NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm just interested to see how many other people are communist

Kind of half half, or is this sitting on the fence too much ;)
Maybe you should put up a poll with this.

Since I'm member of a communist party IRL, I guess I've to answer I'm "pro" ;)

I'm definetly pro-communism with communism as defined by Marx, Engels, and the XIXest century movements like Paris' Commune. I don't support what was done in the name of communism by Stalin or by China. But that was not communism, at all.

Anti.

I am anti-Communist. Not just because I am a Fascist. Not because it's a bad idea, but because it can never be more than an idea.

This would be fine, except that every "successful" attempt to strive for Communism has lead to horrible governments that ultimately create a worse situation for the citizens.

Anti. Anybody who's pro-communist obviously hasn't spent much time in Eastern Europe.

Anti. Anybody who's pro-communist obviously hasn't spent much time in Eastern Europe.Which fails to explain the plethora of communist parties still around in Eastern Europe...

Anti. Anybody who's pro-communist obviously hasn't spent much time in Eastern Europe.
Have you? 'Cause I live here.

Anti. Anybody who's pro-communist obviously hasn't spent much time in Eastern Europe.

That's why communist parties in Eastern Europe have so good scores in elections ? Hey, PDS-Linkspartei is the first party in many area of former DDR. That much for your fallacy.

And well, even if it's probably useless, better restate it again: Eastern Europe, USSR, ... were NOT communism. They didn't even claim to have implemented communism !

I suppose that I am for real communism, as it's a truly fair system, although I'd be a bit gutted to have to give away my things.

Which fails to explain the plethora of communist parties still around in Eastern Europe...

It'll take time to bring Eastern Europe up to Wetsern European standards. People will vote for communist parties because they offer stability, albeit oppressive stability.

Did you notice that until now, the ones who claimed to be anti-communists and who yell about oppression in so-called "socialist" countries (which weren't really socialists and even less communists) are people who rule their nation in a dicatorial way ? ;)

Doesn't surprise me... fascists and communists are and always will be the most bitter ennemies. Fascists stand for ultimate oppression and inequality, while communists stand to free the world of all forms of oppressions and inequalities.

I used to be communist (member of the party, I mean) but I'm no more, 'cause I think ideologies are like walls to ideas. Anyway, I keep thinking has been and actually is the ideology that better tried to explain causes of war, poverty and so on. Maybe it's better asking than answering but I don't think capitalism is much better than communism, 'cause the third world is a part of the market economy, I mean, rich countries need poor ones to keep their wy of living.

It'll take time to bring Eastern Europe up to Wetsern European standards. People will vote for communist parties because they offer stability, albeit oppressive stability.Et alors? It would make them "pro-communist" in a sense and they live in Eastern Europe. Longer than I have. Moots your point about having to live in Eastern Europe to become anti-communist.

It'll take time to bring Eastern Europe up to Wetsern European standards. People will vote for communist parties because they offer stability, albeit oppressive stability.

Of course it'll take time, but they are the lucky ones. It's not possible to bring up the standards of the entire world, the capitalism is the oppresion over the majority. The only way to rise the whole world's standards is killing even faster our planet.

Anyway, any political sistem on earth has offered some avantages to the people living under their rule. Stability is more valued in poor countries where to get a doctor is much more important than having "rights". Western rights are only posible within populations that has covered their needs for most of the population.

i'm an anarcho-communist so i am for communism

I'd like to know why you think Capitalism is oppressive, bearing in mind that there are no truly capitalist societies at present.

Et alors? It would make them "pro-communist" in a sense and they live in Eastern Europe. Longer than I have. Moots your point about having to live in Eastern Europe to become anti-communist.

You're not getting it. In communist Eastern Europe, they had political stability and stagnant economies. Now they have political chaos and stagnant economies. They all thought that when capitalism came, they were all magically going to be like the West. When they found out that they had to pay for gas and electricity, they started to like communism again. They've never had it like the West; they don't really know what they're missing.

Anti. Anybody who's pro-communist obviously hasn't spent much time in Eastern Europe.

I would change "spent much time" into "came from". Some people are talking about how great communism is. Apparently, they are blind to history and narrow-minded if they can't see consequences. 10% of my country's population was sent into gulags, so it is natural that I'm opposing communism.

Which fails to explain the plethora of communist parties still around in Eastern Europe...

You will probably find socialist parties in almost every country. That doesn't mean they receive much public support.

I'd like to know why you think Capitalism is oppressive, bearing in mind that there are no truly capitalist societies at present.

Communism is inherently more oppressive than capitalism; it's just not a very good economic policy, so the government uses oppression to keep their deluded Marxist utopian pipedreams in place.

I'd like to know why you think Capitalism is oppressive, bearing in mind that there are no truly capitalist societies at present.


Well, I advise you to read Marx or Engels (the second one is more amusing) but in few words, 'cause is based on getting benefits with no other objetive, so there are many bodies in that path. Again, look at the third world.

I don't understand why do you say there's no truly capitalist societies at present, I can see many of them. So, please, explain what is truly capitalism for you.

Well, I advise you to read Marx or Engels (the second one is more amusing) but in few words, 'cause is based on getting benefits with no other objetive, so there are many bodies in that path. Again, look at the third world.

I don't see how that makes capitalism more oppressive.

In America, I think of a good idea. I fund it with a bank loan. It becomes huge, lots of people buy it, I get rich. Why shouldn't I? It was my great idea.

In the Soviet Union, I think of a good idea. But it's the government's idea now. Good work, loyal citizen, here's a streetsweeper's wage for your fantastic idea.

Definitely capitalist. I've always been surprised at the large number of communists and left-wingers too on this forum.

I don't see how that makes capitalism more oppressive.

In America, I think of a good idea. I fund it with a bank loan. It becomes huge, lots of people buy it, I get rich. Why shouldn't I? It was my great idea.

In the Soviet Union, I think of a good idea. But it's the government's idea now. Good work, loyal citizen, here's a streetsweeper's wage for your fantastic idea.

'Cause in the first case, you and your interest is the only think you mind. In the second one (in theory) is the whole society. In the first one only the rich people (in a wide sense) can achieve your product. And not everybody can achieve a bank loan, you need to have something to asure the loan. Anyway, the winner it's not you but hte bank, 'cause your idea can be a piece of shit, but the bank get your house, for exemple. Thay never loose.

I'd like to know why you think Capitalism is oppressive, bearing in mind that there are no truly capitalist societies at present.

Well, first, capitalism is an economical system, opposite to socialism, and not a complete socio-politco-economical system. In this sense, capitalism does exist. It's not a pure form of capitalism, but most of the world economy is, mostly, capitalist.

Then, still on the "reality" side, you can easily notice that the most capitalist systems have a highest amount of oppression and misery, while more social countries (like Scandinavian countries, or France/Germany not so long ago) have much less so.

Now, on the theorical basis, the flaws of capitalism are inherent to the theory. Pure capitalism doesn't have any way to prevent people from being in a wage-slavery condition (accept whatever wage contract is proposed to them, or die from starvation). Since people NEED to eat (and drink, and protect themselves from cold, ...), the threat of starvation is as real and as oppressive than the threat of a gun.

The other major flaw of capitalism, which will turn it into an oppressive system, is that, by calling to and rewarding selfishness, it gives more power to the most selfish people, to the ones who won't hesitate to oppress other. In a capitalist system, if you have ethics, compassion, and your competitors don't, the chances you win the competition are very thin. Capitalism creates a money loop (the more money you have, the easiest it is to get even more with the same amount of work), coupled with a power-money loop (the more money you have, the more power you have because that's how economical power is defined in capitalism, and therefore the more ways you have to make even more money). Add to that the volume effects (in most situation, the cost of producing/delivering/... a commodity (product or service) is not proportional to the number, the more you produce/deliver, the cheaper it is per unit, favoring the big players in the competition), and you have a system which automatically leads to create a few very wealthy persons who control most of the economy, and who can oppress most of the remaining ones.

'Cause in the first case, you and your interest is the only think you mind. In the second one (in theory) is the whole society. In the first one only the rich people (in a wide sense) can achieve your product. And not everybody can achieve a bank loan, you need to have something to asure the loan. Anyway, the winner it's not you but hte bank, 'cause your idea can be a piece of shit, but the bank get your house, for exemple. Thay never loose.
In communism, no one gets the idea, because he can't be bothered to go out of his way to come up with something that gets him no reward, and so there is no idea to begin with.

Communism is inherently more oppressive than capitalism; it's just not a very good economic policy, so the government uses oppression to keep their deluded Marxist utopian pipedreams in place.

It's not inherentely more oppressive than capitalism at all!

If someone instuted actual communism, rather than totalitarian socialism, then you might see what real communism is like, and why it's great.

I am a communist.

In communism, no one gets the idea, because he can't be bothered to go out of his way to come up with something that gets him no reward, and so there is no idea to begin with.

Not true at all. The rewards of their ideas go back to the state and then indirectly back to them.

Not true at all. The rewards of their ideas go back to the state and then indirectly back to them.
Very indirectly. It's still not worth his while bothering to do it.

In communism, no one gets the idea, because he can't be bothered to go out of his way to come up with something that gets him no reward, and so there is no idea to begin with.


That's true! (Irony) The sputnik was found by the sovies in a pleasure trip near Silicon Valley. Please, The USSR had many problems, of course, but from being a poor country they became in the second power in the world and in many fields the first one, at least for a while. And surely, capitalism it's a better competitor, 'cause they only worried about success, no matter what could happen in the way.

In communism, no one gets the idea, because he can't be bothered to go out of his way to come up with something that gets him no reward, and so there is no idea to begin with.
Exactly

It's not inherentely more oppressive than capitalism at all!

If someone instuted actual communism, rather than totalitarian socialism, then you might see what real communism is like, and why it's great.
So you would be willing to surrender your (presumably) brand-new £300 computer so that everybody can have some cheap mass produced compuiter that will probably not switch on every odd day.

Communism sucks becuase it's hard to tell how corrupt your country is. At least in capitalist countries we KNOW were' corrupt

Very indirectly. It's still not worth his while bothering to do it.
Just because you won't do anything unless someone gives you a cookie, doesn't mean that everyone thinks like you.

That's true! (Irony) The sputnik was found by the sovies in a pleasure trip near Silicon Valley. Please, The USSR had many problems, of course, but from being a poor country they became in the second power in the world and in many fields the first one, at least for a while. And surely, capitalism it's a better competitor, 'cause they only worried about success, no matter what could happen in the way.
It ruled with an iron fist to try and substitute individual drive and determination.

Most Communists try to disassociate from the USSR as 'not real Communism', but in reality it is exactly what happens when you try to put the theory into practice. It cannot survive without force, because human nature is individualistic and selfish.

Just because you won't do anything unless someone gives you a cookie, doesn't mean that everyone thinks like you.
So it's okay by you if Big Brother invented fire?

So it's okay by you if Big Brother invented fire?

Huh?

Just because you won't do anything unless someone gives you a cookie, doesn't mean that everyone thinks like you.
Yeah, but in Communism you need everyone to think like you, and from my comments on here and the comments of others, you can immediately see that it isn't so.

So it's okay by you if Big Brother invented fire?You're mistaking totalitarianism with communism/socialism.

Very indirectly. It's still not worth his while bothering to do it.

Again, not true at all. If a lot of people in a communist country can be bother to do something for the greater good, then the country, and hence themselves and everyone else, will become extremely prosperous.

Huh?
If the government could take your idea, and claim it was theirs', then they could get away with saying they invented everything, no?

Again, not true at all. If a lot of people in a communist country can be bother to do something for the greater good, then the country, and hence themselves and everyone else, will become extremely prosperous.
People simply don't think like that, dooming Communism to failure before it even starts.

I don't understand why do you say there's no truly capitalist societies at present, I can see many of them. So, please, explain what is truly capitalism for you.

I actually own a copy of Capital (parts of all volumes, abridged though). I've not had time to read it yet.

Anyway, at present what we have are mixed economies, with elements of socialism, i.e. social security and benefits.

