NationStates Jolt Archive

How much do you or don't you support the troops of your own sovereign nation (RL)?

Please vote on the poll* accordingly

*Poll loosly (humour removed) based off of America the Book (cited here because intellectual property rights matter when you post something anonymously in a not-for-profit, not-being-published situation).

I support them lots. It's not easy to quantify.

Am I the only one who finds this devoid of sense?

I support my socks more than I support my nation's Armed Forces.

Am I the only one who finds this devoid of sense?
Me. Especially the non-sensical option "I'm fighting on the other side".

Me. Especially the non-sensical option "I'm fighting on the other side".

One could be an insurgent, they don't support the troops of their own sovereign nation. Just keeping it fair and unbiased.

I went with the last option because it doesn't when or where or what they're doing so I figured X seemed neutral enough, although not quite enough fence-sitting for my tastes. lol

I went with the last option...
So either you hate your troops or you're not very good at math. :D

I don't support troops who sign up for the military. I do, however, support innocent draftees.

Goddamn, talk about trends. 6 Moral Dilemma threads, 3 'How much do you support your troops?', 5 or 6 'Best...etc.'...wow.

I'm not against the soldiers, I'm against the war.:)

But seriosly, The only reason I support the people who are signed up voluntarily is:

They keep there from being a draft.

Goddamn, talk about trends. 6 Moral Dilemma threads, 3 'How much do you support your troops?', 5 or 6 'Best...etc.'...wow.

I started two of them, the first was shut down due to lack-of-sensitivity-to-posters-feelings-on-my-part/lack-of-posters-sense-of-humor.

Then another guy made one.

I'm not against the soldiers, I'm against the war.:)

But seriosly, The only reason I support the people who are signed up voluntarily is:

They keep there from being a draft.

Actually, joining the military offers a lot of incentives. Example, if you joing the Canadian reserve, the government pays half of your university tuition. Almost makes it worth it, eh?

What does it mean to "support the troops"?

I don't "support the troops" It's just a meaningless, hollow sentence.

What does it mean to "support the troops"?
Wonderbra supports our women in the military. It also lifts and seperates, but I think that this gag has gone on for as long as it can.

I don't "support the troops" It's just a meaningless, hollow sentence.
Like "Give peace a chance" and "End world hunger".

I don't "support the troops" It's just a meaningless, hollow sentence.I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way.

I wonder how much people support their IT guy, cantina lady or lifeguard?

Soldiers perform a job, a job that ought not to exist. One might support the use of soldiers under particular circumstances, but to either blindly support or dismiss the role they play, is.. Absurd. Yay for kindergarden.

Like "Give peace a chance" and "End world hunger".

No, those actually indicate an objective.

"Help the troops" would be a meaningful statement.

Goddamn, talk about trends. 6 Moral Dilemma threads, 3 'How much do you support your troops?', 5 or 6 'Best...etc.'...wow.
I suppose that's sort of my fault...
*runs from angry mob*

I support our troops...

...When they shoot their officers!

I support our troops, but I wish I could cut funding. So I picked the latter.

I don't support troops who sign up for the military. I do, however, support innocent draftees.

So in other words, you hate people who are currently dying for you, spilling their blood so you can say the worthless crapola you just said.

I, on the other hand, support both volunteers and draftees completely. Why? Because they are the reason America still exists.

I support our troops...

...When they shoot their officers!

That's the type of crap that lost us Vietnam, dumbass.

That's the type of crap that lost us Vietnam, dumbass.

Vietnam was never "ours" to lose in the first place.

That's the type of crap that lost us Vietnam, dumbass.
The type of crap that lost you Vietnam was getting in there in the first place. Your defeat was also helped by your advocacy of napalm as a means to fight the chimera in your head - by helping first the crap and illegal state that was South Vietnam, and then your new friends in "fighting communism" - Maoist China and Pol Pot.

BTW: Even the French colonialists had more reason to claim that Vietnam was theirs than you do, dumbass.

We would have given it back to France, we just were fighting communism.

We would have given it back to France, we just were fighting communism.

It wasn't France's, either.

Whatever, point is, we were fighting evil, and all the hippies rose up to spit on the faces of our brave men and women overseas.

We would have given it back to France, we just were fighting communism.
For what reason? What did communism ever do to us?

