NationStates Jolt Archive

now you can vote on this topic

now you can vote on this topic

We can?

Your poll seems to share Stalin's views on democracy....

I'm not sitting on the fence, but I'm not particularly for or against communism either. I voted against because I have an ideology which is not really communism.

Depends on what you mean by "Communism."

If you mean Stalinism, Maoism, Juche, etc. - the so-called Communism that has been practiced by numerous totalitarian regimes in the twentieth century - I am adamantly anti-Communist.

If you mean Marxism, then I have strong sympathies, but no allegiance except to certain libertarian versions of it.

If you mean the system that Marx predicted would eventually result from socialism, then, if it happens, I will certainly support it, and if it proves unworkable however much the means of production have developed, I will advocate a return to libertarian socialism with limited economic incentives.

If you mean the positions adopted by the Communist parties today, that varies, depending on region. In Israel and Western Europe I would very strongly consider voting for them, if I had the opportunity; everywhere else I would choose some other leftist party.

If you mean a society based on common ownership of the means of production and community-run distribution of the produce of production, then I am most definitely pro-Communist.

Pro-communist, anti-Communist. :p
No, I'm serious. Of course, here Communist means Stalinist/Marxist-Leninist stuff - basically anything elitist and party-based, and communist (with a small c) means communist ideals - namely equitable distribution and a broad-based revolution. (Specifically, anarcho-communism.)

Soheran put it much better than I did... Golgan, how about getting rid of 'government' (as in the elected 'representatives' and unelected civil servants) and governing ourselves?

hmm...I say sittin on the fence. On one side, Communism (in its truest form - unpolluted by dictators and the like) is the perfect society. On the other hand, I think that human nature is such that Communism will inherently breed dictators due to the power vacuum it creates. As humans, we are not inherently communal creatures. Social, yes, but not communal.
To run a sucessful communist society would require an extremely well-planned sytem of checks and balances in the government. This, in turn, would slow the functioning of the government until it could not properly handle the affairs of the country.
In short, communism is only a reasonable form of government in relatively small nations with a GDP within a certain, narrow band.

I concur, one can have an ideology which is neither simply 'pro' nor 'anti' communism, nor is it sitting on the fence. One can have a very determined stance on communism, that is neither totally favourable nor unfavourable to the ideology. I, for example, believe that the equality proposed by communism is theory is a very noble idea. However, I don't think that it could really work in practise, not on a large economy anyways, and the 'communist' governments of Soviet Russia, China etc were nothing more than despotic regiemes. I support co-operative industry. This is neither communist nor anti-communist, nor is it sitting on the fence.

How do I vote?

Against communism in whatever form it may take.

If you sit on the fence, you get a fence up your arse.

And it's an electric fence, too.

If you sit on the fence, you get a fence up your arse.

"The problem with being middle of the road is you get knocked over by oncoming traffic" - was that Churchill? some smug bastard anyway.

If you sit on the fence, you get a fence up your arse.

yea, I prefer to stand.

As you can guess from my posts on the other thread ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=477964 ), I'm definitely communist ;)

I'm anti communist because I see social classes as a good thing, or at least the lesser of 2 evils. We NEED social classes because it is unfair on the people who have more skills than others. Some members of society deserve to be above some other members of society.

I'm anti communist because I see social classes as a good thing, or at least the lesser of 2 evils. We NEED social classes because it is unfair on the people who have more skills than others. Some members of society deserve to be above some other members of society.

Why? An elitist meritocracy suppresses merit and tyrannizes everyone else, just like every other elitist system.

Some kind of meritocracy is inevitable in a democracy, and that is a good thing. But the people themselves should decide who to listen to, and to what degree.

I'm anti communist because I see social classes as a good thing, or at least the lesser of 2 evils. We NEED social classes because it is unfair on the people who have more skills than others. Some members of society deserve to be above some other members of society.

I agree, but not because its unfair, but because it provides incentive to actually work. That's why Stalin's collective farms failed. (At one point, while Stalin was still allowing small private gardens at each farm, these gardens were producing 1/3 of the nation's entire supply of fruit and vegetables)

"The problem with being middle of the road is you get knocked over by oncoming traffic" - was that Churchill? some smug bastard anyway.