If the government could take your idea, and claim it was theirs', then they could get away with saying they invented everything, no?

Possibly, if people were stupid enough to believe that the government is distinct from the people that comprise it...but I don't believe in heirarchical government anyway, so your point is moot.

It ruled with an iron fist to try and substitute individual drive and determination.

Well, lets recognize than previous russian political traditions played some part at this point, didn't they?

Most Communists try to disassociate from the USSR as 'not real Communism', but in reality it is exactly what happens when you try to put the theory into practice. It cannot survive without force, because human nature is individualistic and selfish.


That's partially true, 'cause we're also capable of the opposite in the maximum degree.


By the way, I'd like to remember that if we are so "happy" with this capitalism is 'cause it was softened (¿?) by the workers fight against the worst part of it (child work, etc) The vote was only for the rich, and so on. Give caesar wich is allow to him. (I hope everybody understand, I know correctly in spanish. If some one can repeat it in english would be nice. ;)

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

That's partially true, 'cause we're also capable of the opposite in the maximum degree.


By the way, I'd like to remember that if we are so "happy" with this capitalism is 'cause it was softened (¿?) by the workers fight against the worst part of it (child work, etc) The vote was only for the rich, and so on. Give caesar wich is allow to him. (I hope everybody understand, I know correctly in spanish. If some one can repeat it in english would be nice. ;)
Er, you didn't quote me correctly there, unless I've learnt to say things without typing.

Possibly, if people were stupid enough to believe that the government is distinct from the people that comprise it...but I don't believe in heirarchical government anyway, so your point is moot.
People beleive what they are told, for all we know, the sky might be bright pink, but we think it's blue becuase were' told so

I like the idea beind it, but I also feel that it can never work. People as a whole tend to act in their self-interest, with little to no thought about others, and that will never change. The only way to ensure equality is to force it, and then you end up with brutal dictatorships. True Communism (the state withers away to a classless utopia) is, and will always remain, wishful thinking.

People beleive what they are told, for all we know, the sky might be bright pink, but we think it's blue becuase were' told so

What does that have to do with the price of cheese in Albania? I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

If I claim to have invented the microwave oven, will people believe me, just because? Doubtful.

What does that have to do with the price of cheese in Albania? I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

If I claim to have invented the microwave oven, will people believe me, just because? Doubtful.
I'm saying, as far as I've ever understood, in a communism, the government owns everything, and if the government owns everything, they can can change everything ya?

And if you controlled the world in such a way, then you could make people believe you made the microwave oven

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

Thanks a lot

In theory communism is great, in practice it sucks.

So i'm anti-communism, but I like communists.

I'm saying, as far as I've ever understood, in a communism, the government owns everything, and if the government owns everything, they can can change everything ya?

No, see, that's the problem. Communism isn't about government control. It's about the workers having control and ownership. (regardless of whether you see that as a good or bad thing)

And if you controlled the world in such a way, then you could make people believe you made the microwave oven

Maybe.

Er, you didn't quote me correctly there, unless I've learnt to say things without typing.


The quote was just the first part, with "by the way" I tried to say that is not related.

No, see, that's the problem. Communism isn't about government control. It's about the workers having control and ownership. (regardless of whether you see that as a good or bad thing)

Well someone has to lead the people to it, and usually that person becomes a leads the country. Sorta like Lenin?

I'm saying, as far as I've ever understood, in a communism, the government owns everything, and if the government owns everything, they can can change everything ya?

And if you controlled the world in such a way, then you could make people believe you made the microwave oven


That's how communism was implemented (it's actually called "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", but it's just a brutal police state), that is not, however, the theory. That's not what communism was supposed to be. In "true" communism, all the people share ownership of everything. That's why it can't work. Someone will always want more than everyone else.

That's how communism was implemented (it's actually called "Dictatorship of the Proletariat, but it's just a brutal police state), that is not, however, the theory. That's not what communism was supposed to be. In "true" communism, all the people share ownership of everything. That's why it can't work. Someone will always want more than everyone else.

Yes, and this one is a criminal is a fair society, 'cause having more htna the others is letting the others with less. Oh, wait, that's capitalism

Well someone has to lead the people to it, and usually that person becomes a leads the country. Sorta like Lenin?

Not always. Who led the Paris Commune, for example?

Well someone has to lead the people to it, and usually that person becomes a leads the country. Sorta like Lenin?

It was actually going to be Trotsky, but he declined on the grounds that he was Jewish. Trotsky would have been a fine leader, Lenin was a bit rubbish and Stalin killed it.

Well someone has to lead the people to it, and usually that person becomes a leads the country. Sorta like Lenin?Which is why the whole "Professional Revolutionary" crap is considered Leninism.

It was actually going to be Trotsky, but he declined on the grounds that he was Jewish. Trotsky would have been a fine leader, Lenin was a bit rubbish and Stalin killed it.
?
So, Trotsky, who was a Menshevik until hour 24, would have been appointed leader of the Soviet state - but, since he was just as Jewish as Lenin, he was not allowed to? And then, of course, they got a Georgian.
Really, where did you come up with this?

how couln't i support a system of equality

You're not getting it. In communist Eastern Europe, they had political stability and stagnant economies.

You can say a lot of bad things on USSR and "Estern Europe", but defintely not that they stagnant economies. Russia in 1917 was a rural, illiterate, pre-capitalist country. Despite they got ravaged by two world wars (and they paid the highest price in WW2, nearly one third of the total deaths were from USSR), a civil war, and that they had no colony, they managed to become the second world power and to kick the ass of USA in most of the space race. The same goes fro Eastern Europe. They were, for most of them, very poor, devasted, rural countries when USSR took control, and they managed to achieve a correct level in most critical eras (food, healthcare, education, housing, ...) in a short time. It was far from perfect, but it was far from a disaster either, on a purely economical pov.

Now they have political chaos and stagnant economies.

The political "chaos" is what they like the most. They have much more real democracy than what they used to have, and that's the positive part. But they don't have stagnant economies. For most of them, they have lower economies than what they used to have. In Russia, the GDP is now only 2/3 of what it was during the 80s.

They all thought that when capitalism came, they were all magically going to be like the West. When they found out that they had to pay for gas and electricity, they started to like communism again. They've never had it like the West; they don't really know what they're missing.

They know what they are missing: free healthcare and education, housing for everyone, no unemployment, and so on. That's something no capitalist country ever managed to acheive. The thing is that they feel as if there were only two solutions: either iron-first "socialism" or capitalism with all its misery. What many don't see, or don't believe in, is what we aim for: democratic socialism, as a way to go towards real communism.

?
So, Trotsky, who was a Menshevik until hour 24, would have been appointed leader of the Soviet state - but, since he was just as Jewish as Lenin, he was not allowed to? And then, of course, they got a Georgian.
Really, where did you come up with this?

Lenin wasn't jew, had a grand father that c onverted to cristianism, so....

In communism, no one gets the idea, because he can't be bothered to go out of his way to come up with something that gets him no reward, and so there is no idea to begin with.

Getting the idea is, in itself, a strong enough reward. Most of the mankind thinkers got their idea for the fun of it, or to help humanity as a whole, and not for their own profit.

What you don't understand is that the joy of helping your bretheren is much, much stronger than the profits you can ever get. That's the kind of behavior encouraged by a communist society, while a capitalist society encourages and rewards selfishness.

As Albert Einstein said in his (very interesting) "Why socialism ? (http://www.bigissueground.com/politics/einstein-socialism.shtml)" paper: "Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.".

Anti. Communism may look like a good system at first, but look at soviet russia, and you will see that it is a bad system.

Anti. Anybody who's pro-communist obviously hasn't spent much time in Eastern Europe.

Your barking up the wrong tree.

Eastern Europe was socialist.

I was born there and lived there for quite a few years under your so-called "communism".

Anti. Communism may look like a good system at first, but look at soviet russia, and you will see that it is a bad system.

Soviet Russia... Union of Soviet Socialist Republics...

Do you see a "Communist" in there? Nope.

I guess you're wrong.

Lenin wasn't jew, had a grand father that c onverted to cristianism, so....
Surely, an anti-semite would have considered that enough good material (as they have had, indeed).
Moreover, Stalin couldn't even speak proper Russian until late, and he always spoke it with a disturbing accent (an actor who portrayed Stalin during his lifetime was imprisoned to stop portraying him with an accent).

What you don't understand is that the joy of helping your bretheren is much, much stronger than the profits you can ever get.
What you don't understand is that I do understand that...personally. I also understand, however, that there are many, many people out there who are just selfish, unpleasant buggers. As long as there is even one person like that (let alone billions), Communism will never work.

Soviet Russia... Union of Soviet Socialist Republics...

Do you see a "Communist" in there? Nope.

I guess you're wrong.
Let me point out that, according to Marxist theory, no state could be communist, since communism no longer has the state.
Your example is faulty, although I tend to favor you over your detractors.

Yeah, but in Communism you need everyone to think like you, and from my comments on here and the comments of others, you can immediately see that it isn't so.

No, that's why Communism is, IMHO, the only system that can work. All other systems I know of, be it capitalism or anarchy, will fail as soon as a tiny few will try to seek their own interest at the cost of others. Communism do not requires a 100% adhesion to it, because, in it's core structure, it makes impossible for a few to get power over the others. Communism only requires that most people don't behave too much as selfish bastards, and since it's not far from being true even in a system that rewards, encourages and promotes selfishness and greed, it's completly in the scope of possibilities.

I believ that the only reason left wing politics (Marxism, Socialism, Communism etc) fails is because the selfish capitalist countries refuse to accept giving up some of their power

IMHO?
What's that? Please, let's use easy english as much as possible.

What you don't understand is that the joy of helping your bretheren is much, much stronger than the profits you can ever get. That's the kind of behavior encouraged by a communist society, while a capitalist society encourages and rewards selfishness.

As Albert Einstein said in his (very interesting) "Why socialism ? (http://www.bigissueground.com/politics/einstein-socialism.shtml)" paper: "Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.".

I have no desire to work hard for those who do not. This is so often the case in societies, simply because not everyone wants to have to put in the same effort. Also, I want to receive the fruits of my labours, not somebody elses - I don't want to have to depend on others for my life.
What you call the encouragement and and reward of selfishness, I call the motivation to produce.

'Society' is by definition just a large group of individuals of which I am expected to be a part. To serve society is just to serve the desires of other individuals. I don't want to exist to serve other men, just because I am told by socialists that I should.

Soviet Russia... Union of Soviet Socialist Republics...

Do you see a "Communist" in there? Nope.

I guess you're wrong.
Forget the name. Ther ideology was called "communism". Next time, think before you post nonsense.

Or is this some silly excuse communists use to justify their evil system?

IMHO?
What's that? Please, let's use easy english as much as possible.

"In My Humble Opinion"

n00b. :p

Again, not true at all. If a lot of people in a communist country can be bother to do something for the greater good, then the country, and hence themselves and everyone else, will become extremely prosperous.

People simply don't think like that, dooming Communism to failure before it even starts.

If what you say were true, there would be no Free Software. There would be no charity. No one working in humanitarian organisation. Most people DO want to strive for the greater good. But in capitalism, they are discouraged to do so, because they'll see the selfish ones raising the lader while they, who try to work for the mutual benefit, will remain exploited. While in communism, they are encouraged to do so, and granted the material and mental possibility to do so, by being sure they'll always have a roof, food, water, health care, and by providing education to everyone.

Forget the name. Ther ideology was called "communism". Next time, think before you post nonsense.

Their ideology was Marxism. Communism was the end goal in accordance with this ideology.

Forget the name. Ther ideology was called "communism". Next time, think before you post nonsense.

Or is this some silly excuse communists use to justify their evil system?

I dont see how helping everyone to become equal is evil

surely selfish capitalist greed is evil

"In My Humble Opinion"
Damn, I always thought it was 'honest'.

?
So, Trotsky, who was a Menshevik until hour 24, would have been appointed leader of the Soviet state - but, since he was just as Jewish as Lenin, he was not allowed to? And then, of course, they got a Georgian.
Really, where did you come up with this?

