NationStates Jolt Archive

<This is my first proper post on this forum so please don't bite off my head!>

Well I have heard plenty of people arguing for Communism, they have very influential speaches indeed.

But what sort of points make Capitalism better?

There is nothing wrong with communism in theory, but practically it is impossible.

Nothing. It works... in theory. Look at China and Cuba for example.

Oh dear. Something odd has indeed happened. When I edited my post it has made a new topic. I knew something like this was gonna happen :(

People are selfish, and so the system would collapse through individual abuse.

Plus, there is an inherent evil in considering a group to be more important than an individual.

There is nothing wrong with communism in theory, but practically it is impossible.

Do you have anything to back this claim, or is it just the result of 30 years of TINA (There Is No Alternative) brainwashing by all the massmedia ?

Good point. I suppose it is in human nature for self preservation so we will always end up valuing ourselves rather than others.

Oh dear. Something odd has indeed happened. When I edited my post it has made a new topic. I knew something like this was gonna happen :(

You also posted whilts being offline. o_O

Oh dear. Something odd has indeed happened. When I edited my post it has made a new topic. I knew something like this was gonna happen :(
:) Don't worry, just post in this thread and go here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=1231)to ask the Moderators to delete the duplicate.

You also posted whilts being offline. o_O
Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse?

Nothing. It works... in theory. Look at China and Cuba for example.

China has absolutely nothing to do with communism.

Cuba implements a form of authoritian socialism, which gives very good results in social fields (they have childdeath rate, illetterracy rate, life expectency, ... comparable with rich countries, while they are a third world country suffering from an embargo), and many problems (lack of democracy and freedom of the press, ...), but it is not communism either.

Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse?

*Hides under table*

Communism will never have cheese in a spray can without the help of capitalism. Cheese in a spray can or bland colorless sameness for all people. Dont make me choose!

Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse?

I've checked revealations and I don't quite see anything that specific... :S

*Hides under table*
Barman:"Should we put paper bags over our heads and lie on the floor? That's what they told us to do in the army"
Ford:"Sure, if it makes you feel better"
Barman:"Will it help?"
Ford:"No, not really"

Do you have anything to back this claim, or is it just the result of 30 years of TINA (There Is No Alternative) brainwashing by all the massmedia ?

The Former Soviet Union. They tried implemented communism BUT Stalin got greedy. First he stole power as Lenin had declared in his will Trotsky was to be the new leader. Stalin changed it. Stalins own personal greed stop communism from working

Good point. I suppose it is in human nature for self preservation so we will always end up valuing ourselves rather than others.

Human nature does not exist, human behavior is much, much more the result of our environement, education and the society we live in than anything else.

In fact, the "primitive" society often implement a form of small scale communism, in which the interest of the community is higher than the one of a single person, and where collective property is more important than private property. Sure it doesn't scale "as is", but it's a proof if needed that there is no natural selfishness in mankind.

But what sort of points make Capitalism better?

None, capitalism isn't better. But that aside, here are some of the more serious arguments that will be used:

1. Without a free market, determining the values of commodities becomes impossible. If the government, or similar public decision-making structure, determines the prices of goods instead of the market, there will be no effective way of responding to supply and demand. The result will be extreme inefficiency and a large black market, which will need to be forcibly suppressed, and thus communism implies a repressive state apparatus.

2. Human beings have a right to the property they earn. To take it away forcibly to benefit someone else is theft, and such a policy is incompatible with individual freedom.

3. By forcing individuals to benefit the collective, communism is equivalent to slavery, and is thus evil. Capitalism, rather, is based on the principle of free association, where human beings freely choose who to work with and how to work with them. Since its institutions are voluntary instead of coercive, it is the superior system.

4. The economic equality communism promises will prevent an effective incentive structure, leading to laziness and a stagnant economy.

Look at the history of the 20th century. There. That's what's wrong with Communism.

Coincidentally, if you look at the 20th century, you'll see what's wrong with Capitalism, too.

Both extremes suck Ann Coulter's balls.

Look at the history of the 20th century. There. That's what's wrong with Communism.

Coincidentally, if you look at the 20th century, you'll see what's wrong with Capitalism, too.

Both extremes suck Ann Coulter's balls.
What we should be debating is which balls they suck.