The middle of the road is safer than either the left or right hand lane. ;)

I'm anti communist because I see social classes as a good thing, or at least the lesser of 2 evils. We NEED social classes because it is unfair on the people who have more skills than others. Some members of society deserve to be above some other members of society.

But surely that is unfair on the people who have less skills than others due to no fault of their own, e.g being blind or deaf. is it fair that they are treated unequally ?

Some kind of meritocracy is inevitable in a democracy, and that is a good thing. But the people themselves should decide who to listen to, and to what degree.
Agreed. It is good that democracies don't do away with it. Unless the people are idiots and choose to listen to idiots. In that case though, they bring it upon themselves.

I'm anti communist because I see social classes as a good thing, or at least the lesser of 2 evils. We NEED social classes because it is unfair on the people who have more skills than others. Some members of society deserve to be above some other members of society.

And why would they deserve more material wealth because they are lucky to have more skills ? Having more skills already makes life easier for them !

For longer answer, please read http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10777139&postcount=131 , I won't repeat myself ;)

But surely that is unfair on the people who have less skills than others due to no fault of their own, e.g being blind or deaf. is it fair that they are treated unequally ?

Of course a certain level of social conscience is required. That does not mean that individual achievement should be overlooked or discouraged.

Of course a certain level of social conscience is required. That does not mean that individual achievement should be overlooked or discouraged.
Absolutely.

Of course a certain level of social conscience is required. That does not mean that individual achievement should be overlooked or discouraged.

But under a communist system individual achievement would be encouraged for everyone. The only difference being, the way we measure the "score" won't be in dollars, pounds or rubles.

I'm anti-communist, but not anti-communists.

But under a communist system individual achievement would be encouraged for everyone. The only difference being, the way we measure the "score" won't be in dollars, pounds or rubles.

But people are materialist; under a communist system, the masses live in adversity, whilst the leaders reap the rewards.

But people are materialist; under a communist system, the masses live in adversity, whilst the leaders reap the rewards.

No, you are talking about what has happened in the past, and that was not communism.

Look, Jerry Falwell is not a Christian, because he only follows certain parts of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Osama Bin Laden is not a Muslim, because he only follows certain parts of the teachings of Muhammad. We can easily grasp these facts - why is it we keep going back to Stalin, and Mao and Fidel and claiming these as Communist when they don't even follow the basics of Communist thought?

(and yes, i know i'm equating Communism with religion, but then it's all - basically - philosophy isn't it? Just Christianity and Islam have big god figures attached)

But under a communist system individual achievement would be encouraged for everyone. The only difference being, the way we measure the "score" won't be in dollars, pounds or rubles.

That's why it doesn't work. People are naturally greedy bastards...
What if rather than being born with innate skills you actually took the time to nurture those skills rather than being naturally good at something? For example, someone who works really really hard at their education is not "lucky" to have their skills. They worked for them, after all. Anyway, if everyone is equal socially and financially, the benefits a skilled person receives are much more limited.

But people are materialist; under a communist system, the masses live in adversity, whilst the leaders reap the rewards.

Not under the ideal Marxist society. In the utopia everyone reaps what every other person has created or brought forth.

Not under the ideal Marxist society. In the utopia everyone reaps what every other person has created or brought forth.
In a utopia where scarcity is not an issue.

That's why it doesn't work. People are naturally greedy bastards...
What if rather than being born with innate skills you actually took the time to nurture those skills rather than being naturally good at something? For example, someone who works really really hard at their education is not "lucky" to have their skills. They worked for them, after all. Anyway, if everyone is equal socially and financially, the benefits a skilled person receives are much more limited.

People are "naturally" nothing. Put you in a tribe of hunter-gatherers living a primitive communistic existence, and tell me, will some urge to be the Bill Gates of the dried buffalo hides emerge?

Nope.

People are products of their environment. We are materialistic and greedy because our society is materialistic and greedy.