Communism is a lie, its evil, its an attack on freedom.

Whatever, point is, we were fighting evil

We were fighting for a bunch of dictatorial monsters who wanted to maintain an untenable and oppressive feudal system.

Communism is a lie, its evil, its an attack on freedom.
A lie? how does that work? Besides, all those reasons are subjective.

and all the hippies rose up to spit on the faces of our brave men and women overseas.
All of them?

Marx knew human nature made true communism impossible, but he wanted power, he wanted fame, so he went and created communism. That's what I think, that is.

Marx knew human nature made true communism impossible, but he wanted power, he wanted fame, so he went and created communism. That's what I think, that is.

Have you ever read Marx?

Communism is a lie? Wow. I didn't know an economic system could be a lie.

Marx knew human nature made true communism impossible, but he wanted power, he wanted fame, so he went and created communism. That's what I think, that is.

Didn't he live/die poor while being supported by his friend?

Didn't he live/die poor while being supported by his friend?

Being a political dissident did that to people back in nineteenth century Europe.

We would have given it back to France,

No, you wouldn't have. You weren't allowed to. In fact, ALL interntl treaties specified that you were to reunite Vietnam as an independent country. You were bound by them, yet you shat all over them. Proof of you shitting all over them even BEFORE the actual war was that Dulles told the French, at the Peace Conference that ended the Indochina conflict, that USA was prepared to back them up with nukes in case they would change their minds about leaving. Even the French envoy declared himself disgusted.
You just wanted the puppet state to carry on, and you fed whatever common criminal took power in Saigon - against international law that your country adhered to, and against the wishes of the Vietnamese (Viet Cong was, without doubt, the major party for the South Vietnamese).

we just were fighting communism.

The hell you were. Is that why Nixon kissed Mao all over his ass? Is that why Americans backed Pol Pot in the end?
At best, you were fighting the Soviets. And you fought, and you fought (including an illegal attack on North Vietnam and Laos). Well, lemme tell you: the Soviets won. And it was fucking tragic, right? It was tragic that the Soviet-backed Vietnamese got rid of Pol Pot and then entered a war with China that made the latter get rid of the last Maoists in power.
And what did the Soviets do? Did they gain supremacy in Asia? In fact, sanitation against Maoism was carried out by the Soviets, not by you. In that capacity, they did mostly right to repair the HUGE wrong that you produced.

That's the type of crap that lost us Vietnam, dumbass.
Vietnam was lost because the S Viets wouldn't fight for their own country. (And with the dictator corrupt government we gave them why should they.) When the end came they hopped every copter they coud get and instead of flying into battle flew to the US carriers. All indications are they knew what they were doing. The government of the North has done much better for the people than the US puppets.

I have a Godson that just returned from his second tour of Bushnam. He's come within inches (literally) of getting killed three times. I sent him prayers, toys and food in as much support as I can give.

The thing that will keep this dumb-rectal move by the current leadership from ending the same way as nam will be if their new puppets do a better job of relating to the people. So far.................................

Marx knew human nature made true communism impossible, but he wanted power, he wanted fame, so he went and created communism. That's what I think, that is.
How does that make it evil? The founders of american democracy knew true democracy would never work. Does that make them evil?

What does it mean to "support the troops"?

Dam good question. I guess it can mean you like them, but you don't like what they are dying for, and you want to cut their spending, and then complain that they don't have the needed supplies to complete a task you detest. Dam, I feel so supported.

Don't argue with the troll. Hell, you should know from his name that you need not expect a real argument.

How does that make it evil? The founders of american democracy knew true democracy would never work. Does that make them evil?

Yeah, that would be why they created a Republic.

Dam good question. I guess it can mean you like them, but you don't like what they are dying for, and you want to cut their spending, and then complain that they don't have the need supplies to complete a task you detest. Dam, I feel so supported.

Though I disagree with your implied sentiment, I agree that is stupid. Just admit you don't support the troops. I had an analogy, but I'm really not in the capacity to remember it.

Yeah, that would be why they created a Republic.
Exactly.

Yeah, that would be why they created a Republic.

His point was, they realized the nessecity of a compromise government, as communist states often attempt. Hence why its not a lie.

