler and franco would be appeased and seek peace.

But ya, start the revolution....er election

Who in the world said a revolution needs a formal army?

Hit and run comrade...:mp5:

The communist movement is not about violent revolution, even though Marx advocated it. We have changed since the 1840's like every other political force on the face of the earth... communists are a peaceful group for the most part

I agree that many modern communists may be genuinely peaceful and concerned with the betterment of society and the world. However, the ideal itself cannot be implemented without a the creation of a massive state that has the unchecked power to kill indesriminantly. This is what happened in Russia. In order to create a "fair" society, the existing social arrangements had to be destroyed, and the only way for the Kremlin to do this was by forcing populations off their land and, in the case of the Ukraine, killing millions of people in the process through starvation. This was surely not the intent of most of the communists at the time, but it was a situation that the idea naturally creates.

You don't need a formal army persay, but you need leaders to lead any military campaign, and more than that, you need brilliant leaders.

Why has this happened? Why do the ideals of the revolution become skewed and distorted after victory?

Because communism is not within human's nature. It is not within anyones interest to give up all ownership, privacy and rights to the state - and that is invariably what happens, because no one wants to give up the power of the state. Communism must be universally desired to work, and it never is.

How can we stop this you ask? Democracy is the answer. If a communist party comes to power democratically, there are no crimes against humanity, and it is a true representation of the people.

Yeah, if it WAS a true representation of the people. Except it never is, because thankfully only a minority adhere to that outdated philosophy.


How will this “democratic revolution” succeed? With the participation of the worker of course. The worker is the backbone of the economy. To harness the strength of the worker, the communist movement must make them realize that under a communist state; they will prosper and be paid adequately for the labor they are performing. Why hasn’t the oppressed worker risen up already?

Because they are not oppressed and because they ARE paid adequately. I think the GDP per capita will show you they are prosperous as well. No one's a proletariat in the US anyway, not when a majority can own televisions and their own property and a vehicle.

Because they are crushed under the capitalist jackboot!

:rolleyes:

They are restricted by means of education and social class. They are prisoners of their own upbringing. They have no way of uniting. They are blind to the fruits their labor will bring under communism.

They are blind because there is nothing to see. Communism fails in practice, it always does and always will, and maybe humanity isn't willing to sacrifice a few more million people to give it another shot.

Why do you think none of the communist countries that have existed so far (USSR, North Korea, Yugoslavia) have been able to achieve a high standard of living and/or civil rights for their citizens?

-The USSR was spending more money than they could on weapons. The US were spending their surplus after having acheived a high standard of living. The soviets were spending $ on weapons instead of on improving standards of living. The reason they didn't before the cold war was because of the unbeleivable poverty that the russian serfs lived in before the revolution. (it took awhile for them to get to a just barley barable lifestlye before they could begin getting on to good ones, and by then they were in an arms race with the US, economically a far superior country.

-North Korea is essentially the same reason. They spend all their money on weapons not on raising the general standard of living.

-Yugoslavia is just dirt poor. It doesn't matter how you're distributing money if there's none to distribute

O I'm sorry, of course communism is an outdated movement, especially because they hold power in 6 countries and are a major political force in all of Europe.

I agree that many modern communists may be genuinely peaceful and concerned with the betterment of society and the world. However, the ideal itself cannot be implemented without a the creation of a massive state that has the unchecked power to kill indesriminantly. This is what happened in Russia. In order to create a "fair" society, the existing social arrangements had to be destroyed, and the only way for the Kremlin to do this was by forcing populations off their land and, in the case of the Ukraine, killing millions of people in the process through starvation. This was surely not the intent of most of the communists at the time, but it was a situation that the idea naturally creates.


You should have referanced cambodia hehehehe:sniper: :mp5: :D

I agree. Communism might have good points on paper, but is doomed to fail and oppress the masses in practice...like a good script given to Lyndsey Lohan.



Hi-yoh!

Not if a democracy is developed in a country. I propose workers' councils are made on the local level and are lected by the citizens of the city. Then the council elects representatives to the federal government, and those representatives must vote whichever way the local council does.

O I'm sorry, of course communism is an outdated movement, especially because they hold power in 6 countries and are a major political force in all of Europe.
Let's look at those 6:
N. Korea: Evil Hellhole
Cuba: Refrigerators are a mark of a well-off person
Vietnam: Actually, doing pretty well, a few self-immolated buddhist monks later

...

Who are the other 3?

O I'm sorry, of course communism is an outdated movement, especially because they hold power in 6 countries and are a major political force in all of Europe.

I think you'll find your fellow commie sympathizers saying that those are not 'communist states' as such would be an oxymoron.

And socialism is far more of a major force in Europe than communism.

Lastly, just because some people are living in Tsarist Russia doesn't mean communism isn't outdated. Some people still think VHS tapes are worthwhile too.

-The USSR was spending more money than they could on weapons. The US were spending their surplus after having acheived a high standard of living. The soviets were spending $ on weapons instead of on improving standards of living. The reason they didn't before the cold war was because of the unbeleivable poverty that the russian serfs lived in before the revolution. (it took awhile for them to get to a just barley barable lifestlye before they could begin getting on to good ones, and by then they were in an arms race with the US, economically a far superior country.

-North Korea is essentially the same reason. They spend all their money on weapons not on raising the general standard of living.

-Yugoslavia is just dirt poor. It doesn't matter how you're distributing money if there's none to distribute

The reason these communist nations spend so much on the military is because their leaders are constantly paranoid at the influence captialist societies are having upon them. The only way a communist state can be maintained is through keeping its citizens in ignorance of the better life that exists in other nations, but they cannot have. To do this, they must unite the country against some foreign nation(s) in continuous warfare. A strong central government can only maintain itself as long as its people feel they are in danger. See 1984 as an example of this.