Communism is about unlocking the inner potential of every human being so that the job they do *gives them rewards through being the job they want to do* - some people will always be more satisfied being a dustman than an executive, true fact. Just allow them the potential to be the best dustman there is, and to enjoy it.

(and yes, i know i'm equating Communism with religion, but then it's all - basically - philosophy isn't it? Just Christianity and Islam have big god figures attached)

If you will excuse a statement that does not fit into the ideological role I have been assigned, in many people it is indeed a religion, and they are fundamentalists.

People are "naturally" nothing. Put you in a tribe of hunter-gatherers living a primitive communistic existence, and tell me, will some urge to be the Bill Gates of the dried buffalo hides emerge?

Nope.

People are products of their environment. We are materialistic and greedy because our society is materialistic and greedy.

Communism is about unlocking the inner potential of every human being so that the job they do *gives them rewards through being the job they want to do* - some people will always be more satisfied being a dustman than an executive, true fact. Just allow them the potential to be the best dustman there is, and to enjoy it.

Then the executive does not enjoy his job because a dustman earns as much as he does.

People are "naturally" nothing. Put you in a tribe of hunter-gatherers living a primitive communistic existence, and tell me, will some urge to be the Bill Gates of the dried buffalo hides emerge?

Nope.
You mean some people will not want to own more and lead the society? Are you quite sure? What about a little think called the ego?

People are products of their environment. We are materialistic and greedy because our society is materialistic and greedy.
Our society is a reflection of ourselves.

Communism is about unlocking the inner potential of every human being so that the job they do *gives them rewards through being the job they want to do* - some people will always be more satisfied being a dustman than an executive, true fact. Just allow them the potential to be the best dustman there is, and to enjoy it.
This would be fine, if economic scarcity was non-existent. What people want to do and what they are good at, are often two different things.

now you can vote on this topic
Not many choices, are there. Sigh.

How about "communism just plain doesn't work?" :p

In a utopia where scarcity is not an issue.

And until then:

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

You mean some people will not want to own more and lead the society? Are you quite sure?

Study the "leaders" of plains indian tribes of the "Wild West" - it wasn't about "acquisition" but "honour", "prestige" and "role in the society" - sometimes this role was purely as a figurehead, and the "chief" had as much "power" as anyone else. It certainly didn't entitle him to all the buffalo hides.

Our society is a reflection of ourselves.

No, you have that arse backwards. We are a reflection of our society. *i* or *you* didn't forge it however many hundreds of years back, we were forged by it.


This would be fine, if economic scarcity was non-existent.

Well, yes, that is one of the pre-requisites of Marx.

No, you are talking about what has happened in the past, and that was not communism.

Look, Jerry Falwell is not a Christian, because he only follows certain parts of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Osama Bin Laden is not a Muslim, because he only follows certain parts of the teachings of Muhammad. We can easily grasp these facts - why is it we keep going back to Stalin, and Mao and Fidel and claiming these as Communist when they don't even follow the basics of Communist thought?

(and yes, i know i'm equating Communism with religion, but then it's all - basically - philosophy isn't it? Just Christianity and Islam have big god figures attached)

Well said

Depends on what you mean by "Communism."

If you mean Stalinism, Maoism, Juche, etc. - the so-called Communism that has been practiced by numerous totalitarian regimes in the twentieth century - I am adamantly anti-Communist.

If you mean Marxism, then I have strong sympathies, but no allegiance except to certain libertarian versions of it.

If you mean the system that Marx predicted would eventually result from socialism, then, if it happens, I will certainly support it, and if it proves unworkable however much the means of production have developed, I will advocate a return to libertarian socialism with limited economic incentives.

If you mean the positions adopted by the Communist parties today, that varies, depending on region. In Israel and Western Europe I would very strongly consider voting for them, if I had the opportunity; everywhere else I would choose some other leftist party.

If you mean a society based on common ownership of the means of production and community-run distribution of the produce of production, then I am most definitely pro-Communist.
Well written, and 100% my opinion. http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
The pseudo-communism of today's China certainly doesn't have anything to do with actual communism.
The stuff in Russia isn't quite as bad, but likewise still far from true communism.