Yeah, he was offered the place by Lenin himself. I think that maybe the whole "Jewish" thing was simply a way to get out of leading, because, as you said, he was one of the Mensheviki until the last dying seconds. And I didn't say that he wasn't allowed to, he said no on the grounds that he was Jewish.

If he then went on to lead the Bolsheviks, he might well have got flack from the Mensheviks, and the Bolsheviks (although he got it anyway in the inter-party rivalry in the 20's) , amongh the other parties that were trying to undermine the revolution.

IMHO?
What's that? Please, let's use easy english as much as possible.
In My Humble Opinion.

I dont see how helping everyone to become equal is evil

surely selfish capitalist greed is evil
You prolly never heard of soviet russia.

If what you say were true, there would be no Free Software. There would be no charity. No one working in humanitarian organisation. Most people DO want to strive for the greater good. But in capitalism, they are discouraged to do so, because they'll see the selfish ones raising the lader while they, who try to work for the mutual benefit, will remain exploited. While in communism, they are encouraged to do so, and granted the material and mental possibility to do so, by being sure they'll always have a roof, food, water, health care, and by providing education to everyone.
But if what you say were true, there would be no capitalism. There would be no one trying to get one over the others; no one trying to have more than they need because they want to look better than others; no one fighting for position. You say capitalism has embedded these attitudes; I say capitalism has developed because of these attitudes.

I am not disputing the good nature of some people; I am disputing the good nature of all people. The idea that all people would willingly accept Communism is a fantasy of middle class champagne socialists.

IMHO?
What's that?
In my honest opinion.
Please let's use easy english as much as possible.
Let me guess, you just etered the first grade or something. easy english is an oxymoron.

I'm just interested to see how many other people are communist.

Umm, excuse me! What is communist?

If you asked me what capitalism is I think I could give a rough definition. Capitalism is using money to make more money.

But I'm not sure what communism is. I've heard of the phrase, "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." But to a large extent this could extend to Australia today. Since Australians are better educated and have more food, clean water, shelter, entertainment and medical care than citizens of the Soviet Union ever did, I guess this means that Australia is more communist now than the Soviet Union ever was.

Another thing I've heard about communism is that the government is supposed to own the means of production. Hmmm... Well in Australia the government doesn't own the means of production, but it has the power to do with the means of production what it likes, check out what happened in World War II for example. Being able to control the means of production seems pretty close to owning it.

Another thing about communism is that people are supposed to vote a lot to arrive at decisions. If you read the old Soviet constitution there seems to be a lot of voting in there. Well Australians pretty much vote more than people in any other country, so maybe that makes us pretty communist.

There are also a whole slew of things that have been described as communist (typically by Americans) ranging from progressive taxation to peace protesters to equal right to flouridation. Since Australia has all of these things to some extent I guess that also makes Australia pretty communist.

But in Australia we have the ability to aquire capital and make more capital from it, and that's supposed to definately not be communism. So I guess Australia would be a communist/capitalist hybrid then? Am I right?

I have no desire to work hard for those who do not. This is so often the case in societies, simply because not everyone wants to have to put in the same effort. Also, I want to receive the fruits of my labours, not somebody elses - I don't want to have to depend on others for my life.
What you call the encouragement and and reward of selfishness, I call the motivation to produce.

'Society' is by definition just a large group of individuals of which I am expected to be a part. To serve society is just to serve the desires of other individuals. I don't want to exist to serve other men, just because I am told by socialists that I should.

Please! Socialism is about not to work for others. In a socialist society, everybody works, so no one can exploit the others.

You talk about your work, but you can write about it 'cause other worked for you, and maybe your parents were "rich" enough to pay you a school and a universty. The rich sons are the laziest bastards in the whole world , and that's not for you, but people like Paria Hilton. Heritage is the key for a socialist society. Enjoy and profit your work every new generation, not your grand father luck.

Their ideology was Marxism. Communism was the end goal in accordance with this ideology.
Marxism is actually a type of communism. so their ideology is communism.

In my honest opinion.


ok thanks

You prolly never heard of soviet russia.

yes I have, but look at Cuba. The only reason that it is in a bad state is because America refuses to treat it equally.

I always laugh when I hear "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." It sums up the idiocy of communism. We change from a world when the man who can produce prospers, to a world where anyone has what they want. Communists frequently fail to ask how the needs of the people are met. Who pays? The man with ability, not the man who needs.

That's how communism was implemented (it's actually called "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", but it's just a brutal police state), that is not, however, the theory. That's not what communism was supposed to be. In "true" communism, all the people share ownership of everything. That's why it can't work. Someone will always want more than everyone else.

Don't confuse everything ;) If you are to speak about communism, you should learn the basis of marxism first.

So let me summarise it: in commuism, there is no state nor governement as we won it. People are self-organised, in a as direct democracy as possible. But we can't reach communism from capitalism directly. So there is the need of a transitional period, called "socialism", in which the workers take the control of the means of production, and start the change of the society. During this period, Marx advocated the "dictatorship of the proletariat". But not as a Stalin-like dictatorship. The word "dictatorship" in Marx was just to speak of a strong power, capable of doing radical changes, not about oppression of tyranny. Marx himself said: "You saw Paris' Commune ? That was the dictatorship of the proletariat". And Paris' Commune was the most democratic governement France ever had.

What Lenin did was, in order to win the civil war, to fallback to a more ironfist power. To avoid doing the same mistake than Paris' Commune did: by being too nice, wanting too much to respect democracy and to avoid blood, they enabled the Versaillais (monarchists and capitalists siding together to crush the Commune) to win, ending in the Bloody Week during which 100,000 "communards" were slaughtered. It was a hard decision to take, and while I don't agree with him, I still respect him.

That's a general problem with revolution: they always occur in desperate situations, and face a great risk of being slaughtered. So they either fail or have to ressort to dirty methods. But that has nothing to do with communism, that has to do with most violent uprising agaisnt a dictatorial power (don't forget that before 1917, Russia was an absolute monarchy). It's a problem with no easy solution, but not a problem of communism.

Yeah, he was offered the place by Lenin himself. I think that maybe the whole "Jewish" thing was simply a way to get out of leading, because, as you said, he was one of the Mensheviki until the last dying seconds. And I didn't say that he wasn't allowed to, he said no on the grounds that he was Jewish.

I wonder if it was Lenin's jobs to assign successors: among other things, Trotsky complained that Stalin had destroyed the group leadership which had previously blocked some of Lenin's own ideas. Which is why a "you lead the party, son" solution is highly dubious.
Lenin left a "testament" (which was more of an advice-manifesto). Sure, we all how heard how Stalin buried it in secrecy because Lenin spat on all his credentials for leadership (a harshness which would have also been partly motivated by the fact that Stalin had cursed Krupskaya), but what does it say about Trotsky? It certainly doesn't single Leon out as a competent leader... In fact, the troyka itself might have agreed to gently hide away the document (i.e.: before Stalin, and before they stopped calling Trotsky to Politbureau meetings).

If he then went on to lead the Bolsheviks, he might well have got flack from the Mensheviks, and the Bolsheviks (although he got it anyway in the inter-party rivalry in the 20's) , amongh the other parties that were trying to undermine the revolution.

What party rivalry between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks in the 1920s? What other parties? May I remind you that the separation between Bolsheviks and all the rest came with the Civil War? All Mensheviks were out of Russia by 1922.

But I'm not sure what communism is. I've heard of the phrase, "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." But to a large extent this could extend to Australia today. Since Australians are better educated and have more food, clean water, shelter, entertainment and medical care than citizens of the Soviet Union ever did, I guess this means that Australia is more communist now than the Soviet Union ever was
Aboriginals?

Another thing I've heard about communism is that the government is supposed to own the means of production.

Not the government, the workers. It's an important distinction.


But in Australia we have the ability to aquire capital and make more capital from it, and that's supposed to definately not be communism. So I guess Australia would be a communist/capitalist hybrid then? Am I right?

No. The workers in Australia are very far from achieving any level of power or parity with the capitalists. There remains a very significant disparity between the wealthiest and poorest in society.

Marxism is actually a type of communism. so their ideology is communism.

Not quite, Marxism is a theory detailing how to reach communism. The goal of the Soviet Union was communism, but the ideology defining it was Marxism.

If what you say were true, there would be no Free Software. There would be no charity. No one working in humanitarian organisation. Most people DO want to strive for the greater good. But in capitalism, they are discouraged to do so, because they'll see the selfish ones raising the lader while they, who try to work for the mutual benefit, will remain exploited. While in communism, they are encouraged to do so, and granted the material and mental possibility to do so, by being sure they'll always have a roof, food, water, health care, and by providing education to everyone.

So in a capitalist country, some of us can get on top, some of us are poor, and most of us are pretty average. In a communist country, we all suck together. Wow, that must be a hell of an ideology you've got there.

I always laugh when I hear "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." It sums up the idiocy of communism. We change from a world when the man who can produce prospers, to a world where anyone has what they want. Communists frequently fail to ask how the needs of the people are met. Who pays? The man with ability, not the man who needs.

sorry but you're talking nonsense, 'cause the workers are the producers and they are, by definition, the poor, against the ones who doesn't need to work.
The ability, the gold crown of capitalism "If you are clever and so, you will succed" Lies! The son of the rich gets the better education and so, not the best students. If not why has the public universities so bad press in the USA?
Just the rich ones can afford a good education for their son, that allow them to succes.

Please! Socialism is about not to work for others. In a socialist society, everybody works, so no one can exploit the others.

You talk about your work, but you can write about it 'cause other worked for you, and maybe your parents were "rich" enough to pay you a school and a universty. The rich sons are the laziest bastards in the whole world , and that's not for you, but people like Paria Hilton. Heritage is the key for a socialist society. Enjoy and profit your work every new generation, not your grand father luck.
I am grateful for what I have received, but there are many who succeed without such benefits, I know a few. They have my utmost respect and admiration because they embody capitalism, but I am not going to reject gifts that help me to succeed.
However, I do not expect to receive these things. I do not want handouts from the state, because I value my individuality. If I receive free education, free healthcare etc. because someone has worked hard and had their money taken through taxation, then all I am is a thief.

Communism doenst work on a scale as big as an entire country becuase there is always the possibility and likylhood of coruption and mismanagment of the system.
It can and has worked however on a community scale with a few hundred, perhaps a thousand or so people and saying that it only works when all present actually chose to live that way and where not forced to.

Let me point out that, according to Marxist theory, no state could be communist, since communism no longer has the state.
Your example is faulty, although I tend to favor you over your detractors.

No, the example is not faulty. USSR and others never implemented communism. They claimed to implement socialism (the transition between capitalism and communism). If they really wanted it is not sure (I personnaly think Lenin was really trying to start a transition towards communism, while Stalin was just a dictator using "communism" as an excuse). But even if they did, that they used means we don't agree with to reach a goal doesn't mean that the goal itself is bad, or that it cannot be reached by other ways (democratic socialism being the way I support to reach communism).

I don't see how people can still argue in favour of communism. We had a communist bloc, for 45 years. It failed miserably. What more proof do you need?

Aboriginals?
Not quite, Marxism is a theory detailing how to reach communism. The goal of the Soviet Union was communism, but the ideology defining it was Marxism.
You must be on the extreme left. anyone who is not knows its a type of communinsm.

Umm, excuse me! What is communist?

If you asked me what capitalism is I think I could give a rough definition. Capitalism is using money to make more money.

But I'm not sure what communism is. I've heard of the phrase, "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." But to a large extent this could extend to Australia today. Since Australians are better educated and have more food, clean water, shelter, entertainment and medical care than citizens of the Soviet Union ever did, I guess this means that Australia is more communist now than the Soviet Union ever was.

Another thing I've heard about communism is that the government is supposed to own the means of production. Hmmm... Well in Australia the government doesn't own the means of production, but it has the power to do with the means of production what it likes, check out what happened in World War II for example. Being able to control the means of production seems pretty close to owning it.