I agree that North Korea sucks, but Cuba has low unemployment, high literacy, and is doing better than most of the region, considering the circumstances. The 6 communist countries are Cuba Vietnam Laos China North Korea and Moldova.

It's not paranoia it's that hostile capitalist countries DO exist and pose a serious threat, and communists promise a better life for the masses. Just because a miniscule minority of capitalists own 14 houses with 46 rooms each doesn't mean the majority of the country is prospering.

I'll quickly summarise:

Communism cannot work because the people who thought of it were too narcissistic to admit their mistake.

Both Marx and Engels said that to achieve a world of no oppression, of no government control, of complete freedom, we'd have to create a world of oppression, of almost total government control and of incomplete freedom.
They never really explained how one would result in the other.

Every revolution that followed was plagued by initially well-meaning people trying to work this one out. Lenin wanted to keep Capitalism going for a while, Stalin wanted to industrialise no matter what. Mao wanted to create a new society, and Pol Pot an entirely new human.

There is a pattern to these things. It's not simply because they were "state capitalists" that bad things happened. It's because Marx and Engels had given them a task that cannot be solved, and the two never admitted it.

I would have thought that after not only this became obvious, but even the control economy turned out to be an impossibility, Communism would be on its way out.
If you really want to change the world, go Social Democrats. They have realistic goals, and realistic ways of getting there. At least you won't be wasting your time.

And all this comes by the way from someone who used to call himself a Maoist.

Because communism is not within human's nature. It is not within anyones interest to give up all ownership, privacy and rights to the state - and that is invariably what happens, because no one wants to give up the power of the state. Communism must be universally desired to work, and it never is.

Clearly you've never been on a long camping trip of any sort, or lived in a small/poor community. Communism is only incomprehensible to the wealthy capatalist-the man if you will


Yeah, if it WAS a true representation of the people. Except it never is, because thankfully only a minority adhere to that outdated philosophy.


He covered this in the opening statement, it is the will of the people, they just don't realize it because of the man's control of educationa and social class

That's the great thing about philosophy. Its timeless

Because they are not oppressed and because they ARE paid adequately. I think the GDP per capita will show you they are prosperous as well. No one's a proletariat in the US anyway, not when a majority can own televisions and their own property and a vehicle.


Ever worked at McDonalds? I'll tell you what. It is not adequate pay. They are the proletariant. Having telescreens, er televisions doesn't make you


They are blind because there is nothing to see. Communism fails in practice, it always does and always will, and maybe humanity isn't willing to sacrifice a few more million people to give it another shot.
Thank-you, oh omniscentient one

Communism stands for hope. Modern communists wish to implement socialism before communism to keep froming rushing to the final goal.

The communist movement is not about violent revolution, even though Marx advocated it. We have changed since the 1840's like every other political force on the face of the earth... communists are a peaceful group for the most part


Communists are Multi-Cultral Fascists, who are complete hypocrites. Communism has also contributed to the creation of the worlds worst political states ever created(Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, Kim Jong Il's North Korea)

Your ideals have resulted in a plethora of bloodly revolutions and wars and not to mention the murder of over 150 million people worldwide. Communists are a lot of things but they are certainly not a "peaceful" group.

I agree that North Korea sucks, but Cuba has low unemployment, high literacy, and is doing better than most of the region, considering the circumstances. The 6 communist countries are Cuba Vietnam Laos China North Korea and Moldova.

Of those, China is moderating to the point where it won't even be considered communist within a few years. Although the Chineese haven't been granted political freedoms yet, they have recently seen a relaxing of social controls. North Korea only maintains itself through the politics of Kim Jong Ill where disagreement means death, and the same can be said for Cuba. While I don't know much about the rest, it seems that these three "communisms" have their days numbered.

And yet people are risking their lives on makeshift rafts crossing shark infested waters while suffering hunger, dehydration, and sunstroke to leave Cuba.

And China has been slowly embracing capitalism for the last several years.

How communist can Vietnam be if there is a McDonalds in Ho Chi Mihn City?

Moldova is only barely hanging in there as a communist country because it was under the Iron Curtain for so long. The Old Guard hasn't left yet.

And honestly, do you really want to live in any of those countries?

Comrade Strasse: The capitalist movement is an evil stain put upon the earth by thiefs and your imperialistic views have caused more deaths than my views!

Clearly you've never been on a long camping trip of any sort, or lived in a small/poor community. Communism is only incomprehensible to the wealthy capatalist-the man if you will


I have been on a long camping trip, and oddly enough we didn't become Communists. You are correct that it works on a small scale. And incorrect if you think that means it'll work for six billion people.


He covered this in the opening statement, it is the will of the people, they just don't realize it because of the man's control of educationa and social class

That's like me saying you're in favor of capitalism you just don't realize it cuz you've been indoctrinated by Marxism.

It's NOT the will of the people. Sorry if truth hurts. But it's egomania to assume everyone is with you when they're clearly not.


Ever worked at McDonalds? I'll tell you what. It is not adequate pay. They are the proletariant. Having telescreens, er televisions doesn't make you

It IS adequate pay because they agree to it. And sorry, having a television means you are not a proletariat because a proletariat is one who has no wealth other than his sons.


Thank-you, oh omniscentient one

Hey, you're the one who thinks everyone is secretly communist but too ignorant to figure it out. I'm not omniscient nor do I claim to be, however.

Communism stands for hope. Modern communists wish to implement socialism before communism to keep froming rushing to the final goal.
So did everyone else.
Fact of the matter is that Socialism alone doesn't work either (say what you will, but most of the countries that tried came pretty close to what Marx and Engels called "Socialism") - plus there is still no academic material on how the transformation from Socialism to Communism might come about.

