NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4935474.stm

Well now. It seems that Eastern Europe is heading back to the good ol' days of socialism. Of course, I'm saying that as a good thing. Which country will be next? Poland? Germany? Greece? Discuss.

Not the UK, alas. :(

Not the UK, alas. :(
Yes, but at least one more country has fallen under the wonder of socialist rule. If only they went one step futher and became a communist country. And I mean a TRUE communist country.

Yes, but at least one more country has fallen under the wonder of socialist rule. If only they went one step futher and became a communist country. And I mean a TRUE communist country.

I dont understand why you think that wonder comes from being under a socialist rule!?

The only "socialist" countries that are prospering are the Scandanavian countries, simply because they have lots of resources and few people.

Why do you beleive that wonder will come from socialist and/or communist rule?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4935474.stm

Well now. It seems that Eastern Europe is heading back to the good ol' days of socialism. Of course, I'm saying that as a good thing. Which country will be next? Poland? Germany? Greece? Discuss.

Apparently they desire to remain loyal to their nation's name and remain hungry. :p

I hope your suggestion that the experience of nations in the Soviet Bloc was good in any way was meant as sarcasm and not serious.

I dont understand why you think that wonder comes from being under a socialist rule!?

The only "socialist" countries that are prospering are the Scandanavian countries, simply because they have lots of resources and few people.

Why do you beleive that wonder will come from socialist and/or communist rule?
The only capitalist countries that are prospering are the ones that have lots of resources and few people too.


(Methinks you should start to define your terms)

Apparently they desire to remain loyal to their nation's name and remain hungry. :p

I hope your suggestion that the experience of nations in the Soviet Bloc was good in any way was meant as sarcasm and not serious.
The Soviets screwed communism/socialism up. I'm hoping that Eastern Europe will come back to the communist side, only this time coming with TRUE communism on their minds.

"We have won!" a beaming Mr Gyurcsany - a millionaire businessman - told supporters gathered at the Socialist Party headquarters.

Yeah, that makes sense. Nominate a rich capitalist for a party allegedly fighting for the working class.

There are capitalist countries that have lots of people and are prosperting CSW. Look at China their economy has been expanding like mad this last decade. I know everyone says that they are communist, but in reality they are more capitalist then the US. After all they don't have those pesky socialistic programs like welfare, child labor, and minimum wage. (not that I am against the last two).

There are capitalist countries that have lots of people and are prosperting CSW. Look at China their economy has been expanding like mad this last decade.

For some of its people.

There are capitalist countries that have lots of people and are prosperting CSW. Look at China their economy has been expanding like mad this last decade. I know everyone says that they are communist, but in reality they are more capitalist then the US. After all they don't have those pesky socialistic programs like welfare, child labor, and minimum wage. (not that I am against the last two).
China is about as capitalist as Sweden and Norway are communist.

China is full of hypocracies.

How about Canada for the next socialist country? We're heading that was at an astounding pace. The new conservative government won't last - watch.

China is about as capitalist as Sweden and Norway are communist.

If China isn't good then look at Japan they have a large amount of people compared to their size, but their economy is still prospering even though they have to import a lot of resources.

If China isn't good then look at Japan they have a large amount of people compared to their size, but their economy is still prospering even though they have to import a lot of resources.
Define resources.

If China isn't good then look at Japan they have a large amount of people compared to their size, but their economy is still prospering even though they have to import a lot of resources.
Listen, stop using a puppet whoever you are. Show us your true self.

Define resources.

The major resource they have to import is oil considering how there is virtually no extractible oil in Japan. It is required for everything from plastics to food to energy. Iron ore can also be a problem since China is buying a lot of it up to feed their growing steel industry.

China is full of hypocracies.

How about Canada for the next socialist country? We're heading that was at an astounding pace. The new conservative government won't last - watch.

You really think so? I hope you are right.

The major resource they have to import is oil considering how there is virtually no extractible oil in Japan. It is required for everything from plastics to food to energy. Iron ore can also be a problem since China is buying a lot of it up to feed their growing steel industry.
The point of this is:

Resources can mean many different things. Japan, while poor in raw materials, is rather rich in infrastructure and in factories and the like. Sweden is relatively rich in raw materials, but also is a heavy invester in factories. Both are overall rich in resources. Actually, fewer people (by percent) work in the ag industry in Sweden then do in Japan. So going "nanny nanny boo boo all you commies only work in rich countries" is stupid, especially if you're not going to define what you mean by socialist and high in resources.

Listen, stop using a puppet whoever you are. Show us your true self.

I'm not a puppet, whatever that is supposed to mean. I just got this website last week from my history teacher and I read this forum and wanted to put in my opinion whats wrong with that?

It seems that Eastern Europe is heading back to the good ol' days of socialism.


woohoo!!!

woohoo!!!
Agreed

How about Canada for the next socialist country? We're heading that was at an astounding pace. The new conservative government won't last - watch.
Hopefully...:(

Hopefully...:(
Yes. Down with the right-wing government in Canada! And up with a left-wing! Up with socialism in Canada!

I'm not a puppet, whatever that is supposed to mean. I just got this website last week from my history teacher and I read this forum and wanted to put in my opinion whats wrong with that?

Nothing, the guys an idiot. Your history teacher was right, this forum/website will teach you things about history/politics/people that nothing else can. I have learnt so much from being here and I havnt even been here a year.

Nothing, the guys an idiot. Your history teacher was right, this forum/website will teach you things about history/politics/people that nothing else can. I have learnt so much from being here and I havnt even been here a year.
Yeah. It's suprising what you learn here that you probably will never learn in school. You probably learn alot more here than you can learn while watching the News on T.V. or reading the newspaper. It's amazing what you can learn here.

The only capitalist countries that are prospering are the ones that have lots of resources and few people too.


(Methinks you should start to define your terms)

Not true. Japan...America...Switzerland...Germany....South Korea...England...ect.

And what is it with you and Naliitr love of Communism anyway? The idealogy sucks...it assumes people dont have souls and lack the spark of life, instead they should just be like cattle.

Its shit on paper and a recipe for misfortune and suffering in application.

Yeah. It's suprising what you learn here that you probably will never learn in school. You probably learn alot more here than you can learn while watching the News on T.V. or reading the newspaper. It's amazing what you can learn here.

Agreed, but you know what you can learn from real life?

That Communism is a bullshit theory and doesnt work in application.

Why do you love it so much?

Not true. Japan...America...Switzerland...Germany....South Korea...England...ect.

And what is it with you and Naliitr love of Communism anyway? The idealogy sucks...it assumes people dont have souls and lack the spark of life, instead they should just be like cattle.

Its shit on paper and a recipe for misfortune and suffering in application.
Actually, it's not shit on paper. It's shit in real life, where it meets humanity. If humans simply accepted and loved one another and had no greed in their hearts, communism would work out fine. It's really humanity's fault communism doesn't work, not communism's fault.

Actually, it's not shit on paper. It's shit in real life, where it meets humanity. If humans simply accepted and loved one another and had no greed in their hearts, communism would work out fine. It's really humanity's fault communism doesn't work, not communism's fault.

But then there would be no progress, no great people, no amazing acheivements, nothing outstanding. Society would simply be...O.K.

Long live mediocrity!:rolleyes:

But then there would be no progress, no great people, no amazing acheivements, nothing outstanding. Society would simply be...O.K.

Long live mediocrity!:rolleyes:
And? Would you rather have world peace and slow technological developments? Or massive wars which will eventually destroy the Earth, but will roll out technology like no tomorrow?

And? Would you rather have world peace and slow technological developments? Or massive wars which will eventually destroy the Earth, but will roll out technology like no tomorrow?

Wait wait wait...your plan for world peace is just to keep people stupid, uninformed....just idle?

Let me find a story for you.

I'd like you to read this famous story and think about whether Nietzsche wasn't on to something when he criticized the naive idea of human equality.

There is no equality in humans. Only progress and those willing to acheive. (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html)

Read it...its about your so called Communistic equality. Maybe it will change your thinking.

In fact, I'm gonna start a thread on it.

And what is it with you and Naliitr love of Communism anyway? The idealogy sucks...it assumes people dont have souls and lack the spark of life, instead they should just be like cattle.

Nonsense. Communism, by attempting to reduce the degradations of material want and tedious labor, is at its heart an ideology that honors the spark of life and creativity in humanity very highly, and seeks to allow it to manifest itself as fully as possible.

Read it...its about your so called Communistic equality. Maybe it will change your thinking.

In fact, I'm gonna start a thread on it.

No. That has nothing to do with Communism. That is simply conformity, which is different.

And? Would you rather have world peace and slow technological developments? Or massive wars which will eventually destroy the Earth, but will roll out technology like no tomorrow?
Massive wars? Not for sixty years. If anything will destroy us it will be our resource consumption.
Actually, it's not shit on paper. It's shit in real life, where it meets humanity. If humans simply accepted and loved one another and had no greed in their hearts, communism would work out fine. It's really humanity's fault communism doesn't work, not communism's fault.
If a philosophy is not applicable to the real world, it is worthless. Many other philosophies are also far too idealistic, but at least they sometimes have redeeming qualities in the arts.

Nonsense. Communism, by attempting to reduce the degradations of material want and tedious labor, is at its heart an ideology that honors the spark of life and creativity in humanity very highly, and seeks to allow it to manifest itself as fully as possible.

No. Communism is a prison.

It inprisons the very thing we as humans hold sacred. Our mind. It inprisons our abilities. It sets limits to our goals, goals that should have infinite limits. It is the very worst type of prison imaginable. There are no walls, no guards, no seas to hold its prisoners in, just our own skulls.

You too, should read the story I posted in the link above.

Massive wars? Not for sixty years. If anything will destroy us it will be our resource consumption.

If a philosophy is not applicable to the real world, it is worthless. Many other philosophies are also far too idealistic, but at least they sometimes have redeeming qualities in the arts.

Well, Undelia...I guess for one we 100% agree.

Maybe this is what they were talking about when they said, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." :D

No. Communism is a prison.