The Former Soviet Union. They tried implemented communism BUT Stalin got greedy. First he stole power as Lenin had declared in his will Trotsky was to be the new leader. Stalin changed it. Stalins own personal greed stop communism from working

The former Soviet Union showed the failure of a path to reach communism from capitalism: authoritarian socialism. That doesn't mean anything about the goal itself. What you are saying "communism cannot work because of USSR" would be like saying "planes cannot work because my first prototype crashed". The failure of a path from capitalism to communism doesn't mean there are no other paths that would work.

Most people defending communism nowadays want a highly democratic transition, going forwards more direct democracy (participative democracy, ...) to avoid falling into the huge faults of USSR-style authoritarian socialism.

What we should be debating is which balls they suck.

I thought I just told you which ones they sucked.

-snip-
This is called 'moving the goalposts', and it is what all modern communists do.

"No, you can't use that example, it wasn't real communism...no, that one is no good either, because it doesn't quite meet this definition... no, no, you really can't use that one, page 13 of the Communist Manifesto clearly says 'and' where they've implemented an 'or'..."

I've changed my mind, communism is bad in theory as well.

None, capitalism isn't better. But that aside, here are some of the more serious arguments that will be used:
...
4. The economic equality communism promises will prevent an effective incentive structure, leading to laziness and a stagnant economy.

People I know who have previously visited Russia commented on the lack of motivation in the workers and how the people felt in "dead end" jobs.

I thought I just told you which ones they sucked.
I meant which of Ann Coulter's. Do the both suck the same one? Do they take turns? How many does it even have? Big questions.

I meant which of Ann Coulter's. Do the both suck the same one? Do they take turns? How many does it even have? Big questions.

Strange how almost any topic can be linked to ball sucking :S

China has absolutely nothing to do with communism.

Cuba implements a form of authoritian socialism, which gives very good results in social fields (they have childdeath rate, illetterracy rate, life expectency, ... comparable with rich countries, while they are a third world country suffering from an embargo), and many problems (lack of democracy and freedom of the press, ...), but it is not communism either.

Has anyone seen Communism? Its all well and good to critique model societies and expound upon their relative merits and demerits, but that's a bit like roleplaying. Every time a country jumps into existence and says "Look at us we are communists" every communist living in a capitalist country says "No that isnt REAL communism, that is imperfect and has artifacts of other socioeconomic systems unlike actual communism" To a much lesser degree this is true of socialists as well. Yet the capitalists have to struggle along defending real world systems that somehow at the end of the day get by and manage to get by year after year after year. This is true despite all the artifacts of other socioeconomic systems which are evident in every country

Both extremes suck Ann Coulter's balls.

To (poorly) quote Calvin's dad, I'm not sure which is more appalling: your understanding of politics or biology. Although I'm guessing its the latter.

Not off topic:

Communism can thrive in small communities where things like harvesting food and making shoes are important. However, when it comes to making progress, communism downright snuffs it out. Ingenuity is pointless in a communist society, because it is in no way rewarded, ie., "if you build the better mousetrap, who gives a damn?"

In capitalism, the only way to succeed is to come up with better stuff, for lack of a better explaination. Therefore, we get cool things like digital watches, canned bread, and books.

Human nature does not exist, human behavior is much, much more the result of our environement, education and the society we live in than anything else.

In fact, the "primitive" society often implement a form of small scale communism, in which the interest of the community is higher than the one of a single person, and where collective property is more important than private property. Sure it doesn't scale "as is", but it's a proof if needed that there is no natural selfishness in mankind.

I don't really think that even an extremely communist environment could get rid of the instincts people have had since neanderthal times. Eg/ Why do people become obese? In neanderthal times there was often a shortage of food. The people who ate the most food survived. Thos who ate less food did not. This sort of explains human greed. Greed is part of our instinct for survival. The greatest human instinct that cannot be *squished* out of you.

This is called 'moving the goalposts', and it is what all modern communists do.

Plenty of leftists pointed out the errors of the Soviet system as they were happening - Bertrand Russell, George Orwell, Rosa Luxemburg, the Council Communists, etc.

Today, most serious Communist movements not only distance themselves from the Soviet Union's results, but from its policies as well. The precise errors, and the points at which they occured, are subject to dispute, but the fact that errors were made (and then atrocities that could not be called errors) is almost never denied. If you want to argue against present-day Communists with the Soviet example, you have to show how the policies they advocate today, which are not the same as those advocated by Lenin or Stalin, would lead to the same results.