I have a lot of respect for soldiers serving abroad. I have friends mine in Iraq and Afghanistan in the British and Canadian infantry. I don’t respect the politicians that make the messes that soldiers are sent into. I don’t respect the arms dealers and corporations who profit from the instability in the world, or profit from providing troops on the ground with defective kit.

I don’t respect individual soldiers who go way over the top and start killing civilians out of hand or support cruel hazing for the sheer joy of it. I don’t respect officers who are more interested in politics than in completing their missions (when it comes right down to it I rarely trust officers at all. I’d rather hear the truth from a Sergeant any day than hearing the party line from an officer).

The Bruce

Have you ever read Marx?

I think that Marx was really trying to help. No one goes out and says, "OK, I think I'm going to make a system that is bound to become horribly corrupt, cause massive human suffering, and will be a black stain on my name for all time." I think that the guy really was trying to figure out a good system, and the system would be perfect... if people were. However, people are often scumbags, and no system is perfect or even good. Nor is any system bad, it simply, is. It's people who make a system work or not. However, capitalism offers more incentive for people to make the system work.

I think that Marx was really trying to help. No one goes out and says, "OK, I think I'm going to make a system that is bound to become horribly corrupt, cause massive human suffering, and will be a black stain on my name for all time." I think that the guy really was trying to figure out a good system, and the system would be perfect... if people were. However, people are often scumbags, and no system is perfect or even good. Nor is any system bad, it simply, is. It's people who make a system work or not. However, capitalism offers more incentive for people to make the system work.

Have you read Marx?

No, you wouldn't have. You weren't allowed to. In fact, ALL interntl treaties specified that you were to reunite Vietnam as an independent country. You were bound by them, yet you shat all over them. Proof of you shitting all over them even BEFORE the actual war was that Dulles told the French, at the Peace Conference that ended the Indochina conflict, that USA was prepared to back them up with nukes in case they would change their minds about leaving. Even the French envoy declared himself disgusted.
You just wanted the puppet state to carry on, and you fed whatever common criminal took power in Saigon - against international law that your country adhered to, and against the wishes of the Vietnamese (Viet Cong was, without doubt, the major party for the South Vietnamese).



The hell you were. Is that why Nixon kissed Mao all over his ass? Is that why Americans backed Pol Pot in the end?
At best, you were fighting the Soviets. And you fought, and you fought (including an illegal attack on North Vietnam and Laos). Well, lemme tell you: the Soviets won. And it was fucking tragic, right? It was tragic that the Soviet-backed Vietnamese got rid of Pol Pot and then entered a war with China that made the latter get rid of the last Maoists in power.
And what did the Soviets do? Did they gain supremacy in Asia? In fact, sanitation against Maoism was carried out by the Soviets, not by you. In that capacity, they did mostly right to repair the HUGE wrong that you produced.

Give that guy a medal.
and btw,
communism is an ECONOMIC SYSTEM you american dumbfucks. It has nothing to do with the government in place, you could put it with a democracy if you really wanted to. The reason why it seem theyre so oppresive is that Authoritave or Totalitarion regimes have taken over, but those take over all the time everywhere, in every country. Even america.

If so much pressure hadn't put on communism, it wouldn't have failed. If the most powerful country in the world wasn't trying to fight the economic system of a poor, war-torn country, it would have actually been able to grow!

If so much pressure hadn't put on communism, it wouldn't have failed. If the most powerful country in the world wasn't trying to fight the economic system of a poor, war-torn country, it would have actually been able to grow!

Boo hoo. And how, I might ask, did the U.S. become the most powerful country in the world?

P.S. make sure you're drinking plenty of water, you might dehydrate yourself crying all those tears.

Marx knew human nature made true communism impossible, but he wanted power, he wanted fame, so he went and created communism. That's what I think, that is.

It is more than likely that his creation of his vision of communism was partially motivated by a desire for fame (I believe most great works are motivated by pride), but for the rest you are wrong. He would not have gained any power, he merely laid down a theory and system. And there is no reason why true communism is impossible. For most of our existence, humans lived as equals without private property; hiearchies and private property are just recent trends in the big scheme of things. It could certainly be argued that we can never return to our old ways, but this can not be said with certainty and Marx (who admitted himself to be an optimist) believed otherwise.