Another thing about communism is that people are supposed to vote a lot to arrive at decisions. If you read the old Soviet constitution there seems to be a lot of voting in there. Well Australians pretty much vote more than people in any other country, so maybe that makes us pretty communist.

There are also a whole slew of things that have been described as communist (typically by Americans) ranging from progressive taxation to peace protesters to equal right to flouridation. Since Australia has all of these things to some extent I guess that also makes Australia pretty communist.

But in Australia we have the ability to aquire capital and make more capital from it, and that's supposed to definately not be communism. So I guess Australia would be a communist/capitalist hybrid then? Am I right?

It's towards socialism.

And the USSR, Laos, China, Vietnam and Cuba all acquire capital and hope to make more, the difference is that it goes into spending on food, education, healthcare etc. and back to the people again instead of going into the pockets of the people who made the money themselves.

Let's put it this way. Let's say that Boris Gatesovski, a hypothetical computer programmer in the USSR, makes three billion Kopeks a day. In a capitalist country, he would be astonishingly wealthy.

In a communist country, the state would take all of that money and gives it back to the people. Everyone, from Andre Antoniski to Zanna Zarovska get a few Kopeks' worth of things a day from the efforts of Boris.

But at the same time, the money they make in the factories/farms/football grounds is also pooled into the government's funds and given out to the people (indirectly, via healthcare and such, although people did get a bit of money to spend). So Boris gets a few Kopeks from his fellow workers too.

In a capitalist country, instead of everyone being moderately well-off, Boris would lord it over everyone, whilst driving a platinum monster truck and having plasma-laser nasal surgery, poor Zanna and Andre would be poor, and would drive Trabants and things, and also not be able to afford any kind of medical treatment, and would do the same treatment with a pair of a kitchen scissors, which would be sad.



Obviously, this is an amazingly overstated version of what happens, but the similarities are there.

sorry but you're talking nonsense, 'cause the workers are the producers and they are, by definition, the poor, against the ones who doesn't need to work.
The ability, the gold crown of capitalism "If you are clever and so, you will succed" Lies! The son of the rich gets the better education and so, not the best students. If not why has the public universities so bad press in the USA?
Just the rich ones can afford a good education for their son, that allow them to succes.

You assume that 'the workers' have no capitalist aspirations themselves. The capitalists are not at the top of some ivory tower.
I don't support giving giant inheritances, but I don't control the money of the rich, it is their choice to give it to their children. It doesn't make them good people. There are plenty of entrepreneurs who haven't had their success paid for by others.

[QUOTE=Forensic Mysteries]I am grateful for what I have received, but there are many who succeed without such benefits, I know a few. They have my utmost respect and admiration because they embody capitalism, but I am not going to reject gifts that help me to succeed.
However, I do not expect to receive these things. I do not want handouts from the state, because I value my individuality. If I receive free education, free healthcare etc. because someone has worked hard and had their money taken through taxation, then all I am is a thief.[/QUOT
It's a social investment, a thief a bussinesman who gets lots of money for a job, no matter what kind.

"You must be on the extreme left. anyone who is not knows its a type of communinsm."

Doesn't matter where are you politically placed, he's right and you're wrong, let's read a bit before talking, please.

IMHO?
What's that? Please, let's use easy english as much as possible.

IMHO is "In My Humble Opinion", something very common in IRC or Usenet.

You assume that 'the workers' have no capitalist aspirations themselves. The capitalists are not at the top of some ivory tower.
I don't support giving giant inheritances, but I don't control the money of the rich, it is their choice to give it to their children. It doesn't make them good people. There are plenty of entrepreneurs who haven't had their success paid for by others.


I assume capitalist aspirations are antisocial, no matter who had them.
It's not their choice, 'cause this money came from others' work.

Unfortunately, I have to leave. Keep fighting for a better society!!

"You must be on the extreme left. anyone who is not knows its a type of communinsm."

Doesn't matter where are you politically placed, he's right and you're wrong, let's read a bit before talking, please.
Go to wikipedia. Look up communism.

Well, I'm not anti-communist. But I certainly ain't pro-communist either.

I'm really quite a selfish individual (call me a product of capitalism, if you want), and I've got a bit of a hang for the romantic aspect of capitalism, of individual achievement and greatness. So I suppose capitalism is the system that suits me best (or vice versa).

But yeah, I'm certainly not one of those who'll start to go all apeshit and compare communism to nazism or defend McCarthy or anything like that.

"It's a social investment, a thief a bussinesman who gets lots of money for a job, no matter what kind."

This is the least intelligent thing I've heard all day. Businessmen are not thieves, they produce something, and if someone wants it they pay for it. Their money isn't exactly mana from heaven.
Oh, and for those who think that managers just sit in their offices all day while the workers are toiling away, wake up. There are plenty of useless sponges in management, but some actually have to work.

[QUOTE=Voxio]I am anti-Communist. Not just because I am a Fascist. Not because it's a bad idea, but because it can never be more than an idea.

This would be fine, except that every "successful" attempt to strive for Communism has lead to horrible governments that ultimately create a worse situation for the citizens.[/QUOTE

A nation like Cuba would be fine if it was accepted equally by the capitalist superpowers

[/QUOTE]But yeah, I'm certainly not one of those who'll start to go all apeshit and compare communism to nazism or defend McCarthy or anything like that.[/QUOTE]

Communism is the complete opposite to Nazizm

You must be on the extreme left. anyone who is not knows its a type of communinsm.

Sigh. Which part of what I said do you not understand?

I assume capitalist aspirations are antisocial, no matter who had them.
It's not their choice, 'cause this money came from others' work.

Unfortunately, I have to leave. Keep fighting for a better society!!
I don't understand why people assume that work, competition to produce better products, the desire to possess the products of one's efforts and personal freedom to be anti-social.
Not all money is taken from others. I've no intention to become a person who receives money from the work of others, but I am a capitalist.

Nice talking to you, I'm off as well.

Communism is the complete opposite to Nazizm
*starts to get annoyed at presumptiousness*

Don't you think I know that? I've been doing economics at school and now at university for almost seven years...

But if what you say were true, there would be no capitalism. There would be no one trying to get one over the others; no one trying to have more than they need because they want to look better than others; no one fighting for position. You say capitalism has embedded these attitudes; I say capitalism has developed because of these attitudes.

I am not disputing the good nature of some people; I am disputing the good nature of all people. The idea that all people would willingly accept Communism is a fantasy of middle class champagne socialists.

What you fail to see is the difference between "some" and "most". That some people are selfish is true. That there would probably always be some, it's also true. But communism do not require EVERYONE to be ready to work for the common good. It only requires MOST people to be ready to work for the common good. And that's something which is possible.

Capitalism allows a tiny few of selfish persons to exploit others. That's a major flaw of capitalism, a flaw which is not in communism. In communism, a tiny minority is powerless to harm the society as a whole.

And at the same time, communism encourages people to be less selfish, while capitalism encourages them to more so. So, communism, at the same time, lower the amount of selfishness AND lower the damage selfish people can do.

PRO COMMUNIST NO QUESTION!!!!!!

I'm neither pro or anti communist. I think Communism, (or more specifically socialism) has lots of benefits and good ideas. So does capitalism. IMO, the best solution is a sensible combination of the two - somewhat like they have in countries like Sweden and Norway at the moment.

IMHO is "In My Humble Opinion", something very common in IRC or Usenet.

Merci, but my IRC english it's not very good.

Marxism is actually a type of communism. so their ideology is communism.

Communism is not an ideology, it's an utopia, that is, a long term goal for the organisation of the society. That some people did horrible things while claiming they wanted to reach the goal doesn't mean the goal itself is either bad or impossible to reach.

PRO COMMUNIST NO QUESTION!!!!!!

I hear you brother

...lower the damage selfish people can do.
Tell me...can you think of any invention which people didn't make themselves, as a personal, individualistic, selfish achievement, usually to then patent and start selling it, for personal, selfish profit?

"It's a social investment, a thief a bussinesman who gets lots of money for a job, no matter what kind."

This is the least intelligent thing I've heard all day. Businessmen are not thieves, they produce something, and if someone wants it they pay for it. Their money isn't exactly mana from heaven.
Oh, and for those who think that managers just sit in their offices all day while the workers are toiling away, wake up. There are plenty of useless sponges in management, but some actually have to work.

Thanks for your evalution on my inteligence.
I don't think managers are not working but they don't deserve the giant amount of money they earn, no one deserve it, at least as long as there are poor people.

No, the example is not faulty. USSR and others never implemented communism. They claimed to implement socialism (the transition between capitalism and communism). If they really wanted it is not sure (I personnaly think Lenin was really trying to start a transition towards communism, while Stalin was just a dictator using "communism" as an excuse). But even if they did, that they used means we don't agree with to reach a goal doesn't mean that the goal itself is bad, or that it cannot be reached by other ways (democratic socialism being the way I support to reach communism).
My exact point is: you cannot call them less communist because they are not communist in your way (just as it doesn't make them less socialist). The field of "communism" is so varied, that the only measure of it remains the appropriation of the term (and, let me tell yo, virtually all things behind the Iron Curtain have never ceased declaring that communism was the ultimate goal).
Of course, as I have stated 1,800,800 times on these forums: there is no common responsability for communism, and all mixing of, let's say, Maoism and Luxemburgism (or even Maoism and Stalinism, Stalinism and Khruschevism), as well of the willful ignorace of the fact that many (if not indeed most) of the Soviet state's victims have been communists of some sort.
I may find the economics of Communism (as opposed to those of Socialism) to be irrational, but I fail to see the "radicalism" of Eurocommunist movements today (or other forms of communism). I also refuse to attribute to the Soviet Union responsibilty for those policies which it never applied. And I also refuse to accept the idiotic conservative-to-libertarian propaganda that staes "Communism is unitary and communists are evil even when they use the toilet and floss".

o..defintiely anti communist.....communism is nothing but a bunch of bullshit propounded by equally demented individuals as another power consolidation technique....all it says is that everyone should be equally poor...so bloody laughable.

...i'm all for the good ol' Democracy....just let the people believe that they have the right to change anything.....and the people who actually can 'think'....shall rule the others...

not all people are created equal...and neither will they ever be equal....yes..all we can and must try to assure is..that everyone has a decent chance at bettering his lot....so yeah..i'm for social welfare..but sparingly..( i don't mind paying for a bum's food and a roof on his head..and yes..he can have the clothes i no longer use and sure..will pay for his kids to get through highschool... ...but no....i won't foot the bill for their family vacation or his wife's sex change and trips to the shrink...he's gotta work for all that...)

Don't confuse everything ;) If you are to speak about communism, you should learn the basis of marxism first.

So let me summarise it: in commuism, there is no state nor governement as we won it. People are self-organised, in a as direct democracy as possible. But we can't reach communism from capitalism directly. So there is the need of a transitional period, called "socialism", in which the workers take the control of the means of production, and start the change of the society. During this period, Marx advocated the "dictatorship of the proletariat". But not as a Stalin-like dictatorship. The word "dictatorship" in Marx was just to speak of a strong power, capable of doing radical changes, not about oppression of tyranny. Marx himself said: "You saw Paris' Commune ? That was the dictatorship of the proletariat". And Paris' Commune was the most democratic governement France ever had.

What Lenin did was, in order to win the civil war, to fallback to a more ironfist power. To avoid doing the same mistake than Paris' Commune did: by being too nice, wanting too much to respect democracy and to avoid blood, they enabled the Versaillais (monarchists and capitalists siding together to crush the Commune) to win, ending in the Bloody Week during which 100,000 "communards" were slaughtered. It was a hard decision to take, and while I don't agree with him, I still respect him.

That's a general problem with revolution: they always occur in desperate situations, and face a great risk of being slaughtered. So they either fail or have to ressort to dirty methods. But that has nothing to do with communism, that has to do with most violent uprising agaisnt a dictatorial power (don't forget that before 1917, Russia was an absolute monarchy). It's a problem with no easy solution, but not a problem of communism.

I'm aware of all that. Don't talk down to me, and don't imply that I'm ignorant ever again.