<This is my first proper post on this forum so please don't bite off my head!>

Well I have heard plenty of people arguing for Communism, they have very influential speaches indeed.

But what sort of points make Capitalism better?

It depends, if communism occurs through government legislation, then it will only undermine itself. If communism is the natural flow of society without government legislation, then it is a good thing.

For right now, capitalism is better, as private property rights are the truest and most efficient way to decentralize economic power.

Has anyone seen Communism? Its all well and good to critique model societies and expound upon their relative merits and demerits, but that's a bit like roleplaying. Every time a country jumps into existence and says "Look at us we are communists" every communist living in a capitalist country says "No that isnt REAL communism, that is imperfect and has artifacts of other socioeconomic systems unlike actual communism" To a much lesser degree this is true of socialists as well. Yet the capitalists have to struggle along defending real world systems that somehow at the end of the day get by and manage to get by year after year after year. This is true despite all the artifacts of other socioeconomic systems which are evident in every country

Not even the Soviet Union proclaimed itself to be communist. They all claim to be socialist with the intent to move to a communist society. It would have been very difficult to do this considering how messed up the U.S.S.R. was by the end of Stalins reign.

Plenty of leftists pointed out the errors of the Soviet system as they were happening - Bertrand Russell, George Orwell, Rosa Luxemburg, the Council Communists, etc.

Today, most serious Communist movements not only distance themselves from the Soviet Union's results, but from its policies as well. The precise errors, and the points at which they occured, are subject to dispute, but the fact that errors were made (and then atrocities that could not be called errors) is almost never denied. If you want to argue against present-day Communists with the Soviet example, you have to show how the policies they advocate today, which are not the same as those advocated by Lenin or Stalin, would lead to the same results.
It is precisely because the Soviets/Chinese/Cubans are not 'true' communists that shows why it could never work. They did not go off on a different path because they 'were not true communists'; they go on a different path because communism doesn't work. It relies on total compliance and a surpression of human nature, something that will never happen because human nature is, well, human.

Try it, and eventually you will always end up with Stalin.

The reason true communism has never succeded is because outside pressures have always interfered disastrously (can't spell)

Examples:
Russia=forced war communism on them which allowed people like stalin to get into power as well as killing many of the people who would have defended the revolution died on the front lines.
Spain=infighting between trotskyist elements like POUM and the communist party backed by stalinist russia, also the massive blockade which prevented the republic from fighting back effectivly.

etc
etc

The totalitarian Goverments sooooo grouped with communism give it a bad name.Lenin and Trotsky were getting somewere,yet time changed that.China,N.Korea and Cuba all still have totalitarian Dictators and are shown in bat light.If there was a Democratic goverment with a Socalistic or Communistic Economy,then there be something.

It depends, if communism occurs through government legislation, then it will only undermine itself. If communism is the natural flow of society without government legislation, then it is a good thing.

For right now, capitalism is better, as private property rights are the truest and most efficient way to decentralize economic power.
I would agree, capitalism, for now remains the best way to organize a economic system.

I've changed my mind, communism is bad in theory as well.

What convinced you so easily?

What convinced you so easily?

Well I decided to tie in the idea of how people will react to this in the theory.

I would agree, capitalism, for now remains the best way to organize a economic system.

I think it is certainly possible that capitalism, through its own methods, could annihilate itself.

I don't really care whether communism occurs or capitalism stays, just as long as the government allows a person the dignity to live their own life. If the government does that, whatever results is gravy to me.

To (poorly) quote Calvin's dad, I'm not sure which is more appalling: your understanding of politics or biology. Although I'm guessing its the latter.

Well, it does have quite the Adam's Apple...

Well I decided to tie in the idea of how people will react to this in the theory.

And what did you come up with?

The reason true communism has never succeded is because outside pressures have always interfered disastrously (can't spell)

Examples:
Russia=forced war communism on them which allowed people like stalin to get into power as well as killing many of the people who would have defended the revolution died on the front lines.
Spain=infighting between trotskyist elements like POUM and the communist party backed by stalinist russia, also the massive blockade which prevented the republic from fighting back effectivly.

etc
etc

Most of those sound like internal pressures rather than outside pressures

Yet the capitalists have to struggle along defending real world systems that somehow at the end of the day get by and manage to get by year after year after year. This is true despite all the artifacts of other socioeconomic systems which are evident in every country

If I were arguing with an advocate of capitalism who disassociated himself from present-day capitalist economies, and explained why their failures did not apply to the system he preferred, I would not bring up present-day capitalist failures unless I could demonstrate that they did indeed apply.