It inprisons the very thing we as humans hold sacred. Our mind. It inprisons our abilities. It sets limits to our goals, goals that should have infinite limits. It is the very worst type of prison imaginable. There are no walls, no guards, no seas to hold its prisoners in, just our own skulls.

You too, should read the story I posted in the link above.

Do you know what a "straw man" is?

The only capitalist countries that are prospering are the ones that have lots of resources and few people too.


(Methinks you should start to define your terms)

Um, the USA has few people? Japan has few people? And many African countries have lots of resources and less people than several other capitalist countries.

No. Communism is a prison.

It inprisons the very thing we as humans hold sacred. Our mind. It inprisons our abilities. It sets limits to our goals, goals that should have infinite limits. It is the very worst type of prison imaginable. There are no walls, no guards, no seas to hold its prisoners in, just our own skulls.

You too, should read the story I posted in the link above.\

I heartily concur.

When capitalism comes to a grinding halt, and it will, then the people will be forced to embrace some form of socialism.

Wait wait wait...your plan for world peace is just to keep people stupid, uninformed....just idle?

Let me find a story for you.

I'd like you to read this famous story and think about whether Nietzsche wasn't on to something when he criticized the naive idea of human equality.

There is no equality in humans. Only progress and those willing to acheive. (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html)

Read it...its about your so called Communistic equality. Maybe it will change your thinking.

In fact, I'm gonna start a thread on it.
No really, that story made no sense at all. That is nothing like communisms dream. Nothing at all. We understand people aren't made equal, but that's something we are going to have to deal with. We simply try our best to make others equal, but not to extents like this, to where they are entirely physically and mentally equal.

When capitalism comes to a grinding halt, and it will, then the people will be forced to embrace some form of socialism.

I will fight to the death to make sure it wont.

Because if Capitalism dies, then so does my country.

No really, that story made no sense at all. That is nothing like communisms dream. Nothing at all. We understand people aren't made equal, but that's something we are going to have to deal with. We simply try our best to make others equal, but not to extents like this, to where they are entirely physically and mentally equal.

Thats obviously an exaggeration...but it just shows that the concept of human equality is flawed.

Communism, as a theory, is based on the fact that all people all equal.

Communism, as a theory, disregards individualism and uniquenss.

Thats obviously an exaggeration...but it just shows that the concept of human equality is flawed.

Communism, as a theory, is based on the fact that all people all equal.

Communism, as a theory, disregards individualism and uniquenss.
Well now, maybe you haven't truely seen Communism. You have to realize, in a communist society, people would be given jobs on what is unique about them. An intelligent person will be given a job as a scientist or something like that to help advance civilization and make lives better. Someone who is strong will be given a job in manual labour, so that they might put their muscles to good use and make lives better.

Communism, as a theory, is based on the fact that all people all equal.

Maybe, in the sense that all human beings have equal moral value.

Communism, as a theory, disregards individualism and uniquenss.

No. Most Communists just don't think that aspects of "individualism" and "uniqueness" like owning a factory means you deserve power and wealth while powerless others starve.

No. Most Communists just don't think that aspects of "individualism" and "uniqueness" like owning a factory means you deserve power and wealth while powerless others starve.
Yes. In a communist society, obviously there would be someone who has the qualifications to run the factory. But they'd be given exactly the same living facilities, entertainment, etc., as any man who worked as hard as him. So if he registers twelve hours of work in a day, and one of the factory goons making the products registers twelves hours of work in a day, they both get the same things for thier work, in a communist society, of course.

Well now, maybe you haven't truely seen Communism. You have to realize, in a communist society, people would be given jobs on what is unique about them. An intelligent person will be given a job as a scientist or something like that to help advance civilization and make lives better. Someone who is strong will be given a job in manual labour, so that they might put their muscles to good use and make lives better.

So basically...there are people above to issue commands, and people below to follow them, unflinchingly?

Sounds an awful lot like....DUN DUNN DUHNNNNN Fascism! (http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/hitler_salute.jpg)

So basically...there are people above to issue commands, and people below to follow them, unflinchingly?

No. Just as in capitalism, different people choose different jobs. In fact, there would be more choice, because decent education would be available to all.

I will fight to the death to make sure it wont.
Ummm, it will be completely beyond your control.

Because if Capitalism dies, then so does my country.
Your country is not a pure capitalistic society, and whether you want to admit it or not, there will be an even greater transformation in the years ahead.

No.

Well thats what he said.

He said some people will be "given" these jobs...while others will be "given" those jobs.

So theres someone above to tell people what jobs to get..and others below to take them.

So basically...there are people above to issue commands, and people below to follow them, unflinchingly?

Sounds an awful lot like....DUN DUNN DUHNNNNN Fascism! (http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/hitler_salute.jpg)
No, because the people above will be removed by the people above them if the people below the said person to be removed complain about the leader having poor decision making skills, thereby making others lives worse by decreasing productivity. So there is a sense of democracy.

No, because the people above will be removed by the people above them if the people below the said person to be removed complain about the leader having poor decision making skills, thereby making others lives worse by decreasing productivity. So there is a sense of democracy.

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

Know what that means, California boy?

Well now, maybe you haven't truely seen Communism. You have to realize, in a communist society, people would be given jobs on what is unique about them. An intelligent person will be given a job as a scientist or something like that to help advance civilization and make lives better. Someone who is strong will be given a job in manual labour, so that they might put their muscles to good use and make lives better.
This is under the assumption that there is an equal amount of people for each type of job or the exact amount needed for each job, which really isn't possible.

Wow, as usual, there seems to be a lot of misconceptions as to what communism entails. Especially for the commie-bashers around here I suggest you first read up on the matter before you say anything stupid.

I don't have the time to go into all the details right now, but one thing I do want to say is that communism has never been implemented in the real world. So everyone wanting to draw conclusions based on the performance (or lack thereof) of the former Soviet Union, China or Cuba is talking out of his ass.

It does not matter which definition of communism you want to use, those countries do not match ANY of those. In fact, USSR meant United Socialist Soviet Republic. Please do note the complete lack of reference to communism, thank you.


Also: first post! Now I'm off to work, I'll join the discussion again later on.

Yes. Down with the right-wing government in Canada! And up with a left-wing! Up with socialism in Canada!
That would make for a pretty unbalanced flight round and round in circles, don't you think?

Actually, it's not shit on paper. It's shit in real life, where it meets humanity. If humans simply accepted and loved one another and had no greed in their hearts, communism would work out fine. It's really humanity's fault communism doesn't work, not communism's fault.
In other words, real life is where it fails. It's not alone. Lots of ideas that look great on paper, fall to pieces in application. At least communism gives a bright red background against which to yell slogans like "Long Live Chairman Mao!" That's a fun activity.

Mao's a god now, by the way. FYI. One of life's little ironies.

Well now, maybe you haven't truely seen Communism. You have to realize, in a communist society, people would be given jobs on what is unique about them. An intelligent person will be given a job as a scientist or something like that to help advance civilization and make lives better. Someone who is strong will be given a job in manual labour, so that they might put their muscles to good use and make lives better.

So I'm to be assign as a scientist, but my hard, life saving work gets me the same as a common production line worker? Fuck you, chairman.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4935474.stm

Well now. It seems that Eastern Europe is heading back to the good ol' days of socialism. Of course, I'm saying that as a good thing. Which country will be next? Poland? Germany? Greece? Discuss.

Well, saddly, it's a social-democrat party, and not a real socialist party. But sure, it's still better than the right, and nice to see more and more country in the world going to the left - even if moderate left.

Well, saddly, it's a social-democrat party, and not a real socialist party. But sure, it's still better than the right, and nice to see more and more country in the world going to the left - even if moderate left.

Actually, a lot of right, even far right, parties are gaining. Seems traditionally liberal Western Europe is going right, while former Soviet Eastern Europe is going left.

Kilobugya is right. The socialists in Hungary are about as left-wing as Tony Blair (i.e. not at all, in case you're uninformed or not good with irony). And anyway, regardless of their pre-election promises the socialists (like the other main party, Fidesz) have little choice in terms of policies - they will do what the EU has told them to do and rein in the budget deficit.

I love the optimism of the people here dreaming of a glorious egalitarian true comunism of the people, but it's not about to happen in Hungary.

I dont understand why you think that wonder comes from being under a socialist rule!?

The only "socialist" countries that are prospering are the Scandanavian countries, simply because they have lots of resources and few people.

Why do you beleive that wonder will come from socialist and/or communist rule?

Scandinavia is not socialist, it's only social-democrat. And they don't have much ressources, Norway has oil, but that's most of it. And they have an hostile climate, which creates a lot of problems, from energy to food to clothing.

Then, if you look at other european countries, say, France, we had a growth above the average of the euro-zone during the "socialist" (read: social-democrat) governement of 1997-2002, and we have a grwoth below tne average of the euro-zone now that we have a right-wing gov.

Now, if you look at more socialist countries (and stay at the economy, you speak of "prospering", we are not speaking about democracy right now), it was/is far from a failure. USSR managed to become the second world power and beat the US is most of the space race in 40 years, starting from a rural illetterate poor country in 1917, and despite two world wars in which they paid a very high price and a long civil war. The GDP of Russia, now that it discovered the wonders of capitalism, is only around 70% of what it was during the 80s. People have discovered what "homeless", "unemployed" and "no healthcare for you" mean. And that with their broken, twisted, wicked form of socialism, which was far from true socialism.

Nowadays, Cuba is the only country of South America which can compete (and even sometime beat) western countries in the most important points: life expectency, illetteracy rate, childdeath rate, ...

Venezuela managed to reduce poverty by 1/3 to 1/2, illetterracy by more than 1 MILLION, while reducing unemployment, keeping inflation in control, reducing the national debt, ...; sure, they have oil, but they had oil before - and even during high oil prices, in previous governement, poverty wasn't reduced. And all that despite the constant sabbotage attempts by the opposition.