Thanks for your evalution on my inteligence.
I don't think managers are not working but they don't deserve the giant amount of money they earn, no one deserve it, at least as long as there are poor people.
"Deserve"...what do you mean by that word?

As I understand it, the word has got nothing to do with anyone else but the person who is the subject of that deserving. Whether or not everyone around me even exists doesn't matter to the question whether or not I deserve something.

And besides, managers are usually those who put all the parts together to form one valuable whole. A heap of building materials is not a house, it might only cost a few thousand dollars.
But put the materials together to form a house, and the price will skyrocket. That is what managers do: they take the relatively worthless elements and form something that produces value for others.

Tell me...can you think of any invention which people didn't make themselves, as a personal, individualistic, selfish achievement, usually to then patent and start selling it, for personal, selfish profit?
Open source software.

*snip*
Plz turn capslock and size 7 off. we can hear you just fine.

I'm neither pro or anti communist. I think Communism, (or more specifically socialism) has lots of benefits and good ideas. So does capitalism. IMO, the best solution is a sensible combination of the two - somewhat like they have in countries like Sweden and Norway at the moment.

Ah, a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise, eh?

That's what my nation was until yesterday, and now it's a left-leaning college state :(

I always laugh when I hear "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." It sums up the idiocy of communism. We change from a world when the man who can produce prospers, to a world where anyone has what they want. Communists frequently fail to ask how the needs of the people are met. Who pays? The man with ability, not the man who needs.

Exactly, and that's so great about communism. You're healthy, strong, smart ? You're already lucky. Why should you have more materail wealth because you're lucky to have a lot of abilities ? Your neighbour is blind and has a cancer. Should he starve ? Should he have less material wealth than you ? Should he has to pay for his healthcare and the special equipement he needs to be able to live with his blindness ? Of course he shouldn't ! Even if he receives according to his needs and you give according to your abilities, you're still better off than he is, because being healthy is much better than any material thing you can give to the other one.

This is a caricatural example, but it is the idea behing communism, and it's always more or less true even if less directly seeable. People who have more "abilities" WILL be better off, even if they have the same material wealth. People who have more "needs" have those "needs" because they have a more difficult situation, and even if we fullfill their "needs" for them they WILL be living worse. Don't stack material inequality to inherent inequality, be it from health reasons or others.

I've an IQ of 130. I don't know where it comes from (genetics ? early childhood ? food my mom eat while she was pregnant ? education ? no idea). But even if I have the same material wealth as my neighbour, I'll probably understand things faster, I'll be able to do more things I like, more easily, ... Why should I have more wealth ? I'm already lucky ! (Well, I don't believe much in IQ, and I don't consider myself to be really that smart overall, I suck in relationships with girls, for example, but that's the general idea, my personal case doesn't matter).

Open source software.
Yes...but was that an individual dream and achievement, or was that a collective effort? Did the inventors first think of themselves, or did they spend those hours with all their potential users in mind?

But I'll grant you that this is indeed something of a freak occurance. Nonetheless, the point stands that selfish individuals, for all the damage they might have done (usually with the approval of everyone they dealt with), they have also created many new and great things which we enjoy today, and without which life would suck a lot more.

"Deserve"...what do you mean by that word?

As I understand it, the word has got nothing to do with anyone else but the person who is the subject of that deserving. Whether or not everyone around me even exists doesn't matter to the question whether or not I deserve something.

And besides, managers are usually those who put all the parts together to form one valuable whole. A heap of building materials is not a house, it might only cost a few thousand dollars.
But put the materials together to form a house, and the price will skyrocket. That is what managers do: they take the relatively worthless elements and form something that produces value for others.

Yes, and is valuable, of course, like everything is this world. This amount of materials is cheap 'cause is paid within the market rules and so the managers. But any of them is needed to achieve the house, so with other economical rules, the salary would be more balanced.

Of course, to deserve is a moral term, 'cause all this forum is about a moral question. Not efficiency but moral. Can you have millions of euros when people is starving? My answer is NO.

And please, dont' insult my inteligence talking about a single country, big fortunes are almost always made in a worldwide scale.

Pro. Even though my nation isn't.

Ah, a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise, eh?

That's what my nation was until yesterday, and now it's a left-leaning college state :(

Same here, I seem to be fluctuating between that and New York Times Democracy :confused:

You're healthy, strong, smart ? You're already lucky. Why should you have more materail wealth because you're lucky to have a lot of abilities ?
Hehehe...you're like a character out of Atlas Shrugged. I always thought she was just building up strawmen...but there you are. ;)

Anti ...

Anti ...

Why, may I ask?

Equalist. Parts of communisim, including but not limited too...

1. An equal amount of rights, not depending on station, office, gender, nationality, age or criminal record.

2. An amount of free rule, not unlimited but without more detailed rules that describe what to do in situations which are not likely to occur.

3. The abillity of any one living organisim to run for office, and that this should be decided entirely upon a ballot in which all are equal.

4. That all the above be kept to the highest degree, and that no situation allows any to be bypassed.

And Parts of other Political Regimes, Including but not limited too...

1. That all men are created equal, yet from the equal creation they are able to gain an control a larger or lesser station than that original equality, assuming that they do not use any deceitful or unlawful means to reach that station.

2. A recognization but not discrimination of differences, to realize that all are different, yet equal.

3. The ability that anyone who holds office can be legaly outsted if the current leader proposes a referendum which passes by a simple majority, and the same may be done in the case of referendums passed which the office holder wishes to repeal.

4. That the office holder previously stated controls the area in which the referendum or election was completed, and that he has consent of those in the higher ranks above them.

5. That all the above be kept to the highest degree, and that no situation allows any to be bypassed.

i love communism! its the perfect system of government, so long as you only need to govern 5 or 6 people, and even thats pushing it.

Tell me...can you think of any invention which people didn't make themselves, as a personal, individualistic, selfish achievement, usually to then patent and start selling it, for personal, selfish profit?

Most inventions were not done that way. Most of our greatest thinkers, from Archimede to Newton to Galileo to Einstein did not do their work for their own profits. Most scientists do not do their work for money, but for science itself. And if you look at the Free Software community, you'll see how many great ideas are invented and developped there, in a completly non-capitalist way.

i'm pro-communism as an idea. the only problem is, it'll never work other than on paper, since it's human nature to be greedy. so i guess it's not that great of an idea, if it's not practical in real life. i'd be all for it if everyone would just stop being so damn selfish, myself included.

Yes, and is valuable, of course, like everything is this world. This amount of materials is cheap 'cause is paid within the market rules and so the managers.
Well yes. To be honest, I don't see any other way how prices can be determined.
Either you do it with the market, and the materials will cost whatever they are worth to someone else, or they are determined by a third party, which will always have to force both sides to agree to the transaction - and even then has no way to determine what a good price would be.

But any of them is needed to achieve the house, so with other economical rules, the salary would be more balanced.
Yes. But they wouldn't be more fair.
In Capitalism, everyone should get paid what their work is worth to someone else. It is obvious that a manager (moreso still the entrepreneur who starts the whole thing) creates a whole lot more value than the worker. And that is why he or she earns so much more money.

The worker gets paid whatever his contribution to the house is. Just like anyone else. And that contribution is an objective fact. It's not open to interpretation, it can be plainly observed in the real world.

By saying that the worker should be paid more than his contribution to the existence of the house, you are violating reality, and replacing it with an ideology the roots of which people can't observe.

Of course, to deserve is a moral term, 'cause all this forum is about a moral question. Not efficiency but moral. Can you have millions of euros when people is starving? My answer is NO.
Well, of course I could. It could be in my pocket.
But when everyone else is starving, my millions couldn't buy me anything. And that is why even me old selfish capitalist bastard cares what happens to the people I deal with.

i'm pro-communism as an idea. the only problem is, it'll never work other than on paper, since it's human nature to be greedy. so i guess it's not that great of an idea, if it's not practical in real life. i'd be all for it if everyone would just stop being so damn selfish, myself included.

Yeah, that's exactly the problem. Bah... human nature...

Most of our greatest thinkers, from Archimede to Newton to Galileo to Einstein did not do their work for their own profits.
All these people were still selfish. They themselves wanted to do this, and so they did.
They didn't do it for anybody else.

And to tell me that Archimedes didn't sell his inventions is pretty rich.

Thanks to the people who responded to my questions.

Now I'm wondering about a society like similar to Australia or the U.S. today but with higher taxation and in which every single person (children too, via their parents) receives $200 from the government to do with as they please. There would be no poverty and much less inequality in such a soceity. Would this count as capitalist, socialist, communist, semi-communist or what?

Why, may I ask?

As an idea, it's all fine and good. As we've seen the practical implementation of Communism in the USSR and China as a large scale experiment, proves the theory doesn't stand up (pure Capitalism doesn't exist either).

Capitalism and Communism are both inherently exploitive, because both involve what basically boils down to mandatory work for the good of others. Although Communists are often very vocal about freeing people from wage slavery, most concede in some way that people will still work hard in their society. If your idea in Communist utopia would be to exile, lynch, imprison or otherwise isolate or punish those who refused to work for everyone else, you're just as bad as the Capitalists, perhaps worse. Forcing people to work for the good of society is still forcing people to work. If your personal Communist utopia exempts me from work but still gives me free stuff then count me in, but I know that this is not the model proposed by most Communists.

I'd say I'm probably some sort of Libertarian Lafarguian, which puts me nowhere near either Capitalism or Communism.

As an idea, it's all fine and good. As we've seen the practical implementation of Communism in the USSR and China as a large scale experiment, proves the theory doesn't stand up (pure Capitalism doesn't exist either).

Yeah, but as you yourself said, the examples given aren't really communism.

It's a great idea and I think it'd work much, much better if instead of whole countries doing it, villages or town districts did it themselves.

Hehehe...you're like a character out of Atlas Shrugged. I always thought she was just building up strawmen...but there you are. ;)

Hum, I don't know what you are speaking about ;) But hey, I'm not a strawman ! ;)

Unrepentant Commie. Proper communist, none of this USSR nonsense. Marx and Engels and the like. Good chaps.

If communism is done right, I don't see what's so bad about it. Although I'd much rather stick with a tweaked version of socialism. Gotta keep everyone at least sorta happy, right?

Did you notice that until now, the ones who claimed to be anti-communists and who yell about oppression in so-called "socialist" countries (which weren't really socialists and even less communists) are people who rule their nation in a dicatorial way ? ;)

Doesn't surprise me... fascists and communists are and always will be the most bitter ennemies. Fascists stand for ultimate oppression and inequality, while communists stand to free the world of all forms of oppressions and inequalities.

Absolute nonsense. Communism is just as oppresive. Its oppresive to human nature and individual dignity. It goes against nature.

I do not believe all people are equal. People must be free to pursue individual fortunes. We are not hive insects. Communism is unrealistic and inhuman.

Absolute nonsense. Communism is just as oppresive. Its oppresive to human nature and individual dignity. It goes against nature.

I do not believe all people are equal. People must be free to pursue individual fortunes. We are not hive insects. Communism is unrealistic and inhuman.

It goes against nature AND humanity? But then...hive insects are part of nature...

or do you mean "human nature"? In which case i refute you with the simple fact..."there is no such thing as human nature, we are all products of the environment we are raised in".

anti cause communism is bad

anti cause communism is bad
Who told you? :eek:

anti cause communism is bad

If that is all you think then you've been brainwashed by capitalist society

Absolute nonsense. Communism is just as oppresive. Its oppresive to human nature and individual dignity.

There is no such thing as human nature, human nature is the result of environement, education, society, ...

Communism is not oppressive, and it's the only system which prevents oppression and protects individual dignity. What's oppressive to individual dignity is sleeping in the street. What's oppressive to individual dignity is being forced to beg to be able to eat. What's oppressive to individual dignity is being forced to obey to someone just because he's wealthier and therefore bought the company you're working in.

Communism, by granting everyone what he needs to live decently, protects individual dignity, and allows everyone to seek happiness.

It goes against nature.

No more than does using a computer. But still you're typing here.