Study the "leaders" of plains indian tribes of the "Wild West" - it wasn't about "acquisition" but "honour", "prestige" and "role in the society" - sometimes this role was purely as a figurehead, and the "chief" had as much "power" as anyone else. It certainly didn't entitle him to all the buffalo hides.
Do you think this would work in the modern world?

No, you have that arse backwards. We are a reflection of our society. *i* or *you* didn't forge it however many hundreds of years back, we were forged by it.
It's interactive, so let's not say that human nature has nothing to do with it.

Well, yes, that is one of the pre-requisites of Marx.
Until then, forget it.

No, you have that arse backwards. We are a reflection of our society. *i* or *you* didn't forge it however many hundreds of years back, we were forged by it.

Actually, you are both puppet and player. Yes, you and your ideas/ideals/thoughs/etc. have been formed by the society you live in, but that doesn't mean you can't change it. You can change the ideas/ideals/thoughs/etc. of your society as well.

How else would we've come to where we are now? Not by sitting around and not changing things it seems.

Actually, you are both puppet and player. Yes, you and your ideas/ideals/thoughs/etc. have been formed by the society you live in, but that doesn't mean you can't change it. You can change the ideas/ideals/thoughs/etc. of your society as well.

How else would we've come to where we are now? Not by sitting around and not changing things it seems.
Exactly. It is interactive. Human society is at least in part selfish because we are.

Do you think this would work in the modern world?

Yeah, i do. People do things for no material gain, just "status" all the time.

It's interactive, so let's not say that human nature has nothing to do with it.

Whose human nature? Yours? Mine? The monk on Caldey Island in the Welsh channel who spends his entire day tending bees? The hunter in the backwoods of Papua New Guinea? The Tuareg goat-herder? Elton John? Mohandas Gandhi?

Fact number one - doesn't matter what society you grow up in, if you move to - say - America, you pretty quickly start living by the strictures of American society.

*There are only very few things about human beings which are inherently part of their makeup, Economics, and how they practice those economics, is not one of them*

Until then, forget it.

It's here now. Just, the difference between now and the future state is we at the controls of Capitalism - the west - have a different definition of "scarcity" than the reality, and are currently refusing to contemplate the alternative - because of the society of conspicous consumption we live in.

Actually, you are both puppet and player. Yes, you and your ideas/ideals/thoughs/etc. have been formed by the society you live in, but that doesn't mean you can't change it. You can change the ideas/ideals/thoughs/etc. of your society as well.

How else would we've come to where we are now? Not by sitting around and not changing things it seems.

To a degree, i agree. But there are certain things you have incalculated into you by the society you are born into which shape your outlook and make you very wary to look outside the box. Very few people do this out of choice.

Unless the box gets too constrictive. Then you start noticing, you realising "why the hell can't i sit at the front of the bus" and your name becomes Rosa Parks.

To a degree, i agree. But there are certain things you have incalculated into you by the society you are born into which shape your outlook and make you very wary to look outside the box. Very few people do this out of choice.

Unless the box gets too constrictive. Then you start noticing, you realising "why the hell can't i sit at the front of the bus" and your name becomes Rosa Parks.

Verily so. The Rosa Parks part gets me a bit concerned though. I would prefer Spartacus and the likes.

Verily so. The Rosa Parks part gets me a bit concerned though. I would prefer Spartacus and the likes.

Yeah, you just dig that whole homo-erotic gladiator vibe ;)

Me, i'm happy to cross dress as a middle-aged black woman :)

In a utopia where scarcity is not an issue.

Scarcity is not an issue anymore. 10% of world advertising spendings, or 5% of world military spendings, could grant any single human being with housing, food, clean water, basic education and basic healthcare. We have a high enough technological level to be able to grant anyone with what's require to live decently, for a tiny part of what we are wasting under capitalism.

Anti communist, anti dictator Fidel,
no Fidel no problem, no dictatorship no problem.

For those that say Fidel is not a real communist,
and are pro communsit, I can agree with that,
so dont defend him, or excuse him if you are communist or socialist.

I do believe there are good well intentioned communist or socialist on this forum, the problem is as practiced the world over it turns into dictatorships.