Why are we arguing over a practically dead system? No one uses it anymore. Even "communist nations" use some capitalism.
This thread is just getting inane.

The reason why it seem theyre so oppresive is that Authoritave or Totalitarion regimes have taken over, but those take over all the time everywhere, in every country. Even america.
No, the reason that Communist nations are always totalitarian is because they are formed as the result of a large revolution that destroys the people in charge and institutes a new group. However, for the system to be truely implemented, the revolutionaries then have to turn over all the power they just spent their blood and treasure gaining, and join into the society of equals.

Boo hoo. And how, I might ask, did the U.S. become the most powerful country in the world?

P.S. make sure you're drinking plenty of water, you might dehydrate yourself crying all those tears.

Slavery and a rich land at first, then using that as venture capital for industrialization.

The US had over 150 years away from british influence, and more than 300 years total to build up their economy. The Russians had 20, and endured two major world wars on their land, after coming from a fuedal society. If the communists had had 150 years to work out the kinks, without the current strongest nation in the world heavily fighting their system, they would have done pretty good, seeing how they progressed between ww1 and ww2, and kept up with the US in the arms race for so long.

No, the reason that Communist nations are always totalitarian is because they are formed as the result of a large revolution that destroys the people in charge and institutes a new group. However, for the system to be truely implemented, the revolutionaries then have to turn over all the power they just spent their blood and treasure gaining, and join into the society of equals.

That's why Leninism doesn't work. When the revolution is a revolution of an elite vanguard controlling only a portion of the masses (the Russian workers, in a peasant society), it will never become egalitarian without further struggle.

Leninism is a modification of Marxism, not Marxism itself.

That's why Leninism doesn't work. When the revolution is a revolution of an elite vanguard controlling only a portion of the masses (the Russian workers, in a peasant society), it will never become egalitarian without further struggle.
Any revolution that intends to be successful must develop leaders (like Washington, Lenin, Robespierre, etc) if it intends to go beyond unruly peasant mobs. The problem with true Marxist communism is that it requires the leaders to simply abandon everything they've won as soon as they get it.
You're on top of the world with governership of a country and your own army, and then you're expected to hand it all off in the name of some mouldy old German? Not bloody likely.

Slavery and a rich land at first, then using that as venture capital for industrialization.

The US had over 150 years away from british influence, and more than 300 years total to build up their economy. The Russians had 20, and endured two major world wars on their land, after coming from a fuedal society. If the communists had had 150 years to work out the kinks, without the current strongest nation in the world heavily fighting their system, they would have done pretty good, seeing how they progressed between ww1 and ww2, and kept up with the US in the arms race for so long.

There are some things that are so misguided that they aren't even worth a response. However, I will be nice and tell you that slavery is not a good system for making a prosperous nation. The American south depended on slavery and they were far more poor than the slave-free north. Oh, and damn industrialization! Damn it's convenious to hell!

No, the reason that Communist nations are always totalitarian is because they are formed as the result of a large revolution that destroys the people in charge and institutes a new group. However, for the system to be truely implemented, the revolutionaries then have to turn over all the power they just spent their blood and treasure gaining, and join into the society of equals.

Under true Marxism, the revolutionaries are supposed take over the nation and control it awhile to distribute resources equally and put in place the infrastructure needed for a true communist state; when this is done they are to step down. Needless to say, no nation has ever made this transition from socialist dictatorship to true communist direct democracy (which is how Marx envisioned it). Many "communist" nations such as Cuba and North Korea never had any intention to eventually shifting to communism.

Slavery and a rich land at first, then using that as venture capital for industrialization.

The US had over 150 years away from british influence, and more than 300 years total to build up their economy. The Russians had 20, and endured two major world wars on their land, after coming from a fuedal society. If the communists had had 150 years to work out the kinks, without the current strongest nation in the world heavily fighting their system, they would have done pretty good, seeing how they progressed between ww1 and ww2, and kept up with the US in the arms race for so long.

In addition to those problems; according to Marx for a communist nation to come into existence a nation would have to go through a transition from feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, to communism. Russia went straight from feudalism to socialism and thus lacked the abundance of resources needed for socialism to function effectively and thus for a transition to communism to occur. Also, the fact that Stalin took power caused problems that would not have been particularly different than if Stalin took power in America.