Don't even try with Strasse. Trust me. Deepseated opposition to communism, and jews, there.

The reason these communist nations spend so much on the military is because their leaders are constantly paranoid at the influence captialist societies are having upon them.

Thats what this thread is about. A democraticaly elected comunist government would not need to fear the influence of its neighbours.

The only way a communist state can be maintained is through keeping its citizens in ignorance of the better life that exists in other nations, but they cannot have. To do this, they must unite the country against some foreign nation(s) in continuous warfare. A strong central government can only maintain itself as long as its people feel they are in danger. See 1984 as an example of this.

Ever seen a mainstream news broadcast in the US?

Communism stands for hope. Modern communists wish to implement socialism before communism to keep froming rushing to the final goal.

There is no hope in a society where the government controls every aspect of an individual's life and every person is doomed to a life in which they are not free to live based upon their own merits, but by a predetermined plan in which they are subjected to the collectivist will.

If $5.15 is a decent reward for labor you are insane.

"Naturally, the workers are perfectly free; the manufacturer does not force them to take his materials and his cards and make his wares, but he says to them 'if you don't like to be frizzled in my frying pan, you can take a walk into the fire."
-Engels

If $5.15 is a decent reward for labor you are insane.

Gosh, I guess I'm insane. Because that IS a decent reward for labor, because they agree to accept that much. They sell their labor for a set amount. You apparently think if you "labor" at all you deserve a "living wage?" In other words, to be a corporate ward; business is mother and father. Unfortunately it doesnt work like that. Businesses have to run, they can't afford to arbitrarily pay more money to their employees than they can afford just cuz you say so.


"Naturally, the workers are perfectly free; the manufacturer does not force them to take his materials and his cards and make his wares, but he says to them 'if you don't like to be frizzled in my frying pan, you can take a walk into the fire."
-Engels

Yeah, Engels was a moron and that just proves it.

If $5.15 is a decent reward for labor you are insane.
Depends on the type of labour and the type of person. And besides, that's what we have labour unions for - the only good thing to come out of Marx and Engels' writing is that workers now do have a choice, and they now do live in much better circumstances than they could ever dream of then.

"Naturally, the workers are perfectly free; the manufacturer does not force them to take his materials and his cards and make his wares, but he says to them 'if you don't like to be frizzled in my frying pan, you can take a walk into the fire."
-Engels
In 1850, that was true. It is much less so today.
And I don't doubt that the two were great when it comes to rhetoric, and pointing out the problems in society. But nonetheless, the method they proposed for solving them is flawed in a dangerous way.

And honestly, do you really want to live in any of those countries?

If I had to live in any of those regions, yes I would chose to live in the communist (or more accuratly, socialist) coutries of the region

By the way, China isn't really a communist state in my book. China, and Vietnam for that matter, have become more and more capitalist in terms of their economy, while propoganda still pays lipservice to Mao and Minh. People in China, especially the poor and those living in rural areas, are having problems because so many government-provided service have stopped. China is now in my opinion more of a...I can't describe it quite. Rule by an elite class, but not aristocracy....:(

Anyway, that's my view, but I'll defer to someone more knowledgable about those countries.

Thye agree to accept that much because under capitalism, there is no other alternative!

If $5.15 is a decent reward for labor you are insane.

"Naturally, the workers are perfectly free; the manufacturer does not force them to take his materials and his cards and make his wares, but he says to them 'if you don't like to be frizzled in my frying pan, you can take a walk into the fire."
-Engels

You may not think that that's a "fair" wage, but who has the right to decide what a "fair" wage is? If $5.15 is the wage that the market dictates, that is certainly better than some wage that is put in place by some all-powerful leader. When you start tampering with the free market, you loose objectivity and efficiency in allocation of resources.

Thye agree to accept that much because under capitalism, there is no other alternative!
Mst Capitalist countries have minimum wage. And remember, in countries with capitalism, you can entertain several offers. In communism, there is no other option if all business is controlled by the state.

There is no all-powerful leader, there is an all-powerful democratically elected workers' council! They are workers chosen by the people, they decide what is fair!

Thye agree to accept that much because under capitalism, there is no other alternative!

On the contrary, under capitalism there are more alternatives than its possible to count. There are 25 million businesses in the USA alone. That means if you dont like one job, you can work at another.

Under Communism, there is really no other alternative. You work for the state. Everything is owned by the state, including you. If you don't like it, you have to leave for a country with more freedom.

Thye agree to accept that much because under capitalism, there is no other alternative!

What do you mean there is no alternative? In modern captitalist society, every one has the ability to change jobs if they want and move up or down the social ladder according to his abilities and desires. Everyone has acess to education and job training. Exactly how is there no other alternative. We're not talking about Spartain serfs here, although that's what the human race would be under communism.

The state is ruling by the people's will alone, and the state only restricts economic freedoms for the good of society, whereas personal and political freedoms are amazing.

There is no all-powerful leader, there is an all-powerful democratically elected workers' council! They are workers chosen by the people, they decide what is fair!
It doesn't matter if they are democratically elected, if they are "all powerful" that defeats the point of democracy. Besides, they will almost certainly become corrupt with unlimited power.

Gosh, I guess I'm insane. Because that IS a decent reward for labor, because they agree to accept that much. They sell their labor for a set amount. You apparently think if you "labor" at all you deserve a "living wage?" In other words, to be a corporate ward; business is mother and father. Unfortunately it doesnt work like that.
People accept minimum wage because there is no alternative. Noone would turn down a job starting at 40$ an hour, but they don't exist.
Businesses have to run, they can't afford to arbitrarily pay more money to their employees than they can afford just cuz you say so.


Yes, but communism says the money thats left after the cost of production (otherwise known as profit) should be distributed evenly among the workers instead of just given to the one guy who will no doudt spend most of it on his mansion on his private island in the carabian.