I do not believe all people are equal. People must be free to pursue individual fortunes.

For people to be free to pursue their individual lives, they need to be free from hunger, disease, cold weather and wage-slavery. But being free to pursue your individual life doesn't mean you've the right to break anyone else life. That's no longer a freedom, but a power, a source of oppression.

We are not hive insects.

It's fascism, or absolute forms of capitalism, which turns workers into hive insects. Communism, by granting everyone with education, free time and decent living conditions allows everyone to exist as individuals. Communism doesn't oppose diversity, it opposes oppression and inequalities. Diversity is good, in a communist society.

Im fanatically anti communist and find it appauling that people like the idea of it. i would much much rather live under fascism or nazism. i would like to see a poll on how many people would choose nazism over communism or Hitler over Stalin if you had to choose between the two or a poll on how many people like the idea of communism.

There is no such thing as human nature, human nature is the result of environement, education, society, ...

Communism is not oppressive, and it's the only system which prevents oppression and protects individual dignity. What's oppressive to individual dignity is sleeping in the street. What's oppressive to individual dignity is being forced to beg to be able to eat. What's oppressive to individual dignity is being forced to obey to someone just because he's wealthier and therefore bought the company you're working in.

Communism, by granting everyone what he needs to live decently, protects individual dignity, and allows everyone to seek happiness.



No more than does using a computer. But still you're typing here.



For people to be free to pursue their individual lives, they need to be free from hunger, disease, cold weather and wage-slavery. But being free to pursue your individual life doesn't mean you've the right to break anyone else life. That's no longer a freedom, but a power, a source of oppression.



It's fascism, or absolute forms of capitalism, which turns workers into hive insects. Communism, by granting everyone with education, free time and decent living conditions allows everyone to exist as individuals. Communism doesn't oppose diversity, it opposes oppression and inequalities. Diversity is good, in a communist society.


Yeah, what you said.

Im fanatically anti communist and find it appauling that people like the idea of it. i would much much rather live under fascism or nazism. i would like to see a poll on how many people would choose nazism over communism or Hitler over Stalin if you had to choose between the two or a poll on how many people like the idea of communism.

I take it you are a well off white guy who doesn't give a damn about anyone but yourself

Communism doesnt work even the non war communism (USSR form where the government owns everything). As a conservative believing that people are stained with original sin i hate the idea of binding everyones Economics together in equality people wont work hard after a while because they realize that there isnt a point in working hard.

Quite anti. It sounds nice in theory but in practice and application it's a disaster.

Communism doesnt work even the non war communism (USSR form where the government owns everything). As a conservative believing that people are stained with original sin i hate the idea of binding everyones Economics together in equality people wont work hard after a while because they realize that there isnt a point in working hard.

Everyone is stained with original sin?

Don't tar me with your judeo-christian nonsense fella. If i do have any original sin, i wear it as a badge, hardly a stain.

I'm still wondering about this: If the Australian government increased taxes and in return gave every single Australian, man woman and child $200 a week we would have no poverty and less inequality. Would this make Australia communist, socialist, semi-communist, or what?

I'm aware of all that. Don't talk down to me, and don't imply that I'm ignorant ever again.

Sorry if I sounded that way, I didn't mean to. Your "That's how communism was implemented (it's actually called "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", but it's just a brutal police state)" meant to me that "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is a "brutal police state", which is not at all what Marx meant. So I just wanted to correct this.

I agree my tone wasn't really appropriate, and I apologize for it. It's just that I'm sometimes a bit fed up to say the same things over and over again, so I sometime use an aggressive tone that I don't really want to use. Anyway, sorry.

I'm still wondering about this: If the Australian government increased taxes and in return gave every single Australian, man woman and child $200 a week we would have no poverty and less inequality. Would this make Australia communist, socialist, semi-communist, or what?

State socialist, basically. It wouldn't be communist unless the entire financial system that made "taxes" and "$200" evolved away. And handing out a weekly grant doesn't end with the people controlling the means of production.

It depends, really. I wouldn't call myself a Marxist by any stretch of the imagination, but I tend to side with anarcho-communism, so I would say I am pro-communism provided it is voluntary and based on anarchist principles (in the form of anarcho-communism) rather than authoritarian variants.

Social classes are a necessary element in society. Some people should have a higher social status than other people. And communism doesn't really give education, free time and decent living conditions for all when put into practice. Rather, instead of some having good living conditions and some having bad living conditions everyone has appalling living conditions.

Okay, forgive me for this tiny little hijack, but...

All this talk of hive insects is wildly inaccurate. Hive insect behavior is NOT a case of unified altruism. Hive insects are not sacrificing their "individual" goals in favor of some larger collective purpose.

Hive insects are functioning under the same "selfish" rules as any other biological life we have encountered. Comparing hive insects to communistic principles is simply invalid, whether you're trying to use the comparison positively or negatively.

Take ants, for instance. Female ants are diploids, while males are haploid. In other words, female ants have two sets of genes (one set from their father and one from their mother), while male ants only have one set of genes.

Since there is one queen, all ants in a colony have the same mother. She passes on one copy of each gene to her offspring. Random chance determines which of her two copies of each gene will get passed on to any given brood. The offspring in a brood also all have the same father, and he passed on 100% of his genes to each of his offspring (because he only has one set to donate in the first place, so they all are going to get the same copy of each gene from him).

Worker ants are all female. They all got the exact same DNA from their father, and (statistically) they probably share in common about 50% of the DNA they got from their mother. This means they share 75% of their DNA with each of their sisters (on average).

Now, if one of those female workers were to produce her own offspring, she would pass on 50% of her DNA to the offspring, contributing 50% to their complete genetic makeup. So she would be 50% related to her offspring, while she is 75% related to her sisters. In terms of passing on her genetics, she actually gets less out of having her own young than she would out of helping her sisters to survive.

Humans are a completely different story. Male humans are diploid just like female humans, so we are 50% related to our young as well as 50% related to our biological siblings. In terms of getting our genes into the next generation, we don't automatically gain an advantage by helping our siblings rather than producing our own young.

This is basically a very long-winded way of explaining one of the many reasons why insect social behavior should not be compared to human behavior.

State socialist, basically. It wouldn't be communist unless the entire financial system that made "taxes" and "$200" evolved away. And handing out a weekly grant doesn't end with the people controlling the means of production.

Thank you. Now I have another question. If instead of a $200 dollar a week handout, the Australian government handed out $200 worth of shares and allowed people to spend the dividends but not the capital, so everyone in Australia would end up own a steadily increasing portion of the means of production. Would this result in Australia becoming communist or paritially communist?

I'm a communist, based on the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. I hate Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot's guts.

Whilst I find my position, capacity and potential in capitalism to be fine, I would concurrently have no qualms as to living in a true communist state. My objections to Marxism arise not from its ideal, but the process it advocates to acquire said ideal.

Social classes are a necessary element in society. Some people should have a higher social status than other people. And communism doesn't really give education, free time and decent living conditions for all when put into practice. Rather, instead of some having good living conditions and some having bad living conditions everyone has appalling living conditions.

Look at China. Their education system is exceptional and their living conditions are alright, but rapidly rising.

I'm still wondering about this: If the Australian government increased taxes and in return gave every single Australian, man woman and child $200 a week we would have no poverty and less inequality. Would this make Australia communist, socialist, semi-communist, or what?

That would make Australia social-democrat. It would still be a mostly capitalist economy (private property of means of production), but with a strong social protection. That's what countries like France more or less do, here we have an RMI ("minimal insertion income") given to those without other ressources, but it's too low, it's around 450 euros/month (which barely pays the rent of a small flat in many regions of France). It's much, much better than raw capitalism, but just a dirty hack and not a real solution.

That would make Australia social-democrat. It would still be a mostly capitalist economy (private property of means of production), but with a strong social protection. That's what countries like France more or less do, here we have an RMI ("minimal insertion income") given to those without other ressources, but it's too low, it's around 450 euros/month (which barely pays the rent of a small flat in many regions of France). It's much, much better than raw capitalism, but just a dirty hack and not a real solution.

Thanks. But as for being a dirty hack, if it is better than the current situation wouldn't it be beneficial to take steps in this direction?

Thanks. But as for being a dirty hack, if it is better than the current situation wouldn't it be beneficial to take steps in this direction?

As I said "it's much, much better than raw capitalism", so yes, it's benefical. And I do not speak only for myself, the french communist party always supported those kind of "dirty hacks", and was behind the creation of many. We just need to keep in mind that they are not a solution of the problem, but just a fix to make the worse consequences disappear. Which is great, but not enough.

Anti - No one is born equal (in terms of physiology, psychology etc) so making people economically equal doesn't make people equal fundamentally it means that people who are more motivated than others are only rewarded as much as lazy people - wheres the incentive to work hard? Why do a grim job when people who have nicer jobs get the same? Our housing stock is inequal so how do you make people equal in housing terms? - its wrong.

People in management are paid lots due to the scarcity of their abilities in the market (a product of human's inate inequality) though i agree when you get to top end salaries they are completely unfair - but to a point they are rewared for having a rare gift, usually they have a degree which costs lots of money so the higher salaries follow as an incentive for people to invest in their education.

It only takes small groups of highly willful people to cause a coup etc, humans are easily manipulated and as long as they are smart they can engineer popular support and over throw a self governing society or at least fracture it and cause a civil war (ie the red terror).

Planned economies cannot as easily deal with unpredicted variables - the models fall apart. I don't disagree that some capitalist nations don't do enough to help to bottom of society, but the ones that embrace the market as well as impletment a strong welfare state (as opposed to workers 'rights' laws) generally do very well.

I don't think you can get rid of a human's desire to serve themselves first. I don't see how you can have a democratic system where people would keep on voting for / complying a communist system. At some point some people will become unhappy (nothing can be perfect) and they will blame the system and oppose it. It also doesn't say much for the commuist system that communists can't agree on what communism is / or the best way to get there.

It would take a massive leap of faith for a majority of a population to go blind into a communist system (or socialist transition), and for many it would mean they would have to make massive changes (most likely negative) to their lifestyles to create this system that I can't see how people won't be disenchanted with it. And as many socialist / communist organisations atest due to the global distribution and concentration of resources, communism can't work properly unless the whole world is communist, and people can't agree on much now - I seriously doubt that the whole world can get together and agree on one coherent structure for the world's economy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg

http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos1/11Ucrania.jpg

http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos1/22Vinnitsa.jpg

http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos1/26europeos.jpg

http://www.americandebtorsprison.com/images/chinese_execution.jpg

And these are the "family friendly" pictures I picked out

100 million deaths

I AM ANTI-COMMUNIST

To answer the original question, I do not support Communism. I am deeply troubled by the Marxist notion of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need." I am bothered by the idea that some humans feel entitled to the labor of other humans. This is certainly not a sentiment that is unique to communism, of course, but it is one that bothers me.

anti-Communism, definitely

Communism can only compete economically if the state exists in a vacuum (can't compete with the freer markets)...

Communism historically has meant a major decrease in individual rights... right to speak or write your opinion, right to start a business/make money/own property (which has a lot to do with CRAPPY Communist economies), right to practice religion, etc. Subversives are tortured, maimed or killed often (gulags, Mao, killing fields, etc...)

anti-Communism, definitely

Communism can only compete economically if the state exists in a vacuum (can't compete with the freer markets)...

Communism historically has meant a major decrease in individual rights... right to speak or write your opinion, right to start a business/make money/own property (which has a lot to do with CRAPPY Communist economies), right to practice religion, etc. Subversives are tortured, maimed or killed often (gulags, Mao, killing fields, etc...)

go to page 12 at bottom for pictures

basically executions of people who "fought for democracy"

I believe 2 of the executions are for practising certain religions

anti-Communism, definitely

Communism can only compete economically if the state exists in a vacuum (can't compete with the freer markets)...

Communism historically has meant a major decrease in individual rights... right to speak or write your opinion, right to start a business/make money/own property (which has a lot to do with CRAPPY Communist economies), right to practice religion, etc. Subversives are tortured, maimed or killed often (gulags, Mao, killing fields, etc...)