I cant complete this post right now, because I have to go for now, more later.

I voted anti, I wish this was a Public Poll.

In Soviet Russia, Communism is ... *mmph* *thud*

Sitting on the fence. Haven't heard or read anything which can sway me either way. Plus I'm in a lazy mood.

Scarcity is not an issue anymore.
Dropping military spending (because capitalists don't agree with those either)...how do you know that that money spent on advertising isn't part of the reason we ourselves aren't starving?

In my opinion communim or communists vastly over exagurate peoples alturistic nature and are blind to the fact people won't be content to just have their basic needs met, individuals will always strive for more.

Not to mention the blindly idealistic nature of the ideology along with some emphasis on Marxs vastly outdated writings on a very different type of capitalism than exists today.

I'm glad most of them have rejected violent revoultion, and its position should be in the "failed" pile of ideologys with fascism and anarchism.

I voted anti, I wish this was a Public Poll.Secret ballots sure suck, don't they?

...anarchism.
Well, aside from anarchism never actually failing, I think this one is more a state of mind than a political theory.

And besides, with V for Vendetta being a relatively popular film as I understand it, the anarchist movement might gain a few hundreds of thousands of new sympathisers. :D

Well, aside from anarchism never actually failing, I think this one is more a state of mind than a political theory.

And besides, with V for Vendetta being a relatively popular film as I understand it, the anarchist movement might gain a few hundreds of thousands of new sympathisers. :D

Well as anarchism goes I think it has been successful in convincing people atleast about limited gov't and the danger of its opposite but as for practical aplication of the idea it would (for me) fit in the utopia catorgory. The fact any long term/largescale prodject has never happend is in essence proof of this, achieving it seems to be an even bigger barrier as if to it could succeed along with the fact that governments can be argued to be a natural part of how humans live so will eventually revert back to a governement. As for how critical I am of the theory, it depends on which style of anarchism.

I voted anti, I wish this was a Public Poll.

I voted pro. There. Happy?

Well as anarchism goes I think it has been successful in convincing people atleast about limited gov't and the danger of its opposite but as for practical aplication of the idea it would (for me) fit in the utopia catorgory. The fact any long term/largescale prodject has never happend is in essence proof of this, achieving it seems to be an even bigger barrier as if to it could succeed along with the fact that governments can be argued to be a natural part of how humans live so will eventually revert back to a governement. As for how critical I am of the theory, it depends on which style of anarchism.

What about the worker-owned factories in Argentina? There's a long-term (two years now I think) example - and of course, anarchism does base itself around small-scale groupings...
As for communists overstating people's altruistic nature, the reverse is also true - capitalists overstate people's greed.
And I voted pro, and am happy to do so. Also, compared to many leaders, Castro is a paragon of virtue. I'd rather be sick in Cuba than in the US. I wonder what the country would be like without forty years of sanctions...

Anti-C'ism

Not anti-Communists...

What about the worker-owned factories in Argentina? There's a long-term (two years now I think) example - and of course, anarchism does base itself around small-scale groupings...
As for communists overstating people's altruistic nature, the reverse is also true - capitalists overstate people's greed.
And I voted pro, and am happy to do so. Also, compared to many leaders, Castro is a paragon of virtue. I'd rather be sick in Cuba than in the US. I wonder what the country would be like without forty years of sanctions...

What's the tax rate in Cuba?

Would anyone want to start a business there?

What about the worker-owned factories in Argentina? There's a long-term (two years now I think) example - and of course, anarchism does base itself around small-scale groupings...
As for communists overstating people's altruistic nature, the reverse is also true - capitalists overstate people's greed.
And I voted pro, and am happy to do so. Also, compared to many leaders, Castro is a paragon of virtue. I'd rather be sick in Cuba than in the US. I wonder what the country would be like without forty years of sanctions...

Who'd they steal the factories from? (just wondering... someone paid for those factories, invested in the business, etc.)

What's the tax rate in Cuba?

Would anyone want to start a business there?
How much does health insurance cost there?

Who did the factory owners steal the money to build the factories from?