Clearly, such a system would serve the best intrests of everyone right? Which is i beleive the objective of democracy, to serve the common good

They are only all-powerful for a year or so. The democratic process must stay alive. Elections will be held often.

Thye agree to accept that much because under capitalism, there is no other alternative!
You're not going to address any of our points, are you?

Fair enough, I can't make you. But if you're not willing to engage in a debate to defend your views, then of what worth are they to you?

Read some books by Amartya Sen. Or if you think you're up to it...I found that many of the inherently good motivations found in Communists can also be found in other groups.

Particularly, believe it or not, Austrian Libertarians have a strong moral objection to Capitalism as it exists (albeit for slightly different reasons). If you're serious, you might want to check out http://mises.org/

The state is ruling by the people's will alone, and the state only restricts economic freedoms for the good of society, whereas personal and political freedoms are amazing.

Oh, right. I keep forgetting how governments are selfless and pure like that, only doing stuff "for the good of society." You really seem to be naive, no offense intended, but if you wanna discuss these things you may want to learn more than communist propaganda.

Democracy: The New Revolution of the Proletariat

Since the communist movement came to prominence in the mid 1800’s we have often stressed the importance of the revolution against the ruling classes. Many violent revolutions have been fought in the past century in the name of communism, but they have all been utter failures because of the loss of the communist ideals after the victory. The Soviet Union is a prime example. The revolution started out well. Lenin and his Bolshevik party were heroes of the workers’ movement, but after Lenin’s death, Stalin took over and set the Soviet Union on a course of fascism and state repression. Similar events have occurred immediately after every successful communist revolution. Why has this happened? Why do the ideals of the revolution become skewed and distorted after victory?
My answer to this question is the nature of the revolution itself. Because the revolutionaries gain power through military force, they of course need an army. The leadership of an army is absolute. Armies are unsuccessful if there isn’t a rigid command hierarchy. So the revolutionaries implement a rigid hierarchy with the party officials at the top. When they win, they choose the course of the new state. The army essentially becomes the state because it is the revolutionary movement and carries within it the ideals of the revolution. The generals of the army become dictators and the meaning of the revolution is completely lost.
How can we stop this you ask? Democracy is the answer. If a communist party comes to power democratically, there are no crimes against humanity, and it is a true representation of the people. If a communist revolution succeeds democratically, the people stay in control, and the state is modified in their favor. If they do not like how the communists are doing things, they will be ousted when their term in office is expired.
How will this “democratic revolution” succeed? With the participation of the worker of course. The worker is the backbone of the economy. To harness the strength of the worker, the communist movement must make them realize that under a communist state; they will prosper and be paid adequately for the labor they are performing. Why hasn’t the oppressed worker risen up already? Because they are crushed under the capitalist jackboot! They are restricted by means of education and social class. They are prisoners of their own upbringing. They have no way of uniting. They are blind to the fruits their labor will bring under communism. We must educate the worker ourselves and introduce communism to them.
Hope is not lost Comrades! We witness everywhere. I see two turning points: Nepal and Venezuela. Although the revolution in Nepal is violent, the democratic parties of the country have sided with the Maoists because they are friends of democracy. We are also seeing the involvement of the masses. Average citizens are fighting for the cause. Nepal is truly a beacon of hope for the communist movement. We also see the success of the Bolivarian socialist revolution of President Hugo Chavez. Comrade Chavez has created social reforms that have swept across the nation helping the worker drastically. Truly this is a momentous achievement. A democratically elected president is truly helping his people in a way never seen before. He is a hero of the socialist movement!

This has been a long-running debate in leftist circles, lasting for well over a century and a half.

I don't disagree with what you have to say about revolution, but note what reformist evolution, in the long run, has brought us in Western Europe: Gerhard Schroeder and Tony Blair.

The state is ruling by the people's will alone, and the state only restricts economic freedoms for the good of society, whereas personal and political freedoms are amazing.

As my favorite libertarian Hayek points out, there isn't really a differance between social and economic freedoms. When a government controls how you spend, earn, and save your money, they control your actions as well. The freedom of choice as a whole is destroyed when a person becomes the pawn of the state.

China isn't a communist state, the government simply is just a big company, think about it, their government is buying a ton of foreign business for their countries own interests, well in, Canada they bought a large part of the Oil sands

As for socialist states, they do have a good system of working things out, welfare programs, protection for workers etc, but communism will never work, people are naturally greedy, and corrupt, having EVERYTHING fair just won't work.

I am not a fan of violence, but I think Marx saw it as the only way that the prolatariat class could come to power. Established governments(even democracies) are inherently reactionary. They are slow to change and become intangaled with big busness, lobbiests etc. An government will use its own forces against its own people to stay in power. Even if the government that will replace it would be better for everyone(not necessarally a socialist or communist one)

In a perfect world(communism would work) and a true socialist government would be voted into power and the transitition to communism would go off without a hitch. However, the government would stop this because A. the people in power would lose power, big busness would lose its power in government. Therefore any true change would be stopped.

An armed revolution becomes the only option to get rid of the old governmental apparatus and install a better government. This is true thoughout the world ~ Think American, french, chinese - both 1912 & 1949 etc. Even the Russian revolution had tangable improvements for soviet peoples(if they haven't been straved to death or sent to the gulags. eep)

People accept minimum wage because there is no alternative. Noone would turn down a job starting at 40$ an hour, but they don't exist.


They don't exist because no one would turn them down. You may not realize it, but the goal of employment isn't to make people instantly wealthy.

And there ARE alternatives. Like, acquiring those things called "skills." Bettering yourself and getting a new job instead of a shithole like McDonalds.