So well, overall, economically speaking, socialism, even in twisted and wicked forms, worked much better than capitalism. Even in the richest countries, capitalism never was able to suppress poverty, and to grant everyone a decent life.

Actually, a lot of right, even far right, parties are gaining. Seems traditionally liberal Western Europe is going right, while former Soviet Eastern Europe is going left.

Not really. Spain is now leftish (officially), Italy too, and the left will very likely win the next elections (2007) in France.

Sure, it's not real left, it's very timid social-democrats. But much better than right, anyway.

"We have won!" a beaming Mr Gyurcsany - a millionaire businessman - told supporters gathered at the Socialist Party headquarters.

:/

Would you like a glass of champagne with that class war, Mr Gyurcsany?

If China isn't good then look at Japan they have a large amount of people compared to their size, but their economy is still prospering even though they have to import a lot of resources.

Japan has a very specific model, hardly comparable to western ones. It's not a model I like much, but it's not "laissez-faire" capitalism at all. The state plays a strong role in economy, they have "traditions" which have nearly the strength of law and which prevent CEOs from firing people easily, ...

Until recently, they had huge public services (train, bank, ...), and the privatisation leaded to a downgrade of quality (remember the latest train accident ? was because of the privatisation... the drivers now get penalties when they are late, so they don't respect speed limits, and *booom*).

And if you look how they survived to the crisis, it was definitely not in a capitalist way: they use state money to save banks; blocked capital from exiting the country; forbid companies from firing people to prevent an aggravation of the crisis; ...

Not true. Japan...America...Switzerland...Germany....South Korea...England...ect.

Switzeland is a bank paradise, it's a system that can only work because very few countries do like they do.

Japan and South Korea have, as I said before, a very specific system, which is capitalism but with a very strong role of the state in economy, and a very strong traditional system that has nearly the strength of law, and that prevents many things.

America, if you speak of USA, is a disaster. The richest country and most powerful of the planet... but 1/4 with no access to healthcare, a "human poverty ranking" worse than all other industrialised country, and a skyrocketing deficit.

Germany is, with France and Scandinavian countries, one of the most social of capitalist countries.

England is like USA. Many are very rich, but many are very poor, even among those who do have a work. People have to wait 6 months to see a doctor. Infrastructures like public transports are crap. And the internal debt is so high that the economy may collapse anytime soon (internal debt of UK is at 130% of GDP, while in France or Germany it's around 70% of GDB, which is already a lot).

And what is it with you and Naliitr love of Communism anyway? The idealogy sucks...it assumes people dont have souls and lack the spark of life, instead they should just be like cattle.

Not at all. Communism is about allowing every human being to live their life decently, without being in the constant fear of misery, without being wage slaves, without dying from cold, lack of food, lack of healthcare, ...

Its shit on paper and a recipe for misfortune and suffering in application.

No one dies from cold, starvation, or lack of healthcare in Cuba. Do you know any single other country of the world where it's true ? Maybe in Scandinavian countries, but even there, I'm not that sure.

Sure there are a lot of problems in Cuba, lack of democracy being by far the worse. But it's not misfortune and suffering.

Agreed, but you know what you can learn from real life?

That Communism is a bullshit theory and doesnt work in application.

That's something you learn by being brainwahsed by Fox News and CNN. Not something you learn by looking at real life. Quite the opposite.

Well now. It seems that Eastern Europe is heading back to the good ol' days of socialism. Of course, I'm saying that as a good thing. Which country will be next? Poland? Germany? Greece? Discuss.
When talking about Eastern Europe, using "good old days" and "socialism" in the same sentence is a sign of mental feebleness.

Actually, it's not shit on paper. It's shit in real life, where it meets humanity. If humans simply accepted and loved one another and had no greed in their hearts, communism would work out fine. It's really humanity's fault communism doesn't work, not communism's fault.

Well, it's capitalism's fault that communism doesn't work ;) It's capitalism which promotes, rewards and develops the greed and selfishness of human beings. That's why we need socialism between capitalism and communism, why we can't go directly from one to the other.

But then there would be no progress, no great people, no amazing acheivements, nothing outstanding. Society would simply be...O.K.

Long live mediocrity!:rolleyes:

Communism as nothing to do with no great people or no amazing acheivements. Aren't many free softwares an "amazing acheivement" ? It's a communistic process.

And for great people... Einstein was a "socialist". He didn't do all what he did for money or for a reward. He did it for the society. People like him would exist in communism, even more than now. How many potential genious are wasted by capitalism, among the billions who don't even know how to read ?

Massive wars? Not for sixty years. If anything will destroy us it will be our resource consumption.

There were no peace since sixty years. Oh, sure, we, western countries, are smarter than we used to be. We don't wage wars in our own countries anymore. We wage them a bit farther. But still, there were no peace since sixty years.

No. Communism is a prison.

It inprisons the very thing we as humans hold sacred. Our mind. It inprisons our abilities.

Not at all. It's the exact opposite. Communism free your mind, by freeing you from the fear of starvation. Communism unleash your abilities, by granting to everyone education.

Communism grants every human being the material (including education, access to information, ...) conditions REQUIRED for being free, creative, for developping your abilities. By doing so, it frees human beings.

Um, the USA has few people? Japan has few people? And many African countries have lots of resources and less people than several other capitalist countries.

And do you know why African countries are so poor ? Because since the colonial era, we are plundering their ressources, and waging wars between us (France againt Belguim, France against USA, ...) for the control of them.

Poor countries are paying hundred of billions of dollars to reach countries every year, and in addition to that, we plunder their natural ressources and their working forces for our own comfort.

Capitalism is exploitation. That's what we do in Africa.

Communism, as a theory, is based on the fact that all people all equal.

Communism, as a theory, disregards individualism and uniquenss.

Not at all. It's because communism acknoweldge that people are differents, have different skills and needs that it exists. Communism is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". It most of all implies than people have different abilities and different needs.

What we refuse is to let this lead to people suffering in utter poverty while others live in golden palaces...

So basically...there are people above to issue commands, and people below to follow them, unflinchingly?

In a communist society, factories would be run in a democratic way. The ones who "elect" the leader (because, for organisation, we may need a leader, even if most critical decisions should be taken by the people themselves) could be the workers (affected by the working condition), the users of the service (affected by the result), the people living close (affected by the noise/pollution/...) or any other people concerned by the factory. The exact combination of this is up to debate, but the basic idea is that decisions are taken together, by people concerned by them.

Nothing like fascism. The ones "above" are "above" because chose so by the ones "below", and only as long as ones "below" accept it.

So I'm to be assign as a scientist, but my hard, life saving work gets me the same as a common production line worker? Fuck you, chairman.

Because the production line worker isn't working hard ? He isn't saving lives, with what he produces ? No more no less than you.

But he has a boring, painful job, while you have a nice, interesting, motivating one. You're already much better off than him. Why should you have a higher material comfort too ? That's really unfair.

England is like USA. Many are very rich, but many are very poor, even among those who do have a work. People have to wait 6 months to see a doctor. Infrastructures like public transports are crap. And the internal debt is so high that the economy may collapse anytime soon (internal debt of UK is at 130% of GDP, while in France or Germany it's around 70% of GDB, which is already a lot).

Not at all. Communism is about allowing every human being to live their life decently, without being in the constant fear of misery, without being wage slaves, without dying from cold, lack of food, lack of healthcare, ...
I'm always annoyed beyond limits whenever I hear Westerners complain about the constant fear of misery, wage slaves, cold, lack of food or decent healthcare etc. I say to you: bullshit! Why do you think millions of Eastern Europeans are now working in the West? Because millions of Western Europeans would rather live on welfare than do honest but difficult jobs. There's 5-10% unemployment in Western Europe, yet, at the same time, people there are not willing to work because it's actually easier to sit on your ass all day and receive free money than work 12 hours a day 6 days a weak picking strawberries in the field. I've had university colleagues work in the West during the summer (some even remained there), so I know what I'm talking about.

Market economy seems to have succeded pretty well in creating a place where the people don't seem to be very scared about the day of tomorrow. In fact, people are even selective about the jobs they'd do. Communism, on the other hand, has only resulted in failed economies, forcing people to emigrate and do the jobs people in capitalist countries consider below them. Based on this eveidence, I know which system is better.

No one dies from cold, starvation, or lack of healthcare in Cuba. Do you know any single other country of the world where it's true ? Maybe in Scandinavian countries, but even there, I'm not that sure.
Ah yes, I can still remember from my last vacation to Cuba the cold nights, the beautifull snow and the white mountain tops. I have to say Cuba has some of the best ski resorts in the Western Hemisphere. :p In other words: empty rhetoric.

P.S. I really don't want to start a debate about whether Eastern European Communism/Socialism was "real" or not. In fact, Naliitr's comment about the "good ol' days of socialism" is very revealing. That statement clearly implies that socialism existed at one time in the past in Hungary. Straight from the mouth of the believer. :p End of debate, from my point of view.

England is like USA. Many are very rich, but many are very poor, even among those who do have a work. People have to wait 6 months to see a doctor. Infrastructures like public transports are crap.

By England I assume you mean Britain. First of all you should try and get the name of the country right. Second of all, no one here has to wait six months to see a doctor and if anyone told you we do they were lying. I can wake up in the morning, call my doctor and see them that day. I can go to hospital and be seen within a maximum of a few hours, much much quicker for certain things (chest pain? Instant doctor). Of course, that is in a social health system, not the free market killing machine the US has.

Your other two statements here are true. But, where my wife is from in Texas there is no public transport at all, and she also has no health care at all.

I'm always annoyed beyond limits whenever I hear Westerners complain about the constant fear of misery, wage slaves, cold, lack of food or decent healthcare etc. I say to you: bullshit!

I live in a poor suburb of Paris, and I can tell you that it's not bullshit. Sure, it's not as worse as in third world countries. But there is real misery.

And every winter, we have some "cold killed 3 homeless this night" and similar newspaper titles. But they are wrong, it's not cold, but misery which kills.

Why do you think millions of Eastern Europeans are now working in the West?