Anyways, my point was that SOME things are good about Cuba. Not everything - for example, the lack of freedom of speech of any sort kinda pisses me off.

Who did the factory owners steal the money to build the factories from?

I'd hazzard a guess at a bank loan... those bastards:eek:

I'd hazzard a guess at a bank loan... those bastards:eek:
And where did the bank steal that money from? From the sweat and blood of the oppressed proletariat!:p

(Ever read a communist/socialist newspaper? They are stuffed full of doctrinaire dogma. Ugly and stupid.)

I was more referring to the plethora of gangsters in Cuba under Batista, and the terrible conditions of your average Cuban.

How much does health insurance cost there?

Who did the factory owners steal the money to build the factories from?

Anyways, my point was that SOME things are good about Cuba. Not everything - for example, the lack of freedom of speech of any sort kinda pisses me off.

someone already said it -- bank loan

The money was gotten legally, and was abruptly stolen from them. Not cool. That's really gonna encourage other entrepreneurs to start businesses and hire people...

darn it, kalmykhia (hope i didn't butcher that), it's 8:34am here, and i cannot make jokes this early. hehe

darn it, kalmykhia (hope i didn't butcher that), it's 8:34am here, and i cannot make jokes this early. hehe
It's half two over here, so I have a slight advantage.
I'm an anarcho-communist, and on the soft, non-violent front, so I'd be opposed to things like seizing companies for the state (of course, I'm opposed to the state in principle anyways). What I like though is those worker-run factories in Argentina(can't remember off-hand where exactly, the magazine I read about them in is at home (sixty miles away), and my more knowledgeable anarchist mate is not about college at the mo).
Still, the workers were being exploited terribly in pre-revolution Cuba. If nothing was done to alleviate the situation (and I doubt it was, despite knowing very little about 1950's Cuban trade-unionism :p), then they might have some claim to the factories - although I'm not saying the state seizure was right.

How much does health insurance cost there?

Who did the factory owners steal the money to build the factories from?

Anyways, my point was that SOME things are good about Cuba. Not everything - for example, the lack of freedom of speech of any sort kinda pisses me off.

Sinuhue mentioned some cool things she saw in Cuba... and their sandwiches are world-renowned (or at least US-renowned -- a recent fad).

It's half two over here, so I have a slight advantage.
I'm an anarcho-communist, and on the soft, non-violent front, so I'd be opposed to things like seizing companies for the state (of course, I'm opposed to the state in principle anyways). What I like though is those worker-run factories in Argentina(can't remember off-hand where exactly, the magazine I read about them in is at home (sixty miles away), and my more knowledgeable anarchist mate is not about college at the mo).
Still, the workers were being exploited terribly in pre-revolution Cuba. If nothing was done to alleviate the situation (and I doubt it was, despite knowing very little about 1950's Cuban trade-unionism :p), then they might have some claim to the factories - although I'm not saying the state seizure was right.

worker exploitation sucks -- why the US needed unions eighty years ago (roughly)... why US workers are treated generally well and paid extremely well (labor is expensive here).

worker exploitation sucks -- why the US needed unions eighty years ago (roughly)... why US workers are treated generally well and paid extremely well (labor is expensive here).

That's why one forth (yes, one FORTH) of US citizen do not even have health care...

worker exploitation sucks -- why the US needed unions eighty years ago (roughly)... why US workers are treated generally well and paid extremely well (labor is expensive here).
Still, a lot of the baseline workers (not industrial, true, although they still have to worry about job security) are being paid crappy wages, have shitty conditions and slightly less job security than a tinpot dictator. It's the same here too. Minimum wage is not enough to live on, at least not vaguely comfortably. And it's not right either, when CEOs are getting paid multi-millions or even multi-billions for doing... whatever the hell they do. That's why I like co-operative enterprise.

Who'd they steal the factories from? (just wondering... someone paid for those factories, invested in the business, etc.)
Oh, they didn't steal them.

The bosses closed the factories down in the economic crisis, when they went bankrupt. And when the workers were faced with joining the millions of the unemployed, they instead went into the factories and took them over.