Theoretical communism encoroprates none of the above, its perversion by Stalin, Mao and others facilitate such repression.

Theoretical communism encoroprates none of the above, its perversion by Stalin, Mao and others facilitate such repression.

Karl Marx was anti-religion as well

And though corrupted communism is much worst, theoretical communism doesn't work. Look at the Native Americans(in Canada/US) , probably the closest thing to communism. All tribes are different, but many tribes had the "Equality system" and no private ownership. But has this system helped them? No, not really. Greatest inventions: Canoe and tobacco.

anti-Communism, definitely

Communism can only compete economically if the state exists in a vacuum (can't compete with the freer markets)...

That's why the USSR, despite two world wars, a civil war, and being a poor rural country at the start managed to kicked out the USA ass in most of the space race ?

That's why Russia nowadays only has 2/3 of the GDP it had during the 80s ?

Communism historically has meant a major decrease in individual rights... right to speak or write your opinion,

Actually, it was more a non-improving than a decrease. Pre-USSR Russia was an absolute monarchy, and that was true in most other "socialist" countries.

That said, it was not communism, only ironfirst caricatures of socialism. Attempts to reach (or go close to) communism in democratic countries were, on the opposite, done with a major increase of individual rights, be it during Paris' Commune, Allende's Chile, or more recently, Chavez' Venezuella.

right to start a business/make money/own property (which has a lot to do with CRAPPY Communist economies),

What you called "communist economies" (which were not communist, at most socialists, if not state capitalists) were far from "crappy", if you look at what's the most important: housing, food, healthcare, ... and if you look at the context (situation before the countries became socialists, wars, and lack of colonies/puppet ressource providers).

Definately anti-commie (I vote for the Progress Party [rightwing party]).

basically executions of people who "fought for democracy"

Which also what happened in every country trying to implement democratic socialism, until now, because the capitalists slaughtered them all. The slaughter of Paris' Commune (100,000 deaths in one week in a city of 2 millions of citizen) was as worse as any crime of the stalinist regimes, and it was done on people who "fought for democracy", too. USA-backed Pinochet's dictatorship was a much more recent example of how capitalists don't hesitate to use as reckless and inhuman repression of any attempt to reach democratic socialism.

Crimes were committed both in the name of capitalism and "communism". But you can't use crimes committed in the name of an ideal as crimes of this ideal.

Karl Marx was anti-religion as well

And though corrupted communism is much worst, theoretical communism doesn't work. Look at the Native Americans(in Canada/US) , probably the closest thing to communism. All tribes are different, but many tribes had the "Equality system" and no private ownership. But has this system helped them? No, not really. Greatest inventions: Canoe and tobacco.

However, they lived in symbiosis with their environment, considered themselves "content", and had an operative society that was considerably fairer than that of the west.

I would concede that communism is less effective in largr societies, however you are judging the development of the "communist indians" through a western, caoitalist perspective that would be radically altered by communism.

Karl Marx was anti-religion as well

But you gotta love his reasoning on religion:

Religion exists because humans have needs that are not being satisfied by The State. The State should be fulfilling all of the needs of the people, such that they would have no need for religion.

Karl Marx was anti-religion as well

Being anti-religion doesn't mean being against the freedom of religion. I am anti-religion, I consider religions to be illogical and dangerous. But I do support the freedom of religion (as long as your religion doesn't force anyone to be part of it).

Marx position on religion was: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. ", and that's something I totally agree with. It doesn't mean we have to repress people who have a religion. But more than religions will hopefully vanish away in a more human society, free from oppression, misery and with better education.

Communism means there's no reason to work hard, because the benefits of my labor will go to a bum who sits on his @$$. And since people don't like having the fruits of their labor ripped away from them, Communism requires an oppresive government to force people to give away their stuff. Soviet Union, anyone?

Being anti-religion doesn't mean being against the freedom of religion. I am anti-religion, I consider religions to be illogical and dangerous. But I do support the freedom of religion (as long as your religion doesn't force anyone to be part of it).

Marx position on religion was: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. ", and that's something I totally agree with. It doesn't mean we have to repress people who have a religion. But more than religions will hopefully vanish away in a more human society, free from oppression, misery and with better education.

Precisely. That's not "anti-religion", thats anti whatever causes the human race to need religion to give his life meaning.

Communism means there's no reason to work hard, because the benefits of my labor will go to a bum who sits on his @$$. And since people don't like having the fruits of their labor ripped away from them, Communism requires an oppresive government to force people to give away their stuff. Soviet Union, anyone?

No.

In Communism, everyone gets rewarded for the work they do, and people work for themselves as well as each other, rather than for corporate overlords. Now, it's not always for money, but it can be if the society "chooses" a de facto currency.

Get your head out of your ass.

I am anti communist, since, if the world was communist then this site would not be allowed to exist. Long live freedom!

I am anti communist, since, if the world was communist then this site would not be allowed to exist. Long live freedom!

Sarcasm, I hope.

No.

In Communism, everyone gets rewarded for the work they do, and people work for themselves as well as each other, rather than for corporate overlords. Now, it's not always for money, but it can be if the society "chooses" a de facto currency.

Get your head out of your ass.

In Communism, people work for the State, which means government overlords. In a capitalism system, you can leave your corporate overlord and work for a better one, or even start your own business and BECOME an "overlord".

In Communism, people work for the State, which means government overlords. In a capitalism system, you can leave your corporate overlord and work for a better one, or even start your own business and BECOME an "overlord".

That's Totalitarianism (a.k.a. State Capitalism), you twit.

And yeah, you can leave your job in Capitalism for a better one. But that's if you have the right qualifications, and most poor people don't have any qualifications.

In Communism, people work for the State, which means government overlords.

In Communism, there is no state.

In a capitalism system, you can leave your corporate overlord and work for a better one, or even start your own business and BECOME an "overlord".

No, in the reality, unless you come from a wealthy family or have wealthy friends, you can't.

Alright:

I believe private property is required for self-determination.

I believe that distribution is justified by the process of and not by the equity of the distribution.

The labor theory of value is crap.

I believe that property can render workers unleveraged in determining labor values.

I believe that there are inefficiencies in present distribution that lead to the pooling of wealth.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg

http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos1/11Ucrania.jpg

http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos1/22Vinnitsa.jpg

http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos1/26europeos.jpg

http://www.americandebtorsprison.com/images/chinese_execution.jpg

And these are the "family friendly" pictures I picked out

100 million deaths

I AM ANTI-COMMUNIST

not to mention there are actual CONCENTRATION CAMPS in china.
I read it in the news.

Alright:

I believe private property is required for self-determination.

I believe that distribution is justified by the process of and not by the equity of the distribution.

The labor theory of value is crap.

I believe that property can render workers unleveraged in determining labor values.

I believe that there are inefficiencies in present distribution that lead to the pooling of wealth.

The market theory of value is crap.

I noticed you didn't say "I believe" for that one.

That's Totalitarianism (a.k.a. State Capitalism), you twit.

And yeah, you can leave your job in Capitalism for a better one. But that's if you have the right qualifications, and most poor people don't have any qualifications.

Totalitarianism is what happens to Marx's ideas meet the real world.

And the poor get screwed in any system.

Though I am pragmatically a capitalist, if it was a utopian world, than yes I would be a Marxist. But the world is not such a great place so I'm for privet enterprise.

Totalitarianism is what happens to Marx's ideas meet the real world.

And the poor get screwed in any system.

1: No. It's what happens when dictatorial, power-hungry revolutionaries get too much power.

2: This thread's making my head compress, and this uneducated comment isn't helping. If you actually believe that, you're hopeless.

No, in the reality, unless you come from a wealthy family or have wealthy friends, you can't.

The owner of the bookstore I used to work at wasn't wealthy by any stretch. But he earned enough to live on, enough to employ at least one stupid HS student, and he was his own boss.

Communism has some fundamental flaws that make it a bad system to operate under, but it is at least based on a noble ideal - treating everybody equally. I can never understand why some people will go as far as to call it evil.

No.

In Communism, everyone gets rewarded for the work they do, and people work for themselves as well as each other, rather than for corporate overlords. Now, it's not always for money, but it can be if the society "chooses" a de facto currency.

So my choices are either to work for corporate overlords, or to work for other people in addition to myself?

Why can't I just work for myself, if I choose? That's what I do right now. I like it that way. I choose to donate money to other people on a regular basis, but I am not compelled to do so if I do not want to.

Totalitarianism is what happens to Marx's ideas meet the real world.

No, totalitarianism is what happens when people who tried to implement Marx's ideas got slaughtered by capitalists, and that the ones who tried afterwards did what they could to prevent being slaughtered - which implied, due to the very harsh situation they were in, to resort to reckless solutions.

And the poor get screwed in any system.

In true communism, there is no "poor". In a socialist system, the "poor" have much better living condition. Even if the ironfist "socialism" (more akin to state capitalism than to real socialism), poor had housing, food, education and healthcare. Something we don't have in even the wealthiest of capitalist countries.

So my choices are either to work for corporate overlords, or to work for other people in addition to myself?

Why can't I just work for myself, if I choose? That's what I do right now. I like it that way. I choose to donate money to other people on a regular basis, but I am not compelled to do so if I do not want to.

You can work for yourself in Communism. That's the beauty of it. It's something that most people don't seem to be able to grasp, either by choice or ignorance.

No, totalitarianism is what happens when people who tried to implement Marx's ideas got slaughtered by capitalists, and that the ones who tried afterwards did what they could to prevent being slaughtered - which implied, due to the very harsh situation they were in, to resort to reckless solutions.



In true communism, there is no "poor". In a socialist system, the "poor" have much better living condition. Even if the ironfist "socialism" (more akin to state capitalism than to real socialism), poor had housing, food, education and healthcare. Something we don't have in even the wealthiest of capitalist countries.

Japan doesn't have housing, food, education, or healthcare? Oh yes, I remember, neither does Britain, Germany, America, France, or Russia..

No, totalitarianism is what happens when people who tried to implement Marx's ideas got slaughtered by capitalists, and that the ones who tried afterwards did what they could to prevent being slaughtered - which implied, due to the very harsh situation they were in, to resort to reckless solutions.



In true communism, there is no "poor". In a socialist system, the "poor" have much better living condition. Even if the ironfist "socialism" (more akin to state capitalism than to real socialism), poor had housing, food, education and healthcare. Something we don't have in even the wealthiest of capitalist countries.
However it is still only doable in a theoretical world, any number of lazy people can bring the system down as the people realize how little work they are forced to do, and if they are forced the situation only gets worse and totalitarianism ensues.

Japan doesn't have housing, food, education, or healthcare? Oh yes, I remember, neither does Britain, Germany, America, France, or Russia..

He said the poor, and you know it. Troll.

Communism has some fundamental flaws that make it a bad system to operate under, but it is at least based on a noble ideal - treating everybody equally. I can never understand why some people will go as far as to call it evil.

Propaganda. Evil has emotional implications that fallible or flawed does not.

However it is still only doable in a theoretical world, any number of lazy people can bring the system down as the people realize how little work they are forced to do, and if they are forced the situation only gets worse and totalitarianism ensues.

What? Hardly.

In actual Communism, there is no government. If people don't want to work, hey, that's their choice. They just shouldn't expect to have as good of a life as they would if they did, though.

Why can't I just work for myself, if I choose? That's what I do right now. I like it that way. I choose to donate money to other people on a regular basis, but I am not compelled to do so if I do not want to.

Working for yourself is not possible, unless you live in a desert island. Everything you do, in economics, impact others. Your work relies on the work of others, on infrastructures, on people to whom you buy materials, on the education you receive, on customers, ... There is no such thing as "working by yourself for yourself".

What? Hardly.

In actual Communism, there is no government. If people don't want to work, hey, that's their choice. They just shouldn't expect to have as good of a life as they would if they did, though.

If there is truly no government, it's anarchy, and the guy with the most guns wins!

If there is truly no government, it's anarchy, and the guy with the most guns wins!

...