Because it's even worse in their own countries.

Because millions of Western Europeans would rather live on welfare than do honest but difficult jobs.

That's utter bullshit. The huge majority of unemployed are just wanting to work.

Market economy seems to have succeded pretty well in creating a place where the people don't seem to be very scared about the day of tomorrow.

That's false. There is no capitalist country with no unemployed, homeless, misery. Open your eyes !


Ah yes, I can still remember from my last vacation to Cuba the cold nights, the beautifull snow and the white mountain tops. I have to say Cuba has some of the best ski resorts in the Western Hemisphere. :p In other words: empty rhetoric.

Use hurricane instead of cold, then. When a hurricane hits Cuba, nearly no one dies. When one hits USA, well, New Orleans....

P.S. I really don't want to start a debate about whether Eastern European Communism/Socialism was "real" or not. In fact, Naliitr's comment about the "good ol' days of socialism" is very revealing. That statement clearly implies that socialism existed at one time in the past in Hungary. Straight from the mouth of the believer. :p End of debate, from my point of view.

That's a point I don't agree with Naliitr; I agree with some of what he said on this thread, but not with all. I wouldn't have said it.

Because the production line worker isn't working hard ? He isn't saving lives, with what he produces ? No more no less than you.

But he has a boring, painful job, while you have a nice, interesting, motivating one. You're already much better off than him. Why should you have a higher material comfort too ? That's really unfair.
I'm in my final year at university. I'm going to be an oil engineer and I honestly hope to get to work on an oil platform. Now why do I hope that? Could it be because of the 12 hour work day? Could it be because of the seven days week day? Could it be because I won't be seeing any woman/girl for weeks at a time? Could it be because of the dangerous environement? NO!!! It's because of the pay! I wouldn't go there in 1000 years if it weren't for that and no sane person would go there, either (and you wouldn't want to give an expensive oil platform to the insane :)). That's just an example to show that higher material comfort is far from being unfair. In fact, it's indispensable to a healthy economy.

By England I assume you mean Britain. First of all you should try and get the name of the country right.

I just repeated what the one I was answering too said, for that, sorry ;)

Second of all, no one here has to wait six months to see a doctor and if anyone told you we do they were lying. I can wake up in the morning, call my doctor and see them that day. I can go to hospital and be seen within a maximum of a few hours, much much quicker for certain things (chest pain? Instant doctor).

I was not very precise, I was refering to some kind of doctors, like dentists. There are many UK citizen who go to France to see a dentist, because there is a lack of them in UK, and there are others lack. Maybe it depends of where in UK, too.

And yes, it's less worse than in USA.

I'm in my final year at university. I'm going to be an oil engineer and I honestly hope to get to work on an oil platform. Now why do I hope that? Could it be because of the 12 hour work day? Could it be because of the seven days week day? Could it be because I won't be seeing any woman/girl for weeks at a time? Could it be because of the dangerous environement? NO!!! It's because of the pay! I wouldn't go there in 1000 years if it weren't for that and no sane person would go there, either (and you wouldn't want to give an expensive oil platform to the insane :)). That's just an example to show that higher material comfort is far from being unfair. In fact, it's indispensable to a healthy economy.

I never said higher material comfort is always unfair. I said higher material comfort just because you are a "scientist" is. If you have worst working conditions, more working hours, dangerous enviroenement, painful or tiring job, long travel, ... you deserve higher wage and/or longer holidays and/or lower retirement age. Socialism doesn't oppose to that, at all.

What's unfair is to have a scientist who has easier working condition and a more interesting job than a factory line worker to have a higher wage.

But then there would be no progress, no great people, no amazing acheivements, nothing outstanding. Society would simply be...O.K.

Long live mediocrity!:rolleyes:
That doesn't necessarily follow. Indeed, it's possible that, given the reduced amount of work people would need to do, that they would use the free time to tinker around and come up with new stuff. There is an essay called something like "In Pursuit of Idleness" (not the exact name, unfortunately). Read it, and then see you if you still hold that belief.

As for the Harrison Bergeson story, where does Communism say that everyone must be made equal in all respects? (Also, compared to what else he's written, that is not Kurt Vonnegut's best...)

No one dies from cold, starvation, or lack of healthcare in Cuba. Do you know any single other country of the world where it's true ? Maybe in Scandinavian countries, but even there, I'm not that sure.
Bogmihia, fixating on the cold part of the statement is a little unfair, and shows that he's right about the other two. Also, you can die of cold anywhere - even in the warmest countries - and there are mountains in Cuba too.
Communist economies only went arseways when they transitioned to capitalist.
As for the good ol' days comment, methinks that may have been tongue in cheek.

That's utter bullshit. The huge majority of unemployed are just wanting to work.

I don't want to start a long debate, but if it's as you say, then how come the immigrants find jobs, while the "natives" do not? Of course, most of the jobs done by the immigrants are low pay and quite dull, but if the unemployed really wanted to work they would do those jobs. If people were as desperate as you said (dying from hunger, cold etc), they'd certainly grab any chance to earn a living. However, they're not doing it. The obvious conclusion is that an unemplyed person in the West actually lives better than somebody with a university degree in the East. I have a friend whose sister graduated among the first in her class. Last time I knew she was in Italy, working as a maid. There are many unemployes persons in Italy. Why didn't one of them take the job?

You know what the greatest irony is? Despite the relatively high unemployment, there are actually worker shortages in many domains, shortages created by the fact that people are notas desperate as you imply and can afford to refuse the jobs they consider below them.

And that's the end of my rant. :)

That's utter bullshit. The huge majority of unemployed are just wanting to work.

I don't want to start a long debate, but if it's as you say, then how come the immigrants find jobs, while the "natives" do not? Of course, most of the jobs done by the immigrants are low pay and quite dull, but if the unemployed really wanted to work they would do those jobs. If people were as desperate as you said (dying from hunger, cold etc), they'd certainly grab any chance to earn a living. However, they're not doing it. The obvious conclusion is that an unemplyed person in the West actually lives better than somebody with a university degree in the East. I have a friend whose sister graduated among the first in her class. Last time I knew she was in Italy, working as a maid. There are many unemployes persons in Italy. Why didn't one of them take the job?

You know what the greatest irony is? Despite the relatively high unemployment, there are actually worker shortages in many domains, shortages created by the fact that people are notas desperate as you imply and can afford to refuse the jobs they consider below them.

And that's the end of my rant. :)
Because the immigrants are working in the illegal economy. That's why. Not all of them, but a lot. Also, if social welfare can provide a better standard of living than working, why take a job? This is not a fault of social welfare, but rather of capitalism and its desire to exploit labour for as much as it can.

Bogmihia, fixating on the cold part of the statement is a little unfair, and shows that he's right about the other two. Also, you can die of cold anywhere - even in the warmest countries - and there are mountains in Cuba too.
Communist economies only went arseways when they transitioned to capitalist.
As for the good ol' days comment, methinks that may have been tongue in cheek.
1) I'm not sayig Communism is evil incarnate. Just that a market economy is better.

2) IIRC, Communist economies first went downhill and then turned to a market economy. IIRC, the Soviet Union was having a shrinking economy even in the 70's.

1) I'm not sayig Communism is evil incarnate. Just that a market economy is better.

2) IIRC, Communist economies first went downhill and then turned to a market economy. IIRC, the Soviet Union was having a shrinking economy even in the 70's.
1. I disagree, but that's just something we'll both have to live with. Shouting that I like a communist (not state-capitalist like we saw in the USSR) economy like Parecon is not going to change anything.

2. Not so. Someone earlier in this thread said that Russian GDP is only 70% of 1980's GDP. Also, size of the economy is not a good pointer, as under capitalism wealth tends to clump together around certain people. The standard of living for average Russians is worse than it was before 1989.

if social welfare can provide a better standard of living than working, why take a job?
Exactly. Which proves my point that even the unemployed living in a Capitalist state live better than most inhabitants of the former Communist countries (or present Communist countries, but those still living in such a state are less likely to be able to leave their country). Thank you very much. :)

2. Not so. Someone earlier in this thread said that Russian GDP is only 70% of 1980's GDP. Also, size of the economy is not a good pointer, as under capitalism wealth tends to clump together around certain people. The standard of living for average Russians is worse than it was before 1989.
1) We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. :)

2) Yes, but was the 80's GDP larger than that of the 70's? I think not. Quite the contrary, I believe. The Soviet economic collapse was a very long proces, which began in the 70's and didn't stop right after the collapse of the political system, for the simple reason that it took longer to reform the economy. And last time I checked, Russia's economy has been growing for seven straight years.

Exactly. Which proves my point that even the unemployed living in a Capitalist state live better than most inhabitants of the former Communist countries (or present Communist countries, but those still living in such a state are less likely to be able to leave their country). Thank you very much. :)
No it doesn't, unless you work out costs of living and compare them. Let's take Ireland as an example. In Ireland the minimum wage is about 1326 euro a month and a pint of beer costs around five euro. In Poland it's about 233 euro a month, and a pint of beer costs something around a euro. Meaning in real terms, one Polish euro-equivalent is worth five Irish euros. This is a very fluffy example, as I have no real figures to hand, but I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at. You can't make these comparisons across national borders without also looking at relative costs of living.

Scandinavia is not socialist, it's only social-democrat. And they don't have much ressources, Norway has oil, but that's most of it. And they have an hostile climate, which creates a lot of problems, from energy to food to clothing.
What? We have huge amounts of wood, large deposits of uranium etc. so we've got enough resources. Energy isn't too much of a problem, we've got a lot coming from hydroelectric power and nuclear power plants (though we have closed a couple of reactors), and southern Sweden isn't very cold, there's a lot of farmers and such there...
And clothing? Heard of H&M? :D

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

Know what that means, California boy?

Who will guard the guards. However, I did think it was ipsum not ipsos, but I have never studied latin. You didnt happen to read the book digital fortress did you?