I aid them in every way I can.

I think everyone should serve in one form or the other in a branch of the armed forces. There's something there for everyone.

Needless to say, no nation has ever made this transition from socialist dictatorship to true communist direct democracy (which is how Marx envisioned it).
Yeah, that's my point. To make that transition, your leaders have to be willing to go from top-shit dictator, with the power of life and death over (potentially) millions of people, to another prole with an equal and democratic share in the greater society. Such a transition requires a man who is:
Charismatic enough to start the revolt
Cunning and ruthless enough to win the revolt
Politically agile enough to keep control post-revolution
Idealogically driven enough to not simply become another dictator
Humble enough to surrender power when it is over and become one of the crowd
No such person has ever existed, and the chances that the Communist Messiah is going to be born this late in the game are on roughly the same level of Jesus coming back.

Needless to say, no nation has ever made this transition from socialist dictatorship to true communist direct democracy (which is how Marx envisioned it).

There's no such thing as a "socialist dictatorship."

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the dictatorship of a class, the class of the majority. It is supposed to be highly democratic.

Why are we arguing over a practically dead system? No one uses it anymore. Even "communist nations" use some capitalism.
This thread is just getting inane.

We're arguing over it because this forum is largely inhabited by a bunch of niave youngsters (sorry Eut, you don't count...) who are idealists to the bone... and in thier ideals, a fully communist system is still possible/ideal. Which would be great, except people don't work like that. Maybe God will run that system in heaven, but shy of that, ain't happenin'.

And the poll is inane too... and I'm horrified to see the top answer currently, by a good margin, is an impossible one. I know it's popular and all, but you really can't give 110% support, and it's stupid to say you can and do.

Any revolution that intends to be successful must develop leaders (like Washington, Lenin, Robespierre, etc) if it intends to go beyond unruly peasant mobs. The problem with true Marxist communism is that it requires the leaders to simply abandon everything they've won as soon as they get it.

The two decent examples of proletarian dictatorship we have - parts of Spain during the Spanish Civil War and the Paris Commune of 1871 - didn't seem to have that much of a centralized leadership, the former more so than the latter. Then again, both were destroyed by reactionary forces, so as far as successful revolutions go their relevance can be questioned.

I think one of the problems is that the revolutionary forces are intent upon seizing the state apparatus, when instead they should be focused on actually changing things. Such changes can be made on a far more grass-roots level than the alternative, and thus necesitate no enlightened vanguard to lead the masses "for their own good." The state depends on the proper function of society, and it will quickly lose its power if the country is changing against its will.

The two decent examples of proletarian dictatorship we have - parts of Spain during the Spanish Civil War and the Paris Commune of 1871 - didn't seem to have that much of a centralized leadership, the former more so than the latter. Then again, both were destroyed by reactionary forces, so as far as successful revolutions go their relevance can be questioned.
That was my point about requiring the strong leader. Neither group had what it took to last, and the groups that manage to last only do so by selling out the Communist principles that they are supposed to exist for.

Yeah, that's my point. To make that transition, your leaders have to be willing to go from top-shit dictator, with the power of life and death over (potentially) millions of people, to another prole with an equal and democratic share in the greater society. Such a transition requires a man who is:
Charismatic enough to start the revolt
Cunning and ruthless enough to win the revolt
Politically agile enough to keep control post-revolution
Idealogically driven enough to not simply become another dictator
Humble enough to surrender power when it is over and become one of the crowd
No such person has ever existed, and the chances that the Communist Messiah is going to be born this late in the game are on roughly the same level of Jesus coming back.

I agree that it is highly implausible but it is technically possible. The leader of the revolutionaries doesn't even need to give up his power during his lifetime. He can live the rest of his life after the end of the revolution ruling over his nation, putting in place the infrastructure needed for the conversion to true communism, and then arrange everything so that after his death there would be no successor and the power would be transferred to the people thus creating a true communist state. Just for the record, I do not view this as desirable and I am not a communist.

We're arguing over it because this forum is largely inhabited by a bunch of niave youngsters

I am not a "naive youngster." In fact, you have absolutely no idea of my age, and only peripheral knowledge of my perspective and its validity. I am a pragmatist, and the reason I sometimes seem idealistic on NS is because most of us, being idealogues, argue in the realm of theory.