Yes, but communism says the money thats left after the cost of production (otherwise known as profit) should be distributed evenly among the workers instead of just given to the one guy who will no doudt spend most of it on his mansion on his private island in the carabian.

I don't care what communism says.


Clearly, such a system would serve the best intrests of everyone right? Which is i beleive the objective of democracy, to serve the common good

The current system serves the best interests of everyone, and even better, it is functional and desired by most people. Most people do not desire communism, hence we have democracy and capitalism because that is what people want.

I will say this Comrades... You capitalists brag about how capitalism takes human nature into account, but what is human nature? All of humanity's negative aspects? You're economic system allows people to act like dogs! You say communism will never work because it doesn't reward labor proportionally, but in a communist state wages would be equal. Consider this, the workers' council sets quotas. Each quota must be met for each occupation for it to be considered labor. The doctor must work for 3 hours and the garbage man works for 6 hours, the labor is equal.

I have been on a long camping trip, and oddly enough we didn't become Communists.
Weather or not you began to agree with the social/political theories of communism, you lived communally, and I hope you found that it functioned.
You are correct that it works on a small scale. And incorrect if you think that means it'll work for six billion people.

Clearly, if a communal world order were established, it would not be a single centeralized government running the hole show (dear god I hope not) it would be divided into chunks smaller than 6 billion people, much like all governments.


Hey, you're the one who thinks everyone is secretly communist but too ignorant to figure it out.

Clearly, everyone (or 90-something-odd percent of people) would benefit froma communal system and therefore communism is in their best intrests. Making them, in some sense, communists

As my favorite libertarian Hayek points out, there isn't really a differance between social and economic freedoms. When a government controls how you spend, earn, and save your money, they control your actions as well. The freedom of choice as a whole is destroyed when a person becomes the pawn of the state.

Under socialism no one becomes a "pawn of the state."

The only freedom lost is the freedom of the capitalist to exploit and oppress.

It might help if there was some differentiation made between socialism and communism. They are not the same thing. If we are debating the ideology of Marx and his contemporaries, fine. If we are arguing some theoretical post-Soviet socialist ideology, than I would question the chances that this could be implemented on a national level. Too often, as is happening now, socialists/communists waffle between theoretical and real world ideas. Pick one please.

Weather or not you began to agree with the social/political theories of communism, you lived communally, and I hope you found that it functioned.

Living communally is not communism.


Clearly, if a communal world order were established, it would not be a single centeralized government running the hole show (dear god I hope not) it would be divided into chunks smaller than 6 billion people, much like all governments.

What's "clear" about that? It didnt seem to happen in smaller scale attempts like the USSR, PRC, DPRK.



Clearly, everyone (or 90-something-odd percent of people) would benefit froma communal system and therefore communism is in their best intrests. Making them, in some sense, communists

Again, whats clear about that? Your logic - if you're actually using any - is highly flawed. You know, everyone might benefit from being really smart too, but that doesn't mean everyone is any sense really smart.

Communism hasn't benefited people, on the contrary its forced them to live in 'equal' poverty and remain in ignorance so that they won't 'defect' to the wealthy capitalist lands.

Let's talk about the incentive to work Comrades... The coal miner representative goes to the workers' council and says "my shoes are falling apart, can us coal miners get more shoes by the state?" and the workers shout "no, everything must be equal!" So the miner, discouraged but perseverant, goes to the shoe manufacturer and scientist, and says, "can you make us cheaper and more efficient shoes?" They reply "why should we, what do we get?" The miner says, "I know you like watching t.v., if you make better and cheaper shoes, the state can put more money into t.v.'s and you will be happier." So they agree and everyone is rewarded. You may say this is unfair, because why should society benefit from the work of a few people? Well the farmers grow the food to feed the miners, shoe manufacturers, and scientists. Every worker contributes to society, they all get rewarded.

The doctor must work for 3 hours and the garbage man works for 6 hours, the labor is equal.
And why would anyone bother being a doctor, if all it gets him is three hours more sitting in a shitty house, fit for a garbage man?

Let's talk about the incentive to work Comrades... The coal miner representative goes to the workers' council and says "my shoes are falling apart, can us coal miners get more shoes by the state?" and the workers shout "no, everything must be equal!" So the miner, discouraged but perseverant, goes to the shoe manufacturer and scientist, and says, "can you make us cheaper and more efficient shoes?" They reply "why should we, what do we get?" The miner says, "I know you like watching t.v., if you make better and cheaper shoes, the state can put more money into t.v.'s and you will be happier." So they agree and everyone is rewarded. You may say this is unfair, because why should society benefit from the work of a few people? Well the farmers grow the food to feed the miners, shoe manufacturers, and scientists. Every worker contributes to society, they all get rewarded.

So what you're saying is when people trash your arguments, you just pretend they didnt respond and continue blathering your propaganda? Like you didn't actually want 'discussion' here, but just a forum to get on your soapbox? Good to know; concession accepted!

Under socialism no one becomes a "pawn of the state."

The only freedom lost is the freedom of the capitalist to exploit and oppress.

As I have explained in previous posts, this is not true. Please read them. In order for a government to redistribute economic resources, it must sieze property and control of various resources and re-allocate them according to some massive plan. When you control a person's economic product, you control their life. I must go now as the library I am in is closing, but this has been an interseting debate as all communist ones usually are.

Every worker contributes to society, they all get rewarded.
Which is exactly like Capitalism, except there you don't have to walk from one guy to the next and organise stuff, but your reward happens automatically in the form of money changing hands.

Same result, much simpler process.

Society would evolve so every worker would get food, clothing, a house, water, power, television, and a computer with the internet.

No it's not the same result because you have the rich who live excessively and the poor who don't have an adequate living standard.