2) Yes, but was the 80's GDP larger than that of the 70's? I think not. Quite the contrary, I believe. The Soviet economic collapse was a very long process, which began in the 70's and didn't stop right after the collapse of the political system, for the simple reason that it took longer to reform the economy. And last time I checked, Russia's economy has been growing for seven straight years.
Actually, Soviet GDP peaked in 1989, then plunged. In seven years it nearly halved. Same with GDP per capita. (http://www.ggdc.net/dseries/totecon.shtml). I will grant, however, that the rate of increase did slow during that period, but the reason for collapse was not communism, it was the change-over to capitalism.

Actually, Soviet GDP peaked in 1989, then plunged. In seven years it nearly halved. Same with GDP per capita. (http://www.ggdc.net/dseries/totecon.shtml). I will grant, however, that the rate of increase did slow during that period, but the reason for collapse was not communism, it was the change-over to capitalism.
If we accept the data you offered (and I don't see why we shouldn't), then the poster who said that nowadays the Russian GDP is 70% of the 1980's GDP was wrong.

1992 Russian Federation: 934 932 millions of 1990 US$
2004 Russian Federation: 980 002 millions of 1990 US$

The Soviet economy seems not to have declined at all in the 80's and for only one year in the 90's, in 1991, so the Russian 1992 economy must have been close to that of the 1980's.

P.S. The Soviet economy did shrink in the 70's. I wasn't completely misinformed. :)

1978 Russian Federation: 1 715 215 millions of 1990 US$
1979 Russian Federation: 1 707 083 millions of 1990 US$

Germany?
Germany just voted in a lady who made headlines with a speech about a "Befreiungsschlag" alá Thatcher...

Plus, they won't vote for another few years. Depends on whether the coalition lasts.

I never said higher material comfort is always unfair. I said higher material comfort just because you are a "scientist" is.
Here is one to chew on:

You say that the worker should be paid more. Some communists say that all workers should get the same, and indeed just as much as those who run the firm.

Now, what does a lowly menial, "unskilled" worker do? He/she uses his muscles or his/her mind for some repetitive, unimaginative task. He/she was told to perform this task and how to do it, and he/she will continue to perform it.

Now, take away the entrepreneur, the manager, the guy who thought of it all. Take away the things he/she thought of.

Put your worker into the stone age, hitting away at a stone as he/she was told. That is all that that work is worth. That is all that that worker can produce.

Everything beyond that is a gift from the entrepreneur.

Because the production line worker isn't working hard ? He isn't saving lives, with what he produces ? No more no less than you.

But he has a boring, painful job, while you have a nice, interesting, motivating one. You're already much better off than him. Why should you have a higher material comfort too ? That's really unfair.

Oh yeah? I quit. You can all fucking DIE OF TYPHOID.

Who will guard the guards. However, I did think it was ipsum not ipsos, but I have never studied latin. You didnt happen to read the book digital fortress did you?

;)


I love Dan Brown.

let me first say that I am a firm supporter of capitalism and i believe it has been the MAJOR factor in massive rises in global gdp as well as falls in poverty over the last decade since the fall of the USSR and eastern european bloc states

1st, my argument against communism,
communism, even on paper is a bad idea. I gives no reward for someone to pursue higher education to attain that better job and such leads to an under-educated population with inefficient industries. This is an explanation of the rises in gdp in the USSR in the 80s. What occured was industries using huge amounts of resources to produce products (which also resulted in alot of pollution). Thus the argument that capitalists will use more resources that communists in false.

2nd, my arguement supporting capitalism,
firstly let me give an example. Australia a well managed capitalist country achieves an average gdp growth of around 4% with unemployment at around 5%. compare this to the communist countries and there is a substantial gap in living standards.

These arguments reflect that capitalism is the optimal form of economic policy over communism :p

If we accept the data you offered (and I don't see why we shouldn't), then the poster who said that nowadays the Russian GDP is 70% of the 1980's GDP was wrong.

1992 Russian Federation: 934 932 millions of 1990 US$
2004 Russian Federation: 980 002 millions of 1990 US$

The Soviet economy seems not to have declined at all in the 80's and for only one year in the 90's, in 1991, so the Russian 1992 economy must have been close to that of the 1980's.

P.S. The Soviet economy did shrink in the 70's. I wasn't completely misinformed. :)

1978 Russian Federation: 1 715 215 millions of 1990 US$
1979 Russian Federation: 1 707 083 millions of 1990 US$
Not exactly right. The GDP actually shrank every year from 1989 to 1996 both in the former Soviet Union and in the Russian Federation.
Current GDP for the whole of the Soviet Union is just under 90% of the 1980's average, and just over 82% of the 1989 peak.
Also, if the USSR had stayed communist, it would have been much richer. Rate of GDP increase was about 2% in the Soviet Union during this period, compared with a rate of increase in the USA of about 3%. Assume this ratio is likely to be constant. The rate of increase in the US since 1990 was also 3%, so the rate of increase in the USSR would have been 2%. If this had stayed constant, then the current CIS GDP is just over 61% of potential USSR GDP.
(All figures are based on the economic figures I supplied.)

Point taken about the shrinkage. Bastard. :p

Neu Leonstein, think about the corollary of your argument. Look at the entrepreneur. What does he do? He thinks of stuff and makes people do it. Now, take away the worker. What do you have?

Nothing, except whatever the entrepreneur makes himself. EVERYTHING he gets is a gift from the worker.

Personally, I think the reconciliation between the need to provide capital for starting an industry and the moral rightness of equitable pay is in co-operatives, but I've no idea what the common consensus is in communist circles.

Kievan-Prussia, quit away. Enjoy not eating! :p

Neu Leonstein, think about the corollary of your argument. Look at the entrepreneur. What does he do? He thinks of stuff and makes people do it. Now, take away the worker. What do you have?
An entrepreneur who builds his own stuff?
Remember, unskilled labour can be replaced, if necessary by the entrepreneur himself. Not vice versa.

Nothing, except whatever the entrepreneur makes himself. EVERYTHING he gets is a gift from the worker.
It wouldn't be on the same scale - but an entrepreneurial achievement is worth the same no matter what came before it, no matter who else exists on the world.
A worker's work only gets its value by virtue of the entrepreneur doing his stuff.

Personally, I think the reconciliation between the need to provide capital for starting an industry and the moral rightness of equitable pay is in co-operatives, but I've no idea what the common consensus is in communist circles.
"Moral Rightness". Says who?

1st, my argument against communism,
communism, even on paper is a bad idea. I gives no reward for someone to pursue higher education to attain that better job and such leads to an under-educated population with inefficient industries.
The argument against the USSR and inefficiency is more about state capitalism than about communism, so I'm not going to argue it, it's right. It's the first part I want to deal with, the part I've quoted.
There may be no financial reward, true, but there are other rewards. For example, there's increased knowledge. I'm studying history and philosophy in college. This is of no benefit whatsoever to me financially - philosophy graduates earn less than non-college educated people! There's an altruistic reward too - people don't just become doctors for the massive amounts of pay, especially not those in A&E departments. They do it to help people.
Money is not the only motivator. The reason money is such a powerful motivator is because capitalism conditions society to expect money as the prime motivator. It would be less important to people who lived in a communist society, because they have been conditioned differently by society. Also, if money was distributed more equally, then everyone would have better stuff. OK, some folk might have to give up their yacht, but everyone would have a quality of life which is viewed as the preserve of the upper-middle class.

An entrepreneur who builds his own stuff?
Remember, unskilled labour can be replaced, if necessary by the entrepreneur himself. Not vice versa.

It wouldn't be on the same scale - but an entrepreneurial achievement is worth the same no matter what came before it, no matter who else exists on the world.
A worker's work only gets its value by virtue of the entrepreneur doing his stuff.
This is blurring the lines between entrepreneur and worker. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with this. I believe in worker ownership after all, and this is worker ownership! (The only problem I would have is if this was a monopoly, but I assume the same goes for you too?)

"Moral Rightness". Says who?
Says me. I think it's morally right that people should not live off the exploitation of the labour of others. You might think differently, of course, but I can't change that. Also, quite a lot of other people think that it's morally right that things should be divided more equally.

Wow, as usual, there seems to be a lot of misconceptions as to what communism entails. Especially for the commie-bashers around here I suggest you first read up on the matter before you say anything stupid.

I don't have the time to go into all the details right now, but one thing I do want to say is that communism has never been implemented in the real world. So everyone wanting to draw conclusions based on the performance (or lack thereof) of the former Soviet Union, China or Cuba is talking out of his ass.

It does not matter which definition of communism you want to use, those countries do not match ANY of those. In fact, USSR meant United Socialist Soviet Republic. Please do note the complete lack of reference to communism, thank you.


Also: first post! Now I'm off to work, I'll join the discussion again later on.
Agreed. That's what I was trying to tell my step-dad last night. He just didn't seem to get it... (He fought it Vietnam, by the way.)

So I'm to be assign as a scientist, but my hard, life saving work gets me the same as a common production line worker? Fuck you, chairman.
Hey man, its called social equality. You should be happy your saving lives. I think that's payment enough, besides us housing you, and feeding you, and entertaining you based on how well and how long you do your work.

This is blurring the lines between entrepreneur and worker.
I think the lines are very clear: Some people have ambition and skill and start something. And others don't.
What their position in any given business deal is really doesn't matter.

I think it's morally right that people should not live off the exploitation of the labour of others.
Well...I pay taxes right now. That is my labour, in money, that goes to the government.
And the government takes part of my labour, and gives it to people to live off it, as welfare.
And all this happens under threat of sending me to jail, should I fail to comply.

On the other hand, you have a worker, and a capitalist. And the two meet, and the capitalist has a certain price in mind, and so does the worker.
And if the two prices are compatible, they will agree to exchange money for labour.

Also, quite a lot of other people think that it's morally right that things should be divided more equally.
I'm sure they do. And I'm just as sure that given the choice, many of them would rather care for their own children than for their neighbour's.