Radical free-marketists like, say, Milton Friedman have in fact gotten around the usual references to the Great Depression as the failure of laissez-faire capitalism through a similar argument - that it was not in fact true laissez-faire capitalism.

And what did you come up with?

That people will be angred that their work means nothing and that they have no goals to aim for, as well as the people in power being corrupted. This will result in either a dictatorship or a revolution.

communism just doesnt take into account for human nature. Read 1984

communism just doesnt take into account for human nature. Read 1984

The system depicted in 1984 was not actual communism. Which is, of course, part of the point - George Orwell was no advocate of capitalism. See, say, Homage to Catalonia.

communism just doesnt take into account for human nature. Read 1984

Are you actually saying that you base your understanding of communism on 1984? o_O

Are you actually saying that you base your understanding of communism on 1984? o_O

*shrug* It's better than most Americans...They'd never read a book that long...

*shrug* It's better than most Americans...They'd never read a book that long...

True :p

Easy. Communism doesn't work. That's what's wrong with it.
Marx was wrong on almost everything, and by its very nature, Marxism always will lead to a totalitarian dictatorship.


Communism is inefficient, more wasteful, and is based on poorly constructed, inaccurate economic principles that assume Humans are an excessively-cooperative hive species, which is not the case. While they are a sociall-cooperative species, they are not at the level Communism requires. Communism doesn't work for many of the same reasons Anarchism doesn't work.

Communism, however, can work on a small scale village or familial structure where the common bonds are tighter among individuals and there's some sort of kinship. Once you go beyond the monkeysphere, the effectiveness of communism declines. People lounge, they get lazy, and since people rarely give a shit about people beyond the monkey-sphere, the system degrades.

To (poorly) quote Calvin's dad, I'm not sure which is more appalling: your understanding of politics or biology. Although I'm guessing its the latter.

I know a lot about balls, and I know a man when I see one. It's a man, baby!

Oh, and Communism and Capitalism in their pure forms both suck.

*shrug* It's better than most Americans...They'd never read a book that long...

I would like you to delete that statement or replace "Americans" with "people".

True :p

On the subject of 1984, what we learn about Communism is similar to what Capitalism is described as in the book.

I would like you to delete that statement or replace "Americans" with "people".

Well...Americans are disproportionally anti-commie...

Oh, and Communism and Capitalism in their pure forms both suck.

What, precisely, do you think the "pure form" of Communism would be?

That people will be angred that their work means nothing and that they have no goals to aim for,

Well this I don't feel would be entirely true, unless the entirety or your goals are based solely in economic gain. While many do base achievement in economic and financial measures, I don't think that is a universal quality and has more to do with present society than human nature.

as well as the people in power being corrupted. This will result in either a dictatorship or a revolution.

This certainly is a problem with communism. Communists often say that the powerful perpetuate laws that sustain their power, while I don't think that is true. The powerful will always be able to better exploit the law than the less powerful, so communism through government intervention will not solve any problems.

Well...Americans are disproportionally anti-commie...

While that is true, how does that make your original comment any less insulting? If you are suggesting that reading makes you communist, I would ask you to support it.

Reading doesn't make you communist. It's that a lot of Americans aren't very intelligent as polling suggests.

Well this I don't feel would be entirely true, unless the entirety or your goals are based solely in economic gain. While many do base achievement in economic and financial measures, I don't think that is a universal quality and has more to do with present society than human nature.


Not just economicaly though, for most of the people it would be a very dull job too and they won't be able to aim for a better more meaningful job. Another thing is that people tend too loose incentive to work as well or even work at all because any level of work will pay the same.

Training, outside of brainwashing, can ony do so much. You always end up forcing people into Communist modes of operation, which is counterproductive anyway.

You force people into capitalist modes of operation, too. If you don't work, you suffer because of it; that's how any economic system will end up working, at least until a point is reached where scarcity is no longer much of a problem, labor is undertaken for its own sake, or altruism has a higher place in human nature than it does now.

Not just economicaly though, for most of the people it would be a very dull job too and they won't be able to aim for a better more meaningful job. Another thing is that people tend too loose incentive to work as well or even work at all because any level of work will pay the same.