They don't exist because no one would turn them down. You may not realize it, but the goal of employment isn't to make people instantly wealthy.

But it should, shouldn't it? People's work should increase their standard of living. Or did I miss something?


And there ARE alternatives. Like, acquiring those things called "skills." Bettering yourself and getting a new job instead of a shithole like McDonalds.

Not everyone can give brain opperations. The People with the "shithole" jobs make our society function and to allow everyone else to live. However as it stands now, the people who preform the basic functions in our society (growing food, disposing of wate, taking care of and educating children etc) get no respect, no money and live worse lives than those who have"improved themselves" at their parents expense


I don't care what communism says.


Because you are not looking out for the common good. You give no respect to the legs that you stand on. The opposite of good is evil.


The current system serves the best interests of everyone, and even better, it is functional and desired by most people. Most people do not desire communism, hence we have democracy and capitalism because that is what people want.

No, capitalism is what you want. It serves your best intrests (mine too, as it were) Since its in the best intrests of you and " the man" you favor it. want it, and are smarter than most people and control the mass media, you have indoctrinated them to be capitalists as well, because they think it will achieve what is realy acheived by communism.

It might help if there was some differentiation made between socialism and communism.

There are three ways that come to mind of differentiating them.

1. A Socialist advocates democratic evolution, and a Communist armed revolution, a distinction dating from the splits in the European Marxist parties in the early twentieth century. This one is very relevant to the subject of the thread, but not at all to the arguments being made for and against the system. The split here also matches up with the split in support for Leninist Russia, with the Communists actively backing it and Socialists not.

2. To use the technical Marxist terminology, socialism is the "dictatorship of the proletariat" stage, while communism is the end result, communalist anarchism. Someone merely supporting the first could be considered a socialist, while someone supporting both could be considered a communist.

3. To use the positions of the Communist and Socialist Western European parties as a guideline. This meaning, while not "absolute" like the others, is perhaps the most practical usage, as it accounts for such things as Eurocommunism, which would be considered mere socialism according to (1) and (2) but is nevertheless the position of most of the current European Communist parties.

Which distinction do you wish to make?

And why would anyone bother being a doctor, if all it gets him is three hours more sitting in a shitty house, fit for a garbage man?

because no one would want to be a garbage man? My choice for a career is only partly based on monetary reward. Even if everything was equal I would not be a garbage man.

1. A Socialist advocates democratic evolution, and a Communist armed revolution, a distinction dating from the splits in the European Marxist parties in the early twentieth century.

You obviously missed the original article...

Communists can be nonviolent democratic reformists also, in fact, they should be.

They are only all-powerful for a year or so. The democratic process must stay alive. Elections will be held often.
It doesn't matter. Do you realize how much someone with ultimate power can do in 1 year...and it isn't democratic, because if they're all powerful NO ONE CAN OPPOSE THEM!:rolleyes:

Use the Quote Tags so I know which post you're addressing.

Society would evolve so every worker would get food, clothing, a house, water, power, television, and a computer with the internet.
And how would that happen? You still haven't really addressed anyone's concerns about this.

No it's not the same result because you have the rich who live excessively and the poor who don't have an adequate living standard.
Here is the deal: That was true in the 19th century.

Today, the living standards aren't that different. Sure, the rich have nice stuff, but even the poor today have enough food, heat and a computer with the internet.

And if you don't like being poor: There is nothing that stops you from going out there and using your brains and skills to make money!
Go to university - that requires brains perhaps, but generally most countries offer ways to get in without paying yourself.
Go and work hard, and if you manage to catch the eye of the boss, you can move up the ladder.
Or, use your brain, think of a new product, and be the boss yourself! The world is open to you, and modern capitalism, with things like welfare and so on allows even the poor to make it with a bit of luck. And even if they don't - the poor today live vastly better than even the rich did in the 19th century.

As I have explained in previous posts, this is not true. Please read them. In order for a government to redistribute economic resources, it must sieze property and control of various resources and re-allocate them according to some massive plan. When you control a person's economic product, you control their life. I must go now as the library I am in is closing, but this has been an interseting debate as all communist ones usually are.

The redistribution of resources does not really make a pawn of anyone. To the contrary, the capitalist retains his economic security, and thus his "economic freedom," in a serious use of the term. All he loses is his ability to oppress and exploit others by threatening their economic freedom.

because no one would want to be a garbage man? My choice for a career is only partly based on monetary reward. Even if everything was equal I would not be a garbage man.
Which begs the question: Who would be the garbage man?

You don't take into consideration the worker's upbringing...
If you're born into a poor family that doesn't value education, chances are you won't either, it's common sense.

The people would get those nice things because the state would provide them as long as there was enough money. The money would be made by the workers, and it would go back to them.

But it should, shouldn't it? People's work should increase their standard of living. Or did I miss something?


No, it shouldnt make everyone instantly wealthy. Even if that were possible.

Peoples work DOES increase their standard of living, however. At least it does under capitalist economies.


Not everyone can give brain opperations.

And not everyone's secretly communist either.

Look, there are actually more alternatives than McDonald's and brain surgery.

The People with the "shithole" jobs make our society function and to allow everyone else to live. However as it stands now, the people who preform the basic functions in our society (growing food, disposing of wate, taking care of and educating children etc) get no respect, no money and live worse lives than those who have"improved themselves" at their parents expense

No respect? Bullshit. No money? Again, bullshit.


Because you are not looking out for the common good. You give no respect to the legs that you stand on. The opposite of good is evil.

No, I don't care what communism says because communists have murdered millions of people. THAT would be evil.


No, capitalism is what you want. It serves your best intrests (mine too, as it were) Since its in the best intrests of you and " the man" you favor it. want it, and are smarter than most people and control the mass media, you have indoctrinated them to be capitalists as well, because they think it will achieve what is realy acheived by communism.