I have asked two critics of Marxism in this thread whether or not they have read Marx, and neither have replied. I think that is indicative of the general trend.

How many opponents of Marxism understand, say, surplus-value? How many even know what it is? It's a really basic concept, I can explain it to intelligent people in a few minutes at most, and Marx isn't so unreadable that people couldn't pick up a copy of Capital and figure it out. But most people, most critics of Marxism, haven't a clue.

What about historical determinism? Dialectical materialism? Both are important to understanding Marxist theory, yet most intelligent critics (leaving aside unintelligent critics, who I don't discuss this stuff with) of Marxism have at best a peripheral knowledge of what they are. Again, pretty basic concepts, if you eliminate the Hegelian nonsense that tends to inundate most of the texts on the subject.

Paul Lafargue and Leon Trotsky (post-exile writings) do a pretty good job explaining a lot of this, for those curious. I link to one of Lafargue's best writings on the general question of capitalism v. socialism in my signature; most of what he writes is worth reading - aside from aforementioned one, "Simple Socialist Truths" is also exceptional, as is, for those who prefer to denounce all government intervention as "socialism," a piece about nationalization in the bourgeois state whose title escapes me.

Are there problems with Marxist theory? Of course there are. But it would be appreciated if people would actually know what they are talking about before they dismiss it all as idealistic, naive nonsense.

I am not a "naive youngster." In fact, you have absolutely no idea of my age, and only peripheral knowledge of my perspective and its validity. I am a pragmatist, and the reason I sometimes seem idealistic on NS is because most of us, being idealogues, argue in the realm of theory.

I have asked two critics of Marxism in this thread whether or not they have read Marx, and neither have replied. I think that is indicative of the general trend.
<SNIP>

Well... actually it wasn't you I was thinking of when I said that. I threw in the Eut aside to point out I wasn't including everyone... and he wasn't the only exclusion. At least you want a reasoned argument, whichever side you take. I have, in fact, read Marx (translated, of course). It was required in a philosophy class I took. I was thinking more of the people who were just asserting their arguments with the 'because I say so' reason. Not only is it just because they say so, but they don't spare two seconds' thought for the actual ramifications of what they say. Theory is wonderful, but theories need to apply to the real world, not just an ideal world. And nobody was arguing with what you actually said anyway - they were arguing with their own idea of what you should be saying. Nobody's trying a pure form of communism anymore, because it didn't work. It didn't turn out that way. Mankind is too corrupt. I mean, to me "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sounds absolutely wonderful... and thoroughly impossible, simultaniously. Now how does one reconsile the two? Well now THAT is the question, now isn't it?

Largely this thread was inane, baselese, ignorant debate over ideals which don't actually exist. *shrug* pardon me if I call it like I see it.

Well... actually it wasn't you I was thinking of when I said that.

And it wasn't only you I meant with my post. I was attacking a general line of critique.

At least you want a reasoned argument, whichever side you take.

That is exactly what I want. I even have no problem with people who parrot talking points, which I do sometimes, as long as they explain themselves when challenged.

I have, in fact, read Marx (translated, of course). It was required in a philosophy class I took.

Which texts? Not trying to challenge you, sincerely curious.

I was thinking more of the people who were just asserting their arguments with the 'because I say so' reason. Not only is it just because they say so, but they don't spare two seconds' thought for the actual ramifications of what they say. Theory is wonderful, but theories need to apply to the real world, not just an ideal world. And nobody was arguing with what you actually said anyway - they were arguing with their own idea of what you should be saying. Nobody's trying a pure form of communism anymore, because it didn't work. It didn't turn out that way. Mankind is too corrupt. I mean, to me "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sounds absolutely wonderful... and thoroughly impossible, simultaniously. Now how does one reconsile the two? Well now THAT is the question, now isn't it?

Okay. I've been bothered by the incentives problem ever since I began studying leftist politics. It kept me away from socialism for a long time. Yet eventually the truth surfaced - it's a total fraud.

Incentives have nothing to do with anything. Marx doesn't talk about giving anyone a free lunch. In fact the socialist writers of Marx's era, and the decades afterward, were in large part concerned with stopping the people who they saw as getting a free lunch - the capitalist class, which doesn't do any work yet hoards the wealth produced by the workers. This is the basis of the socialist attack on capitalism - not defending parisitism, but attacking it.