Working for yourself is not possible, unless you live in a desert island. Everything you do, in economics, impact others. Your work relies on the work of others, on infrastructures, on people to whom you buy materials, on the education you receive, on customers, ... There is no such thing as "working by yourself for yourself".

True, but I think she meant simply working for yourself, as in not having to work directly with others, which is possible in Anarcho-Communism.

Japan doesn't have housing, food, education, or healthcare? Oh yes, I remember, neither does Britain, Germany, America, France, or Russia..

Not for everyone. Japan is not something I know in depth, but at least for all other countries you spoke of, there are people sleeping in the street, not eating as much as they should, and not receiving healthcare. Sure, in France or Germany it's less worse than in more capitalist countries like USA or UK, because we do have a social security net, but it's far, far from being enough.

Though I am pragmatically a capitalist, if it was a utopian world, than yes I would be a Marxist. But the world is not such a great place so I'm for privet enterprise.

In a utopian world, no one would be a Marxist. Marxism is not intended for a utopian world.

The market theory of value is crap.

I noticed you didn't say "I believe" for that one.

There is no reason to say I believe, as the LTV has been rejected nearly completely in favor of the Subjective theory of Value. There is a reason that, in four college level economics courses, everything revolved around the neoclassical subjective valuation.

There is no reason to say I believe, as the LTV has been rejected nearly completely in favor of the Subjective theory of Value. There is a reason that, in four college level economics courses, everything revolved around the neoclassical subjective valuation.

Capitalist economics and the Communist model of labor don't mix in the least.

What? Hardly.

In actual Communism, there is no government. If people don't want to work, hey, that's their choice. They just shouldn't expect to have as good of a life as they would if they did, though.
if there is no gov then it is anarchy, how is doing what you want and no gov communist?

if there is no gov then it is anarchy, how is doing what you want and no gov communist?

Wow... That's the whole point of Communism. You really need to educate yourself.

In a utopian world, no one would be a Marxist. Marxism is not intended for a utopian world.
it may not be ment for it, but that is the only place where it can remain true to the ideals of Carl Marx.
On the other hand capitalism wasnt ment to beat down the poor but it can become that with imorality, it was intened to get people to help themselfs under moral laws, how do you say? the road to hell is lined with good intentions.

Anti because it could never work without dictatorship.
And I suppose that would contradict the whole 'non-government' aspect of it, eh?

There is no reason to say I believe, as the LTV has been rejected nearly completely in favor of the Subjective theory of Value. There is a reason that, in four college level economics courses, everything revolved around the neoclassical subjective valuation.

By neoliberal economists, sure. But they are the ones who spoke about the "miracle" and the "model pupil" of Argentina a few weeks before the collapse, so I wouldn't trust them the slightiest. Oh, they were also the ones saying that the .com boom of the 90s was not a bubble and would not collapse. And you can find many, many example of those "economists" being completly, utterly wrong. So better not listen to them.

Wow... That's the whole point of Communism. You really need to educate yourself.
Yeah you are right I do need to read the whole book, what I know is what ends up happening and what the people who tryed to bring communist values to their country said they were doing.

Capitalist economics and the Communist model of labor don't mix in the least.

The labor theory of talue does not mix with anything because it is invalid.

The subjective theory of value is not simply capitalist economics, it is the basis of all economic valuation. Unless, of course, you are saying that communism eliminates desire.

It is quite possible for someone to provide the same amounts of labor to produce two different goods, yet have those goods be valued completely different.

Communism is a natural form of government in that its the only way a small band or tribe can survive. Families are communistic by nature. Everybody has to contribute to the common good. Therefore, communism is what happens in survivalist situations. Communism sounds great to people who are starving and oppressed. How can that be bad? As with any government, the politics and the associated corruption often overshadows the philosophical ideal. I think its more appropriate to say you are "anti-corruption" rather than anti-this government style or that.

Copy and pasted from something I wrote on another forum:

Communism is inherently repressive. Apologists argue that Stalinism &c. isn't 'proper' Communism, and they are right, but they are missing the wider point. Communism centres around the idea that everyone should be equal. The problem is that people are not equal and, although many will say that they do on an intellectual level, in practice they don't want to be equal either (I mean, would you want to give up any chance at bettering your life, just so that you could say you live in a society where everyone is the same mean average in every way?). So how do you get them to be equal? You have to force them. There are two ways of doing this: Burning their crops and smashing their property, which is the Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist way, or the way proposed by modern Communists, which is to saturate them in propaganda until you have created a society where pretty much everyone is happy, and then rely on community/peer pressure to keep the whole thing together. In my mind, this is no less terrifying and "total equality" (if it is worth anything at all, which I am not convinced of) is certainly not worth the massive price that must be paid in individual liberty. Many will tell you that Communism is a utopia that doesn't work. Well, it doesn't work. It doesn't sound anything like what I would call a utopia either.

Anyone going to read and reply to what I said on pg12?
Ta :)

By neoliberal economists, sure. But they are the ones who spoke about the "miracle" and the "model pupil" of Argentina a few weeks before the collapse, so I wouldn't trust them the slightiest. Oh, they were also the ones saying that the .com boom of the 90s was not a bubble and would not collapse. And you can find many, many example of those "economists" being completly, utterly wrong. So better not listen to them.

So neoclassical economists failing to predict the collapse of Argentina and the .com bubble (I have no knowledge of what certain economists said about those situations, so I will take your word for it) means that the subjective theory of value is bogus.

I see you have very high standards in trusting economic theory.

The labor theory of talue does not mix with anything because it is invalid.

The subjective theory of value is not simply capitalist economics, it is the basis of all economic valuation. Unless, of course, you are saying that communism eliminates desire.

It is quite possible for someone to provide the same amounts of labor to produce two different goods, yet have those goods be valued completely different.

Oh, that's what you're talking about. Got a bit mixed up there, but no biggie.

I agree with people placing their own value on things, if that's what you mean.

Oh, that's what you're talking about. Got a bit mixed up there, but no biggie.

I agree with people placing their own value on things, if that's what you mean.

That is the central problem with Marx. He stated that every good can be valued by the amount of labor put into it. That is simply not true, economists have shown that there is no way to reconcile the labor value of something with the utility value.

Hello?

That is the central problem with Marx. He stated that every good can be valued by the amount of labor put into it. That is simply not true, economists have shown that there is no way to reconcile the labor value of something with the utility value.

Well, I'm not a Marxist, and I definitely don't agree with that little part of his theory (or very much of his theory in the first place).

Anyone going to read and reply to what I said on pg12?
Ta :)
it’s a bit hard to argue with most likely.

its abit hard to argue with most likly.

I'll take that as a compliment, thank you.

Well, I'm not a Marxist, and I definitely don't agree with that little part of his theory (or very much of his theory in the first place).

Well, it is the foundation for his theory of exploitation, but I guess that it isn't the only theory on exploitation.

it’s a bit hard to argue with most likely.

Actually, I think it is mostly a strawman argument, but I will let the communists on here confirm that if they like.

Actually, I think it is mostly a strawman argument, but I will let the communists on here confirm that if they like.

Strawman?

Strawman?

Yes, I don't think that communists would particularly want to argue those points as they don't counter most of their opinions.

Yes, I don't think that communists would particularly want to argue those points as they don't counter most of their opinions.

Is that their opinion or your's? If its your's what about it is so abstract to this thread (i thought i'd been pretty inclusive of the ideas represented throughout this thread).

Is that their opinion or your's? If its your's what about it is so abstract to this thread (i thought i'd been pretty inclusive of the ideas represented throughout this thread).

My opinion based on what I have heard out of communists. I certainly cannot speak for all communists.

Anti - No one is born equal (in terms of physiology, psychology etc) so making people economically equal doesn't make people equal fundamentally it means that people who are more motivated than others are only rewarded as much as lazy people - wheres the incentive to work hard? Why do a grim job when people who have nicer jobs get the same? Our housing stock is inequal so how do you make people equal in housing terms? - its wrong.

For instance, most communists would not argue that people should be able to sit on their ass (from each according to his ability), rather that those who do put in their share should have their needs provided for.

Also, they would probably say that the inequities in housing is largely due to materialism spurned by capitalism, rather than a natural tendency in people, so that would not be an attack on communism either.

People in management are paid lots due to the scarcity of their abilities in the market (a product of human's inate inequality) though i agree when you get to top end salaries they are completely unfair - but to a point they are rewared for having a rare gift, usually they have a degree which costs lots of money so the higher salaries follow as an incentive for people to invest in their education.

Considering that communists don't believe anyone should be paid any wages, this is a moot point.

It only takes small groups of highly willful people to cause a coup etc, humans are easily manipulated and as long as they are smart they can engineer popular support and over throw a self governing society or at least fracture it and cause a civil war (ie the red terror).

All liberal democracies are self-governing.

Planned economies cannot as easily deal with unpredicted variables - the models fall apart. I don't disagree that some capitalist nations don't do enough to help to bottom of society, but the ones that embrace the market as well as impletment a strong welfare state (as opposed to workers 'rights' laws) generally do very well.

Communisms are not necessarily planned economies, while Keynesian strong welfare states largely are.

I don't think you can get rid of a human's desire to serve themselves first. I don't see how you can have a democratic system where people would keep on voting for / complying a communist system. At some point some people will become unhappy (nothing can be perfect) and they will blame the system and oppose it. It also doesn't say much for the commuist system that communists can't agree on what communism is / or the best way to get there.

Communists believe that it will serve the people's self interest.


I would say that you mischaracterized communism quite a lot.

[QUOTE=Vittos Ordination2]All liberal democracies are self-governing.QUOTE]

Agreed, but they are heirachal systems which are rejected by communists, they are also generally authoritarian, rejected by many communists. With out the hierarchal mechanism who keeps the bad'uns from trying to gain power. I mentioned thats its been shown time and again that people are easily manipulated and in a society where free speach is absolute they could easily set up resistance.

My points were not all intended to directly attack communism, some were intended to point out other things work well, and that it would take a hell of a lot of blind faith for it to work. I pointed out that communism is thought to be only possible in a sustainable, prosperous form when applied world wide - this would be pretty hard to do so thus a major drawback given the fractured views of many different cultures. Keynessian economics isn't the mantra of many welfare states anymore, and the ones who are dominated by it are feeling the problems - albeit not always recognising they have them. I understand that communists get tired of certain arguments, but just because they feel they have accounted for them doesn't mean that they have, its never been tried, and there is lots of evidence to support what I say. Also marxism isn't a theory, its a hypothesis as its never been supported with scientific evidence. Theories are hypotheses that have been tested and confirmed or supported, like the theory of relativity etc.

Not communist

i would much rather their be a tower to climb

if we were communist we would have no ambition

:)

Not communist

i would much rather their be a tower to climb

if we were communist we would have no ambition

:)

We would still have ambition. Ambition on things much more important than climbing faster than the others: climbing together ! As Bretch said, communism is "going farther together" while capitalism is "going farther than you". Going farther together, solving problems together for the mutual benefit, conquering space or fixing the damages we did on the planet, finding cures to disease, ... is much, much more a tower to climb than being richer than the neighbour.

Building together a great Free Software operating system, taking the best ideas from everyone, is much more interesting, and much more a challenge, than building a piece of shit (what windows is, technically speaking) with a lovely outlook so we can steal millions of dollars from all users. That's the difference between communism and capitalism.

We would still have ambition. Ambition on things much more important than climbing faster than the others: climbing together ! As Bretch said, communism is "going farther together" while capitalism is "going farther than you". Going farther together, solving problems together for the mutual benefit, conquering space or fixing the damages we did on the planet, finding cures to disease, ... is much, much more a tower to climb than being richer than the neighbour.

Building together a great Free Software operating system, taking the best ideas from everyone, is much more interesting, and much more a challenge, than building a piece of shit (what windows is, technically speaking) with a lovely outlook so we can steal millions of dollars from all users. That's the difference between communism and capitalism.

Damn right.

*carts you a crate of cookies*

Damn right.

*carts you a crate of cookies*

Those are the peoples' cookies, mind. You'd best share them.