I've indoctrinated people? Please. I can't even persuade a single communist to see reason, let alone control the mass media. Communism doesnt "really" achieve anything except poverty and corruption.

And capitalism DOES give me, and everyone else, what they want. Freedom and opportunity and choice. Unlike communism, where its all or nothing: you enslave yourself to the 'common good' (As defined by the academic elites with their little red books).

Please use the quote-tags, or I won't keep responding. You're making it harder for everyone else.

You don't take into consideration the worker's upbringing...
If you're born into a poor family that doesn't value education, chances are you won't either, it's common sense.
But that's not the fault of Capitalism. I'd agree that there needs to be a common position from which everyone needs to start, and that the government needs to help with that. I did tell you to read Amartya Sen, maybe that'll help you understand.
Nonetheless, taking away the reason to value education, to work hard and to ultimately succeed and be good at what you do is not the way to do it, surely.

The people would get those nice things because the state would provide them as long as there was enough money. The money would be made by the workers, and it would go back to them.
So now there's money in your form of Communism?
All you seem to be advocating now is wage legislation.

Today, the living standards aren't that different. Sure, the rich have nice stuff, but even the poor today have enough food, heat and a computer with the internet.

U.N. claims U.S. social system violates human rights (http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051115-121904-4965r)

Which begs the question: Who would be the garbage man?

According to the anarchists and communists I have read, such distasteful labor would be equally distributed throughout society, with everyone taking a turn.

Or you could eliminate the absurd concept that equality of pay is equivalent to true equality, and pay the laborers who do labor no one else wants to do more money. Under the current system, they receive less, which makes no sense.

U.N. claims U.S. social system violates human rights (http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051115-121904-4965r)
I'll take this on face value for now (many others probably wouldn't).

It is true that the US system sucks. It costs a lot of money, spent in a way that doesn't actually benefit people all that much.

But this is not a problem with Modern Capitalism (I by the way don't see the US as a great example of that - I'd go with eg Sweden), it's a problem with the American Social System.

If you think that overthrowing those with money, and then proceeding to keeping everyone on the same level is going to solve anything, then go ahead.
But repairing is a better option than destroying IMHO.

And besides - poor people do have food, heat and the internet, even in the US. They live better in absolute terms than rich people did in 1850.

Quick question: Of the various communist countries or rebel groups out there, none of them really follow the same doctrine as the one you are describing. Regardless of its faults, can you think of any countries this would be adopted?

Under the current system, they receive less, which makes no sense.
You know how demand and supply works.

Someone needed a garbage man and offered $40 an hour. Everyone came.

He only needed one guy though, so he lowered his offer until there was only one man left who would do the job for that money.
Ergo, in the end, both the employer is happy (he's got a garbage man) and the employee is happy (he's happy with his wage, otherwise he would've left like everyone else).

I would say that Capitalism obviously has its own value system, which takes a large part in how these things come about - but ultimately, this way, supported by the right type of government intervention, in the right places, is the best way of organising society that we have.

As I said, I know where Communists are coming from, I once was one myself. But since then I have become more pragmatic, and am now a Social Democrat, although I still think that the way welfare etc is currently organised in Western Europe is not very good and needs reform.

Communism is inherently flawed as it fails to take the middle class into account.

I'll take this on face value for now (many others probably wouldn't).

It is true that the US system sucks. It costs a lot of money, spent in a way that doesn't actually benefit people all that much.

But this is not a problem with Modern Capitalism (I by the way don't see the US as a great example of that - I'd go with for example Sweden as an example), it's a problem with the American Social System.

If you think that overthrowing those with money, and then proceeding to keeping everyone on the same level is going to solve anything, then go ahead.
But repairing is a better option than destroying IMHO.

And besides - poor people do have food, heat and the internet, even in the US. They live better in absolute terms than rich people did in 1850.

Poor people do not have "food, heat and the internet" in the United States, not consistently at least. Statistics regarding food insecurity were mentioned in the article, and for some of those people it is far more serious than "food insecurity." The homeless most definitely do not have "heat and the internet," at least not owned by them, and plenty of poor families - and some lower-middle-class families, even - are having trouble paying for heat this year, because of high fuel prices. Infant mortality rates are astounding in some US slums.

This is of course ignoring the people who are most poverty-stricken, found in the Third World.

There is no doubt that modern capitalism has brought amazing benefits to human beings, and the primitivist critique should not be seen as serious unless typical systems of morality are abandoned.

There is no doubt that modern capitalism has brought amazing benefits to human beings, and the primitivist critique should not be seen as serious unless typical systems of morality are abandoned.
Agreed.

So it comes down to this:

Capitalism has its good sides (it creates a lot of stuff to make our lives nicer) and its bad sides (some people will miss out and live in poverty of one type or another).

Communism has some good sides, but I doubt that they can be implemented. For the time being, it remains a philosophy with good intentions, but that can only do damage when trying to get there.

So the middle ground is as always the best. People need the incentive to try and succeed. It is one of the things which gives our lives sense, and we have seen in the past that people will get unhappy if that is taken from them.
At the same time, there should be something to help those that fail to get back on their feet. Welfare payments are a good thing, but they should not replace work - and Marx would probably agree with that too.
Add to that the proper mix of regulation regarding the environment, health and safety and so on, and you get a pretty livable place, in which you can enjoy your life as much as you can, given the constraints that we face at this point in time.

Perhaps, one day robots will replace most human labour. At that point, maybe we can start thinking about some alternatives - but today, I don't see any.

You know how demand and supply works.

Someone needed a garbage man and offered $40 an hour. Everyone came.