P.S. I really don't want to start a debate about whether Eastern European Communism/Socialism was "real" or not. In fact, Naliitr's comment about the "good ol' days of socialism" is very revealing. That statement clearly implies that socialism existed at one time in the past in Hungary. Straight from the mouth of the believer. :p End of debate, from my point of view.
There was a form of socialism/communism in cold-war-era Eastern Europe. But the form was screwed up. This time, I'm hoping that it will be TRUE socialism and TRUE communism.

1) I'm not sayig Communism is evil incarnate. Just that a market economy is better.

2) IIRC, Communist economies first went downhill and then turned to a market economy. IIRC, the Soviet Union was having a shrinking economy even in the 70's.
Hey now. Remeber we've been saying the Soviet Union wasn't a TRUE communist government?

Here is one to chew on:

You say that the worker should be paid more. Some communists say that all workers should get the same, and indeed just as much as those who run the firm.

Now, what does a lowly menial, "unskilled" worker do? He/she uses his muscles or his/her mind for some repetitive, unimaginative task. He/she was told to perform this task and how to do it, and he/she will continue to perform it.

Now, take away the entrepreneur, the manager, the guy who thought of it all. Take away the things he/she thought of.

Put your worker into the stone age, hitting away at a stone as he/she was told. That is all that that work is worth. That is all that that worker can produce.

Everything beyond that is a gift from the entrepreneur.
Yeah... I say that people should be granted rewards based on how well they do their work and how long they do their work. Not what you do for your work.

"He said his party must now rethink its programme but that its basic message - work, the family and the home - would remain."

so does that mean no rights for gays?

"He said his party must now rethink its programme but that its basic message - work, the family and the home - would remain."

so does that mean no rights for gays?
What? Of course there'd be rights for gays! Communism is all about civil rights. Gays will be allowed to marry, and adopt if there are unfortuante incidents in which parents must die with no chance of saving them.

What? Of course there'd be rights for gays! Communism is all about civil rights. Gays will be allowed to marry, and adopt if there are unfortuante incidents in which parents must die with no chance of saving them.

cool...

but communism is not socialism.

cool...

but communism is not socialism.
But they're sister idealogies. So techincally, communism is all about civil rights.

But they're sister idealogies. So techincally, communism is all about civil rights.
ok, but you can't use them interchangeably

I think the lines are very clear: Some people have ambition and skill and start something. And others don't.
What their position in any given business deal is really doesn't matter.
Some people have money and start something. Don't forget the money. And, like I said, the only difference between an entrepreneur on his own and a co-operative is scale.

Well...I pay taxes right now. That is my labour, in money, that goes to the government.
And the government takes part of my labour, and gives it to people to live off it, as welfare.
And all this happens under threat of sending me to jail, should I fail to comply.
You left out the caveat about those who can't work. That includes those who would actually earn less working than on welfare.

On the other hand, you have a worker, and a capitalist. And the two meet, and the capitalist has a certain price in mind, and so does the worker.
And if the two prices are compatible, they will agree to exchange money for labour.
If that was the case, there wouldn't need to be a minimum wage. The capitalist has the upper hand always.

I'm sure they do. And I'm just as sure that given the choice, many of them would rather care for their own children than for their neighbour's.
Yes, but a lot of people would also like to care for their neighbour's children (if they needed caring for), after their children were taken care of.

The only "socialist" countries that are prospering are the Scandanavian countries, simply because they have lots of resources and few people.

If only we had vast quantities of fish. Then we could be prosperous socialists too.

Japan has a very specific model, hardly comparable to western ones. <snip>

The train system was privatised by Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone in the 1980s. The train privatisation had nothing to do with the last train accident and quality has certainly not deteriorated since the 80s. Train accidents are infrequent and certainly do not occur more often nowadays than they did pre-1980s.

The state does indeed play a large role in the Japanese economy, largely on behalf of big business. South Korea and Taiwan copied this Japanese model post-WW2.

Here is one to chew on:

You say that the worker should be paid more. Some communists say that all workers should get the same, and indeed just as much as those who run the firm.

Now, what does a lowly menial, "unskilled" worker do? He/she uses his muscles or his/her mind for some repetitive, unimaginative task. He/she was told to perform this task and how to do it, and he/she will continue to perform it.

Now, take away the entrepreneur, the manager, the guy who thought of it all. Take away the things he/she thought of.

Put your worker into the stone age, hitting away at a stone as he/she was told. That is all that that work is worth. That is all that that worker can produce.

Everything beyond that is a gift from the entrepreneur.

Okay, so you have your entrepeneur.

Take away his food. Take away his water. Take away his clothes. Take away his computer. Take away his pen. Take away his office. Take away his home. Take away his city. What do you have left? A naked, stranded, starving, thirsty "entrepeneur" who can accomplish absolutely nothing.

We have an interdependent economy. Giving someone more money because they contribute in a different way than someone else is unfair unless that contribution requires more labor or is in another way less desirable than another.

Communist economies only went arseways when they transitioned to capitalist.
As for the good ol' days comment, methinks that may have been tongue in cheek.

They went arseways first and that is the reason they made the transition from command economy to market economy. The strains of the command economy had become apparent by the late 1970s. Long queues for goods and services, chronic shortages, falling marginal capital productivity and lower rates of economic growth. The most visible sign of all this was monetary overhang. Here is a good paper (7 pages) addressing that topic: http://www.uwcades.org/papers/ya_emark.pdf

Before anyone has the opportunity to ask this question, I'll answer it:
Why did the former Centrally Planned Economies experience declines in output from 1990 onward?

The transition from command to market brought about a transformational recession (supply side recession) as the distortions in the economies were worked out of the system. Those distortions included: (1) Higher spending on military and defence goods than market economies of a similar level of development, (2) the over-development of heavy industry and under-development of services (especially financial and retail services) than market economies of a similar level of development, (3) large and inefficient state-owned enterprises, and with regard to Former Soviet Republics (4) prices used in trade between teh centrally planned economies had no relation to market prices at all. Resources were underpriced while finished goods were overpriced. When prices shifted to market prices, the trade flows between the Former Soviet Republics collapsed.

Some radical reformers, like Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, bounced back from initial declines very quickly. While other countries where the institutions of the state completely collapsed and were not replaced with market institutions, like the Ukraine and Moldova, saw output decline for much longer.

If anyone has more time at some point, here is another paper http://www.gdnet.org/pdf/draft_country_studies/Russia_final.pdf
Only pages 11 - 38 are relevant to anything I wrote above.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4935474.stm

Well now. It seems that Eastern Europe is heading back to the good ol' days of socialism. Of course, I'm saying that as a good thing. Which country will be next?

Good ol' days...? You didn't even lived under soviet regime, who gives you right to say this?

Ceia knows more about economics than I do, so I will not argue - at least not without reading up some... However, the USSR was still seeing GDP growth under the command economy - that only began to transition in 1985 when Gorbachev came to power, correct?
However, my main contention about the Soviet economy was not that planned = good (it doesn't, and I don't think that opposing a planned economy is incompatible with being communist, although it is to a Marxist-Leninist communist), but that the safety net, whereby everyone had an 'acceptable' standard of living (acceptable comparatively to that of the poor in Russia now), was removed.

Good ol' days...? You didn't even lived under soviet regime, who gives you right to say this?
Methinks it may have been tongue-in-cheek...

The stange thing about Hungary is that the so-called "centre-left" Socialist Party is economically well to the right of its "centre-right" rival Fidesz. It is Mr Gyurcsany's "Socialists" who want to privatise health care, strongly opposed by Fidesz, and who have already privatised Budapest Airport, which Fidesz want to renationalise.

It looks like Hungary will be staying as a third world country for a longer time.

And for those that say Capitalist countries aren't better - - I've given up on you. I don't know how you were raised(probably from hippies/drunks/or you had no parents) but it obviously had no common sense and discipline involved.

Japan, Singapore, S. Korea, all under CAPITALISM have grown to be strong wonders in the last 100 years. The USA has the largest economy, Japan has the second, Germany has the third. Guess what -- ALL ARE CONSERVATIVE CAPITALISTS.

East Germany under apparent "Socialism" has third-world country wages, and a very low quality of life compared to the prosperous West Germany

Communism ist nicht gut. It doesn't work. Equalism doesn't work. Get it through your welfare/worker rights/narrow-minded heads please.

I use to be a Liberal, but then Common-sense hit me. Also some in-depth research about history and knowing the facts, Conservative Capitalism just works.

For some of its people.
Poverty is everywhere you fool. China lifted 400 million people out of poverty in 20 years. Cut them a break.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4935474.stm

Well now. It seems that Eastern Europe is heading back to the good ol' days of socialism. Of course, I'm saying that as a good thing. Which country will be next? Poland? Germany? Greece? Discuss.
This is not soviet socialism. It's social democracy in the vein of most Western European countries.

It looks like Hungary will be staying as a third world country for a longer time.
It's not a third world country.

And for those that say Capitalist countries aren't better - - I've given up on you. I don't know how you were raised(probably from hippies/drunks/or you had no parents) but it obviously had no common sense and discipline involved.
I was raised with common sense, not your right-wing ideological fanaticism.

Pure socialism/communism is stupid, and pure capitalism is stupid. The best economic system lies in between them.

Japan, Singapore, S. Korea, all under CAPITALISM have grown to be strong wonders in the last 100 years. The USA has the largest economy, Japan has the second, Germany has the third. Guess what -- ALL ARE CONSERVATIVE CAPITALISTS.
Germany is as socialist as anywhere else in Europe. I don't know where you are getting that from.

I use to be a Liberal, but then Common-sense hit me. Also some in-depth research about history and knowing the facts, Conservative Capitalism just works.
Liberals are not socialist, not in Canada, not in the US, and certainly not in Europe. If you used to be Liberal, what does that say about your upbringing? (drunk hippies?)

I dont understand why you think that wonder comes from being under a socialist rule!?

The only "socialist" countries that are prospering are the Scandanavian countries, simply because they have lots of resources and few people.
THe main reason for the near-perfection of the Scandinavian systems is that their bureaucracies are not wasteful and corrupt, unlike those in other places.