When compensation is wage based, that is true.

I believe that wage based compensation is very important for the time being, but it is not necessary.

Not just economicaly though, for most of the people it would be a very dull job too and they won't be able to aim for a better more meaningful job.

Why do you think communism would disallow choice of employment?

Reading doesn't make you communist. It's that a lot of Americans aren't very intelligent as polling suggests.

Yes, because these polls you are prepared to present must be accurate, as standardized tests of intelligence are universally recognized for their accuracy.

You see the type of ass you are associated with now, Dinaverg?

Has anyone seen Communism? Its all well and good to critique model societies and expound upon their relative merits and demerits, but that's a bit like roleplaying. Every time a country jumps into existence and says "Look at us we are communists"

That never happened. What does USSR mean ? How does Cuba call itself ? Not "communist". But "socialist". They don't claim to be "communist". Communism is a long term goal, something that can't be reach in a few years. They claim to GO TOWARDS communism, not to APPLY communism.

We can argue if they really want to go towards communism or not, but that's not even the issue. Even if we admit they are right, and that they really try to go towards communism, they never claimed to apply it. And we can agree with the goal without agreeing on the means to follow the goal.

There is also another point you (and other "communism do not work" prophets) always forget, is that attempts to reach communism by other, more democratic and less authoritarian roads, were tried several times in history. They failed, but not to flaws of the system, not to any inherent failure. They failed because they got slaughtered, drown in blood, by the reaction of capitalist forces. Look at Paris' Commune or at Allende's Chile, to take the two examples I know the best. But they are far from being the only ones.

Yes, facing a total assault from forces which doesn't neglegate any way to reach their mean, from mass slaughtered to removing by force elected governements, attempts to reach communism failed in one of the two ways: either they got slaughtered, or they ressorted themselves to dirty means (authoritarism, lack of respect of human rights, ...) and failed because of that. But that is in no way a failure of communism: it's the utter failure of capitalism to accept anything that could threaten it.

But still, capitalism is not omnipowerful. We are no longer in 1871, and slaughtering 100 000 of people in one week would be very hard by any governement in most "western" countries. We are no longer in 1973, and the CIA can no longer coup out any leader they don't like (they utterly failed in Venezuela, for example). So we can reach communism by democratic ways. It's hard, but the hard does not come from communism, it comes from the ones ready to use the dirtiest mean to protect capitalism.

Why do you think communism would disallow choice of employment?

Well, in most cases that is what ends up happening.

You force people into capitalist modes of operation, too. If you don't work, you suffer because of it; that's how any economic system will end up working, at least until a point is reached where scarcity is no longer much of a problem, labor is undertaken for its own sake, or altruism has a higher place in human nature than it does now.

Of course people are educated in Capitalist principles, but they are far more realistic and appeal more easily to our psychology. Humans are not communal hive creatures. They are social-independent ones that have a strong kinship bias that decreases as the group expands.

The larger the group, the less we give a shit, on average. Altruism in nature is usually what is referred to as reciprocal altruism, and it usually occures within a specific clan or kin group. It is done because it has a higher chance of perpetuating the closely related genes.

Many proto-communist societies collapsed because their mentality simply couldn't hack it. Early colonial America was a good example. However, I admit, there were many other factors that precipitated those failures as well.

Few will work for the greater good, especially all the time. It's an abstract principle and humans are just dumb animals who happen to be smarter than all the other dumb animals.

Why do you think communism would disallow choice of employment?

He is certainly not completely off. The market must have some motivation for effectively fulfilling labor demand.

Well, in most cases that is what ends up happening.

And in most cases you don't get communism, either.

While that is true, how does that make your original comment any less insulting? If you are suggesting that reading makes you communist, I would ask you to support it.

...Maybe you misunderstand...Most Americans, Americans being a group I'm included in, know essentially nothing of Communism. If one were to base their knowledge of Communism on 1984, they'd know more about Communism than most Americans...

And in most cases you don't get communism, either.

Because communism cannot appropriately deal with labor demand yet.

Yes, because these polls you are prepared to present must be accurate, as standardized tests of intelligence are universally recognized for their accuracy.

You see the type of ass you are associated with now, Dinaverg?

When a large part of the population literally believes in a faerie-tale, yes, American's are largely stupid. Average is not very smart.