He only needed one guy though, so he lowered his offer until there was only one man left who would do the job for that money.
Ergo, in the end, both the employer is happy (he's got a garbage man) and the employee is happy (he's happy with his wage, otherwise he would've left like everyone else).

Yes, I do understand how supply and demand works.

The starting points are not equal. The poor have no other options, and are forced into taking the jobs no one else wants. Because they are desperate their leverage over pay is low.

The left-wing social democratic solution has its appeal. I think it suffers from over-regulation of the economy and has never been implemented successfully enough to sufficiently address the problems of economic injustice.

I think the answer is quite easy actually. Since the workers only represent a portion of the population in fact, Stalin did have the right idea, only he didn't go far enough, or fast enough.

What is needed is a new kind of human, one that is submissive and not self motivated, but wishes to follow a pattern of taking what a central government thinks he or she should have, giving up the individual altogether. Well, to achieve that, all that is needed is to change the genetics of the human race. How is that done? Well eliminate those who would wish to take care of him or herself, those who would wish to do something as an individual, and live their own life.

I think that central camps of concentration and of re-education would help a little, it has been done in many command-control economies, and those who fail to be the right kind, are most likely to be incurables, and therefore bad for the gene pool.

We have excellent means now of painless death, and it will go far to help with the overpopulation as well. The could be called something like "freedom roads" offering the only true way the population can be cleansed of "self." this is just a thought...

...The could be called something like "freedom roads" offering the only true way the population can be cleansed of "self." this is just a thought...
Been there, done that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot).

I think the answer is quite easy actually. Since the workers only represent a portion of the population in fact, Stalin did have the right idea, only he didn't go far enough, or fast enough.

What is needed is a new kind of human, one that is submissive and not self motivated, but wishes to follow a pattern of taking what a central government thinks he or she should have, giving up the individual altogether. Well, to achieve that, all that is needed is to change the genetics of the human race. How is that done? Well eliminate those who would wish to take care of him or herself, those who would wish to do something as an individual, and live their own life.

I think that central camps of concentration and of re-education would help a little, it has been done in many command-control economies, and those who fail to be the right kind, are most likely to be incurables, and therefore bad for the gene pool.

We have excellent means now of painless death, and it will go far to help with the overpopulation as well. The could be called something like "freedom roads" offering the only true way the population can be cleansed of "self." this is just a thought...

Human freedom and individual consciousness are what make us human, what make our lives valuable. To annihilate them is to annihilate life, and is the epitome of immorality.

If I had to live in any of those regions, yes I would chose to live in the communist (or more accuratly, socialist) coutries of the region


So, whats stopping you? Unless you live in one of those countries, you are free to travel.

Which begs the question: Who would be the garbage man?
Perhaps a Communist society would produce much less garbage. Lets face it, our capitalist society is very wasteful. Other then that I guess robots would do it...leading to my belief that a true socialist or communist society can only come about with more advanced technology. lol

<sigh> Do I want to jump into this thread or not? Hmm.

Perhaps a Communist society would produce much less garbage.

People wouls stop using products? Do you have any clue what China's enviromental record has been the last few decades?

Lets face it, our capitalist society is very wasteful. Other then that I guess robots would do it...leading to my belief that a true socialist or communist society can only come about with more advanced technology. lol

You're kidding right? You've never seen a machine give off a waste product of some sort?

Every process, be it biological, mechanical, chemical or other, produces some sort of waste.

People wouls stop using products? Do you have any clue what China's enviromental record has been the last few decades?
Of course people would'nt stop using products, but they sure wouldn't need all it packaging. I know China's enviromental record, I catch as much news on it as possible, but its hardly communist at all. It never even claimed to be and of course today China is more capitalist then many western capitalist countries.



You're kidding right? You've never seen a machine give off a waste product of some sort?

Every process, be it biological, mechanical, chemical or other, produces some sort of waste.

Yes, but machines can become much more efficient in energy use. Right now technology produces tons of waste, but whos to say how efficient they can become in the future and what waste is produced could be recycled. Efficiency makes sense in a capitalist economy(more profits, less cost for the consumer) and in a socialist/communist economy(greater benefit for society with less labour)

Instead of replying to everything, I'll pick a few key things to reply to:

but incorrect in saying that a "peaceful" communist state can ever exist. Violence is inherent to communist ideology.Nope. While it is true that Marx was rather violent, Marx is hardly the only communist philosopher.

No one's a proletariat in the US anyway, not when a majority can own televisions and their own property and a vehicle.I don't think the expansion of the system of credit cards is really an indication that people are more prosperous. After all, just because people own these things doesn't mean they can afford them.

The reason these communist nations spend so much on the military is because their leaders are constantly paranoid at the influence captialist societies are having upon them. The only way a communist state can be maintained is through keeping its citizens in ignorance of the better life that exists in other nations, but they cannot have.A properly run Communist society would be better than anything else, therefore it would not be necessary to keep the people living there ignorant.

What do you mean there is no alternative? In modern captitalist society, every one has the ability to change jobs if they want and move up or down the social ladder according to his abilities and desires. Everyone has acess to education and job training.Only those people with abilities can use them. Only those people who can afford them have access to education and job training.

But that's not the fault of Capitalism. I'd agree that there needs to be a common position from which everyone needs to start, and that the government needs to help with that.The problem is that without equalizing outcome, you can't sustain equality of opportunity, due to the children of the wealthy and affluent inheriting priviledge, status, and wealth.

Communism is inherently flawed as it fails to take the middle class into account.The middle class came into existence because of two things: strong labor unions and the welfare state, both of which are the result of communist ideas becoming popular.

So the middle ground is as always the best. People need the incentive to try and succeed.I agree, but I believe that you overstate the effect of the monetary incentive.

You're kidding right? You've never seen a machine give off a waste product of some sort?What waste product does a windmill or a solar panel give off?