It's not a third world country.


I was raised with common sense, not your right-wing ideological fanaticism.

Pure socialism/communism is stupid, and pure capitalism is stupid. The best economic system lies in between them.


Germany is as socialist as anywhere else in Europe. I don't know where you are getting that from.


Liberals are not socialist, not in Canada, not in the US, and certainly not in Europe. If you used to be Liberal, what does that say about your upbringing? (drunk hippies?)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Firstworld.png

This map clearly shows that Hungary is NOT a First-world country

Pure Capitalism is not stupid, considering Singapore, Hong Kong, S. Korea, and Japan have a perfect economy with perfect social services(that you actually need). Hong Kong is considered to have the best education in the world.

Right-wing fanatism? Excuse me buddy, but my country isn't the one having terrorists blow up each other because one side is Protestant and the other is Roman Catholic. I hate fanatics on both sides.

Germany has a CHRISTIAN DEMOCRAT government, which is just as Right-wing as the Republican party in the USA.

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/germany2005.gif

Look at the CDU.

Conservatives have won 10 out of the last 16 elections in Germany. I think that says alot about Germany. And considering the CDU can be compared to the Republican, plus the many coalitions the party has had with the Free Democrats(a FREE MARKET party), it's safe to say they are Capitalist

Liberal is a wrong term for me to use. How about socially progressive, and economically conservative.

Yeah... I say that people should be granted rewards based on how well they do their work and how long they do their work. Not what you do for your work.
And where do these rewards come from? Some people simply contribute more, for whatever reason.
There is no fairness in punishing them.

Some people have money and start something. Don't forget the money. And, like I said, the only difference between an entrepreneur on his own and a co-operative is scale.
A bank can see to that. If the idea is any good and it is presented well, a bank will give a person money. That is their business, and the only thing they care about is whether they will profit of it, not who makes the proposal.

You left out the caveat about those who can't work. That includes those who would actually earn less working than on welfare.
We have disability pensions (although many go to people who don't need them). That is somewhat justified.
But those who are not disabled will always have the chance to make something of themselves, one way or another.
My family is poor. But that doesn't mean that I will resign to my fate and yell that I couldn't help it. Indeed, I believe that my drive is a lot stronger than that of some rich kid that never knew what it meant not to eat anything special on easter to save a few dollars, or to cringe every time the fuel light on the car goes on.

If that was the case, there wouldn't need to be a minimum wage. The capitalist has the upper hand always.
Well, there doesn't need to be a minimum wage anyways. That's a thing we invented only last century.
The thing is that both agree to the deal. When that happens, it does because both parties think they will be better off with the deal than without it.

Yes, but a lot of people would also like to care for their neighbour's children (if they needed caring for), after their children were taken care of.
Note "after". If my income tax is taken away, I don't get to do rankings. The message to me is to somehow accept that I am to value my neighbour's children just as highly as I value my own.

Take away his food. Take away his water. Take away his clothes. Take away his computer. Take away his pen. Take away his office. Take away his home. Take away his city. What do you have left? A naked, stranded, starving, thirsty "entrepeneur" who can accomplish absolutely nothing.
Why would you take all those things away from him? He created all those things. It was entrepreneurs like him who created all this.
Hell, take that entrepreneur and he'll probably start doing the Robinson Crusoe.
Take your poor worker who never had a chance (except when he could have made something of himself at school and declined to do so), and he'll cry that it's not fair and starve to death.

We have an interdependent economy. Giving someone more money because they contribute in a different way than someone else is unfair unless that contribution requires more labor or is in another way less desirable than another.
What is fairness? And why can't you value work you do with your brain as you value work done with your muscles?

What is more important to human survival? Strength of muscles, or strength of the mind?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4935474.stm

Well now. It seems that Eastern Europe is heading back to the good ol' days of socialism. Of course, I'm saying that as a good thing. Which country will be next? Poland? Germany? Greece? Discuss.

Canada! That is, after the bloody coup throws Stephen Harper out of office.

Why would you take all those things away from him? He created all those things. It was entrepreneurs like him who created all this.

I see. So it was entrepeneurs who built our office buildings? Entrepreneurs who paved our roads? Entrepreneurs who grow our food? Those workers in Asia who make our clothes are all entrepreneurs, too?

Entrepeneurs may have invented all those things, but one reason they were able to do so was because they were provided for by other people's labor. Since they were also working there is no injustice in that, but they were not individual actors and cannot claim all the credit.

Hell, take that entrepreneur and he'll probably start doing the Robinson Crusoe.

While he could have been designing new products? How inefficient. If that sort of thing worked we wouldn't need economies in the first place.

Take your poor worker who never had a chance (except when he could have made something of himself at school and declined to do so), and he'll cry that it's not fair and starve to death.

And maybe if he had had different opportunities, he would have been an entrepreneur, too. Or maybe not. It really doesn't matter, because his labor is still socially useful. You need some people to be entrepreneurs, and you need some people to be construction workers, clothesmakers, farmers, etc.

If that entrepreneur had to busy himself doing all that himself, he would not have any time for entrepreneurship.

What is fairness?

Subjective. Obviously, I am voicing my own point of view as to what is just.

And why can't you value work you do with your brain as you value work done with your muscles?

Of course you can. In fact, you should. Both are essential.

What is more important to human survival? Strength of muscles, or strength of the mind?

Both are essential to human survival. That's why we are equipped with the capacity to have both. If you starve to death thinking about the best way to organize agriculture, you don't help anyone.

Well now. It seems that Eastern Europe is heading back to the good ol' days of socialism. Of course, I'm saying that as a good thing. Which country will be next? Poland? Germany? Greece? Discuss.

Ahem, but in the latest TIME magazine, an article focuses on the recent shift in politics of Eastern Europe as they move further right. Poland, for example, is becoming a fairly right-wing nation, with many extreme elements in the coalition government ("Volume On High" - The right-wing government picks fights that please its base but worry others in Europe, TIME, April 24, 2006)

Canada! That is, after the bloody coup throws Stephen Harper out of office.

Oh yes because you speak for the majority of us

*snickers*

even though his approval rating is well beyond majority

Entrepeneurs may have invented all those things, but one reason they were able to do so was because they were provided for by other people's labor. Since they were also working there is no injustice in that, but they were not individual actors and cannot claim all the credit.
He paid them. He made the transactions. He bought that food, those clothes, those houses. That is all the claim everyone else had on him, and he paid it. He paid his dues.
No one else can lay a claim on his mind.

While he could have been designing new products? How inefficient. If that sort of thing worked we wouldn't need economies in the first place.
If you are taking the product of past entrepreneurs away, he will have to start all over. And the root of entrepreneurship is being able to think about and then solve a problem. Whether or not physical labour is involved or not is not the issue.

And maybe if he had had different opportunities, he would have been an entrepreneur, too. Or maybe not.
If he could have been, he would have been. There are millions of self-made millionaires out there. There is a TV show here called "The New Inventors", where average people present the things they invented and created and then try to make money with them.
A background can not hold a person back. I realise that now.

It really doesn't matter, because his labor is still socially useful. You need some people to be entrepreneurs, and you need some people to be construction workers, clothesmakers, farmers, etc.
Entrepreneurship requires infinitely more effort of a person than blindly performing a task as told. If it doesn't receive some sort of reward, then why do you think people will make that effort?

If you starve to death thinking about the best way to organize agriculture, you don't help anyone.
You're under the impression that an entrepreneur couldn't provide for himself, and try to make that provision easier at the same time, aren't you.

Oh yes because you speak for the majority of us

*snickers*

even though his approval rating is well beyond majority

In Alberta?

In Alberta?

Quite funny, but as it turns out this is Nation wide

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=40bc8a42-eb4c-488d-bcec-c576a99eb49d

Up to 66 per cent in BC, amazing, I thought that was only possible in Amazing Alberta

Ontario and Quebec are bringing down his approval, but in reality, the rest of Canada significantly approves.

"The prime minister's national approval rating has also increased -- eight percentage points to 62 per cent -- following his surprise trip to Afghanistan March 12 and 13 to visit Canadian troops."

Quite funny, but as it turns out this is Nation wide

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=40bc8a42-eb4c-488d-bcec-c576a99eb49d

Up to 66 per cent in BC, amazing, I thought that was only possible in Amazing Alberta

Ontario and Quebec are bringing down his approval, but in reality, the rest of Canada significantly approves.

"The prime minister's national approval rating has also increased -- eight percentage points to 62 per cent -- following his surprise trip to Afghanistan March 12 and 13 to visit Canadian troops."

That's only because the Tories run under false pretences. Most of the sweaty masses have no idea what the Tories or the Grits stand for. They just saw the Grits make quite a nasty blunder, and, therefore, fell off the band wagon and ran for shelter. As it happens Mr. Harper was waiting for that precise oppertunity to ensnare his new victims. But once the sweaty masses are educated in politics, the bloody coup will happen.

He paid them. He made the transactions. He bought that food, those clothes, those houses. That is all the claim everyone else had on him, and he paid it. He paid his dues.
No one else can lay a claim on his mind.

Of course. As I said, I do not think that the fact that he is living off other people's labor is an injustice; everyone lives off other people's labor. He is contributing to society, and that is what counts. My only point is that his contribution is dependent on other people's contributions.

If you are taking the product of past entrepreneurs away,

Not the product of other entrepreneurs. The product of non-entrepreneurs - of ordinary laborers.

he will have to start all over. And the root of entrepreneurship is being able to think about and then solve a problem. Whether or not physical labour is involved or not is not the issue.

But if he's busy with physical labor to keep himself alive, he can hardly be busy with inventing new products. That is, if he can manage to keep himself alive, which is questionable for most people raised in modern society, however ingenious they may be.

If he could have been, he would have been. There are millions of self-made millionaires out there. There is a TV show here called "The New Inventors", where average people present the things they invented and created and then try to make money with them.
A background can not hold a person back. I realise that now.

So in this sudden enlightenment, it was clarified to you how I, if I invent a product, can magically attain the necessary capital to produce it and market it, while simultaneously having enough money to take care of myself and my family?