The dreadful secret, so rarely mentioned, is that the real issue has never been about "incentives." It is about ownership and about compensation. Who will own the means of production? The people who built them, the people who work them, or the people who live off the labor of the builders and the workers? That's the basic question. And another, related one: who will run the economy, and for whom? The common people, for themselves, or a small cadre of elite, for themselves? Do we want democracy or plutocracy?

Communism doesn't say, "let's let everyone have a free-for-all." Communism gets rid of the "tragedy of the commons" because Communism, instead of leaving management of the commons to private power and individual greed, manages them collectively, through democratic means. Communism gets rid of private ownership of social production, the contradiction that permits the commons to be destroyed, that permits the privatization of profits and the socialization of costs, and replaces it with the social ownership of social production. Under such a system there is no "Prisoner's Dilemma," because the prisoners manage themselves collectively - they agree beforehand to declare themselves not guilty.

Have you read Marx?
I've read both Das Capital (sp?) and the Communist Manifesto.

Communism was designed to follow Christian principles and work in an industrial nation. The anti Christian idea came from the saying that "Religion is the Opiate of the Masses" but that is out of context. The arguement was the lives of the wokers in factories was so bad that they needed a mind number. If their lives improved they could worship without the mental destructivness.

In actuality what was visioned was what developed with the labor unions. The workers came together for the good of the masses. Notice when the unions were powerful all workers had a good life. When Reagan busted the unions 25 years ago the economy began to revert to as it was at the time of Marx. The rich have become richer, the poor poorer and the middle has begun to disappear. Working conditions and hours have deteriorated. Masses of poor have been imported to keep wages low and workers powerless.

By placing communism in an agricultural nation, it ignored the fact that farmers are not employees. They are owners. It took away the basic management that is needed in business instead of giving power to employees as was originally envisioned.

There's no such thing as a "socialist dictatorship."

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the dictatorship of a class, the class of the majority. It is supposed to be highly democratic.

*e-applause*

Well done, inspired, half baked Marxist theory from a poster who I assume has never read either "Das Kapital" or "The Communist Manifesto". The dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently un-democractic, it is an autocratic regime that prefigures a communist state through oppressing the bougeoise and creating the pre-requisite degree of industrialisation and class equality for communism to ensue. No democracy could be sufficiently hard, as Marx was aware.

Am I the only one who finds this devoid of sense?

Nope, the question is likely to be idiotic.

Before the second Iraq war I had a discussion about whether it would be a good idea. There was a general feeling that it would be premature, but people were open to both sides. This was at an army base, they understood they would do their job, however the decision to send them in was political.

well it's impossible to support something more than 100%, so I voted "Completely"

I don't support mine at all cuz im irish but britain owns my country

Not really that much: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4755682.stm

I support them of course. They dont choose the wars they fight, they just fight them as hard as possible. You would have to be an idiot to be against them.

Well done, inspired, half baked Marxist theory from a poster who I assume has never read either "Das Kapital" or "The Communist Manifesto".

I've read both, plus a number of other texts by him and by other Marxist authors.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently un-democractic, it is an autocratic regime that prefigures a communist state through oppressing the bougeoise and creating the pre-requisite degree of industrialisation and class equality for communism to ensue. No democracy could be sufficiently hard, as Marx was aware.

It could indeed be seen inherently undemocratic if it is compared to what the anarchists advocated. But making it less democratic than what is meant by "democracy" today - electoral forms to elect representatives in some sort of parliament - wasn't considered. In fact, the Communists planned to run things more democratically than that., through the collective ownership of the means of production.

Take, for instance, Engel's "The Principles of Communism," upon which the Communist Manifesto is based:

What will be the course of this revolution?

Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

There's a good deal more to it than that, and it would be accurate to say that Marx and Engels were more concerned with proletarian class rule than majority rule, but it's ridiculous to deny the democratic nature of the society they envisioned.

Marx on the Paris Commune:

The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.

He further describes it thus:

It was essentially a working class government, the product of the struggle of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economical emancipation of labor.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm

Sounds "autocratic" to me.