They freely admit that they don't earn as much as they used to, but they reckon that a) it feels better than working under a rich boss, and b) it's better than being unemployed.

The bosses on the other hand keep trying to get them out through legal action. Pure spite, if you ask me - once you close the place down, you shouldn't complain if someone else uses it.

There's a good documentary about that (albeit a little *cough* biased): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0426596/

Oh, they didn't steal them.

The bosses closed the factories down in the economic crisis, when they went bankrupt. And when the workers were faced with joining the millions of the unemployed, they instead went into the factories and took them over.

They freely admit that they don't earn as much as they used to, but they reckon that a) it feels better than working under a rich boss, and b) it's better than being unemployed.

The bosses on the other hand keep trying to get them out through legal action. Pure spite, if you ask me - once you close the place down, you shouldn't complain if someone else uses it.

There's a good documentary about that (albeit a little *cough* biased): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0426596/
I've heard that some factories are more profitable under worker control than they were under the capitalists, even though they were closed down as 'uneconomical', and that the workers in some are making more than they previously did.
EDIT: http://www.newint.org/issue352/fit.htm
One factory DOUBLED wages - the Zanon factory. And this is despite constant fascist intimidation and police harrassment and the like.
EDIT 2: Just realised I didn't actually vote... PRo-communist!

i'm a Leninist-Marxist

as in violent revolution, followed by dictator of the proletariat, then followed by a withering away of the state.

i'm a Leninist-Marxist

as in violent revolution, followed by dictator of the proletariat, then followed by a withering away of the state.

Nope. Lenin believed in dictatorship of the party for the proletariat. He felt the proletarit were not revolutionary enough and might settle for trade union mentality (damn them and their peaceful nature) so a revolution on their behalf is the way forward....

Marxism is not as bad as Lenin, he argued "scientifically" a revolution would happen after capitalism will for sure have a depression so big it can't recover, and then the proletariat will strike. So I'm happy for Marxists to sit and wait. Lenin was horrible, he forced something to happen against what Marx said was proven to happen somewhat naturally though history :eek:

please tell me which of lenin's political pamphlets you have read...

please tell me which of lenin's political pamphlets you have read...

I did Leninism in politics. Most of his updation on Marx was the role of the party. The vanguard instigated the revolution on behalf of the Proletariat because he felt the best they could do was achieve trade union consensus which is why the revolution Marx claimed was "round the corner" had not happend yet.

i'm a Leninist-Marxist

as in violent revolution, followed by dictator of the proletariat, then followed by a withering away of the state.


Blech. Marxist-Leninists.

Forwards to Bolshevik-Leninism!

That's why one forth (yes, one FORTH) of US citizen do not even have health care...
Healthcare shouldn't be an issue of the unions. Unions are for negotiations with employers, no more. Unions should not be political.

To get healthcare, people would have to vote for a candidate who wants to introduce it. And here's the thing: THEY DON'T WANT TO!

For whatever reason, American workers are quite okay without universal healthcare, maybe they think it would result in a tax hike which would destroy all the extra savings they'd get.

yea, I prefer to stand.

standing on the fence?

that would require a gymnast's balance! hehe

I picked anti-communism. In the long political test, I tested about as anti-Marxist as you can get.

However, outside of my country, I really don't care. Communism is stupid, and I would be horrified if my own country implemented it, but other countries have the right to do whatever they want.

Blech. Marxist-Leninists.

Forwards to Bolshevik-Leninism!

Bolshevik-Leninism? Trotskyism? That's not communism. No party-based solution will lead to communism, but party=elite=class=more bloody domination.
Blood has been Shed is right about Leninism - it was a dictatorship of the party, not the proletariat. Look at the abolition of the Soviets, for example - they were the people. Or the banning and extermination of other parties. The Mensheviks had the right of it - communism can only happen if there's some sort of broad-revolution, not with an elite. That just brings yet another Soviet Union/China/Cambodia...

Neu Leonstein, the unions are supposed to be political - they're supposed to be organisations of workers united for revolution or something along those lines (at least that is what they were founded for). Even now, they're supposed to be looking out for the best interests of their workers. If that's political, then they're political.