It's questionable how closely the people who profit from an invention are tied to the inventors. In the US a good deal of research is done in the public sector, then sold to private corporations. Nice entrepreneurial ingenuity there.

Entrepreneurship requires infinitely more effort of a person than blindly performing a task as told. If it doesn't receive some sort of reward, then why do you think people will make that effort?

Because some people enjoy mental work more than physical work?

If there is a serious lack, then you should indeed pay entrepreneurs more, assuming equality of opportunity.

You're under the impression that an entrepreneur couldn't provide for himself, and try to make that provision easier at the same time, aren't you.

How do you expect to participate in the development of more advanced technology while simultaneously growing your own food, cleaning your own water, making your own clothes, etc.?

Only true near communist country was the Paris Commune.

Only true near communist country was the Paris Commune.

Socialist, maybe. Not communist.

I wonder is the States will come back from Jesusland any time soon :confused:

That's only because the Tories run under false pretences. Most of the sweaty masses have no idea what the Tories or the Grits stand for. They just saw the Grits make quite a nasty blunder, and, therefore, fell off the band wagon and ran for shelter. As it happens Mr. Harper was waiting for that precise oppertunity to ensnare his new victims. But once the sweaty masses are educated in politics, the bloody coup will happen.

when people become educated in politics, they will understand how stupid and silly the concept of Socialism is. Sorry to to be the one to tell you, but the only countries experiencing Negative growth today are Socialists countries. Even China realised how silly Socialism was, and has taken Capitalist reforms(along with Vietnam). And magically, they are experiencing huge growth rates.

Oh, and to others, the closest thing to a Communist nation was the Native Americans in Canada/USA, where some tribes had the Equality system, no private property, and everything being done for the "state" or tribe.

I wonder is the States will come back from Jesusland any time soon :confused:

If by Jesusland you mean an economically capitalist and morally aware nation, then no.

If by Jesusland you mean an economically capitalist and morally aware nation, then no.

Is "moral awareness" the new term for homophobia and general cultural reaction?

Is "moral awareness" the new term for homophobia and general cultural reaction?
Aint political correctness a bitch?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Firstworld.png
This map clearly shows that Hungary is NOT a First-world country.
Doesn't mean it's a third-world country, though. It's actually Second World - post-state-communist. There's a new term for it, to go with developed/less-developed countries, but it escapes my mind.

Right-wing fanatism? Excuse me buddy, but my country isn't the one having terrorists blow up each other because one side is Protestant and the other is Roman Catholic. I hate fanatics on both sides.
Come back when you have a CLUE about the Northern Irish conflict, then I'll listen to you.

Germany has a CHRISTIAN DEMOCRAT government, which is just as Right-wing as the Republican party in the USA.
Riiight. Which is why it has an upper tax rate of 45%, a strong social welfare system and a public healthcare system that's probably more left-wing than Britain's (definitely Ireland's).

Well, there doesn't need to be a minimum wage anyways. That's a thing we invented only last century.
Without a minimum wage, it's far too open to exploitation. Labour becomes a matter of the lowest common bidder, and will be priced at a level that neither reflects its true value nor can support a person.

The thing is that both agree to the deal. When that happens, it does because both parties think they will be better off with the deal than without it.
Having starvation wages is better than having no wages. Marginally. Doesn't mean it's a fair deal. Doesn't mean that they'll take it either - you know the experiment where someone is given $10 and asked to split it between two people - the guy with money and another person, and if the second guy doesn't accept the split, neither gets anything? If there is a largely unfair deal, people tend to reject it, even though they are losing potential money.

Note "after". If my income tax is taken away, I don't get to do rankings. The message to me is to somehow accept that I am to value my neighbour's children just as highly as I value my own.
And if it wasn't taken from you? Would you voluntarily give that same amount of money to support some random people you don't know who, through no fault of their own, cannot support themselves?
Maybe you would, but then you'd be an exception.

when people become educated in politics, they will understand how stupid and silly the concept of Socialism is. Sorry to to be the one to tell you, but the only countries experiencing Negative growth today are Socialists countries. Even China realised how silly Socialism was, and has taken Capitalist reforms(along with Vietnam). And magically, they are experiencing huge growth rates.
Those countries are state capitalism. I'm sorry to have to say this for what is probably the nine millionth time on these forums, but those countries were not communist. They weren't even socialist - countries like France, Sweden etc have more claim to be so-called. They were capitalism in its worst form - imagine a capitalism where the company has absolute power. Instead of a person or people controlling the company, the state did. It just so happened that the state was also full of people who were a) bastards, b) deluded into thinking that a command economy can work, c) self-serving, and d) able to convince nearly everyone that they were doing the right thing, for the greater good.
As for your point about native American tribes, you're right. That is, in very very broad terms, pretty much my idealised concept of what society should be (only of course with an industrialised economy and higher levels of organisation above the tribe/commune). Oh, and it wasn't just native American tribes that had similar systems, it was quite common for them to exist in other areas too.

Socialist, maybe. Not communist.


I said "near" true communism.

Socialism aka Lower Communism is the stage where you move through to communism.

The ten points are as follows:
1 Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes
2 A heavy progressive or graduated income tax
3 Abolition of all right of inheritance
4 Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels
5 Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a central bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly
6 Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State
7 Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally, in accordance with a common plan
8 Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture
9 Combination of agriculture and industry, promotion of the gradual elimination of the contradictions between town and the countryside
10 Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory work in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production

The only capitalist countries that are prospering are the ones that have lots of resources and few people too.


(Methinks you should start to define your terms)

USA has about 300 million people... GDP per capita is among the highest in the world (if not the highest), and it's been that way for a long while.

If you really want to make your country a better place, you have to do it yourself. It's little use just voting in some persuasive speaker who claims they can make things great.

I've seen alot of valid points in this thread, but i've also seen a ton of bullshit. Lets get to teh bullshit first.

So basically...there are people above to issue commands, and people below to follow them, unflinchingly?

Sounds an awful lot like....DUN DUNN DUHNNNNN Fascism! (http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/hitler_salute.jpg)

Do you even know what Fascism is, by definition? Taking commans from above and giving them to people below to follow sounds alot to me like a CORPORATION, not FASCISM, as you like to call it.

No. Communism is a prison.

It inprisons the very thing we as humans hold sacred. Our mind. It inprisons our abilities. It sets limits to our goals, goals that should have infinite limits. It is the very worst type of prison imaginable. There are no walls, no guards, no seas to hold its prisoners in, just our own skulls.

You too, should read the story I posted in the link above.

How does the ability to learn whatever you want, do whatever you want, live the way you want, etc. all without state interference "Imprison our minds" and "set limits to goals"?

But they're sister idealogies. So techincally, communism is all about civil rights. (about using communism and socialism interchangebly)

Socialism is to Communism as the Child is to the Adult. Thats the best analogy I could find. Socialism, according to traditional Marxist theory, is susposed to "grow up " into communism, for lack of better terms. Therefore, you cannot use the two interchangebly. That would be like calling your grandparents babies.

I'm in my final year at university. I'm going to be an oil engineer and I honestly hope to get to work on an oil platform. Now why do I hope that? Could it be because of the 12 hour work day? Could it be because of the seven days week day? Could it be because I won't be seeing any woman/girl for weeks at a time? Could it be because of the dangerous environement? NO!!! It's because of the pay! I wouldn't go there in 1000 years if it weren't for that and no sane person would go there, either (and you wouldn't want to give an expensive oil platform to the insane :)). That's just an example to show that higher material comfort is far from being unfair. In fact, it's indispensable to a healthy economy.

Theres a fallacy in your argument. Your assuming that in a communist nation, it would still be an oil-based economy. A true communist would look to other resources for fuel production, because not only is it better for our planet, it's also a lot easier to produce, and there will be alot more.

Most sane people, like you said, would not want to sit at an oil derrek, laboring their asses off for 12 hours. But see, the thing is, if we, as a communist people, aren't dependant on oil anymore, nobody would have to go work their ass off doing that kind of shitty labor. Unless, of course, they really wanted oil, despite the availability of other fuel sources. In which case, if they really want it that bad, then they can go do all the hard labor associated with getting their hands on it.


Pure Capitalism is not stupid, considering Singapore, Hong Kong, S. Korea, and Japan have a perfect economy with perfect social services(that you actually need). Hong Kong is considered to have the best education in the world.


If Singapore and Hong Kong are your prime examples of pure capitalism, then pure capitalism sucks. I dont know if you've heard about it, but i've seen many documentaries about how brutal the police force is in both Hong Kong and Singapore. I mean, would you really awnt to live in a place where something as trivial as chewing gum, or forgetting to flush the toilet is a major crime? I know I wouldn't.

Also, I don't think Japan is what you'd call "pure capitalist". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan#Economy read that. Yes, they have a powerful economy, but they also have quite a few liberal spins on their economy, which a true capitalist AKA lassiez-faire economy would lack.

And about the original post:

I don't think any government can call themselves Socialist when they have multi-millionaire business owners living in the country. It just doesnt make sense. Why would a multi-million dollar business owner want to support a political party that would take away his multi-millino dollar business from him?

In addition, this seems to me like more of a social-democrat victory than a victory for socialism.

I've seen alot of valid points in this thread, but i've also seen a ton of bullshit. Lets get to teh bullshit first.

Ehh, okay...


Do you even know what Fascism is, by definition? Taking commans from above and giving them to people below to follow sounds alot to me like a CORPORATION, not FASCISM, as you like to call it.

Fascism by definition, requires the strong above to command, and the weak below, to be commanded.

How does the ability to learn whatever you want, do whatever you want, live the way you want, etc. all without state interference "Imprison our minds" and "set limits to goals"?

It doesnt, but Communism doesnt allow us to do whatever we want. What if I wanted to get rich? It doesnt let us live the way we want. What if I wanted to live competitivly?

In addition, this seems to me like more of a social-democrat victory than a victory for socialism.

Agreed.