The Alfred-Binet global G is also very accurate. There's no such thing as "multiple-intelligences." Do you disagree or agree with standardized tests? They tend to be accurate. "Average" however, in the United States isn't very intelligent when you look at the population and the aggregate behaviors. The average Joe is pretty stupid. The polls also have a very reliable margin of error and have been corroborated several times by separate polling institutions.

None, capitalism isn't better. But that aside, here are some of the more serious arguments that will be used:

1. Without a free market, determining the values of commodities becomes impossible. If the government, or similar public decision-making structure, determines the prices of goods instead of the market, there will be no effective way of responding to supply and demand. The result will be extreme inefficiency and a large black market, which will need to be forcibly suppressed, and thus communism implies a repressive state apparatus.

2. Human beings have a right to the property they earn. To take it away forcibly to benefit someone else is theft, and such a policy is incompatible with individual freedom.

3. By forcing individuals to benefit the collective, communism is equivalent to slavery, and is thus evil. Capitalism, rather, is based on the principle of free association, where human beings freely choose who to work with and how to work with them. Since its institutions are voluntary instead of coercive, it is the superior system.

4. The economic equality communism promises will prevent an effective incentive structure, leading to laziness and a stagnant economy.

not bad.... but you forgot the part about eating babies.

Yes, because these polls you are prepared to present must be accurate, as standardized tests of intelligence are universally recognized for their accuracy.

You see the type of ass you are associated with now, Dinaverg?

I'm not talking intelligence, just knowledge...Slight difference.

I don't really think that even an extremely communist environment could get rid of the instincts people have had since neanderthal times. Eg/ Why do people become obese?

Because they are sold dirty, unhealthy food designed to maximize the profits of McDonald's ?

In neanderthal times there was often a shortage of food. The people who ate the most food survived. Thos who ate less food did not.

That's about the opposite of what happened. Communities who were unable to think about the future, to keep food for the coming hard periods, to save grains to plant it, to organize themselves and work TOGETHER failed to survive. Greed is not a valid long-term survival choice. Real greed doesn't exist in nature. No animal would eat more than needed - because that would threaten them as a speice.

This sort of explains human greed. Greed is part of our instinct for survival. The greatest human instinct that cannot be *squished* out of you.

Greed has to be leant. Be it studies done on "primitive" cultures, on toddlers, or just look at how evolution works show us that. Human being are, inherently, social being. Compassion, helpfullness, solidarity are much, much more part of what we, inherently, are than greed. But the system teaches us greed. It teaches us competition. It teaches us "you or me". It teaches us that it's good to stockpile and seek your own interest.

And despite of this, people still share. They still give to charity. They still share with their families. They still, for most of them, refuse to kill for money (even without the fear of punishment). And so on. Because we are social animals. Because even capitalism cannot squish generosity, altruism, compassion from us.

He is certainly not completely off. The market must have some motivation for effectively fulfilling labor demand.

Then, if non-financial incentives don't work, use financial ones. I have no objection to that.

The crucial issue typically ignored in these debates is who controls the economy - the rich elite, who own and control most of the means of production in a capitalist economy, or the people, who would own and control the economy in a real socialist economy.

If it is necessary to provide financial incentives, then it should be done, but in a manner implemented by the popular institutions that would control the economy and not by an elite class that dominates the system.

I'm not talking intelligence, just knowledge...Slight difference.


I don't think he gets it. He's probably American.

...Maybe you misunderstand...Most Americans, Americans being a group I'm included in, know essentially nothing of Communism. If one were to base their knowledge of Communism on 1984, they'd know more about Communism than most Americans...

So you are telling me that you mean that when you said:

"It's better than most Americans...They'd never read a book that long..."

If so, you need to specify more than "a book".

People get it all wrong! Problem isn't in the Communism, it is in the people! Same thing about capitalism...

Because communism cannot appropriately deal with labor demand yet.

I don't think Leninism failed to achieve real socialism because it couldn't deal with labor demand; Leninism failed to achieve real socialism because it was an authoritarian model that ultimately turned out to be incompatible with the democracy inherent in real socialsim.

When a large part of the population literally believes in a faerie-tale, yes, American's are largely stupid. Average is not very smart.

Which fairy tales?

The Alfred-Binet global G is also very accurate. There's no such thing as "multiple-intelligences.".... They tend to be accurate.

By what standard?

People get it all wrong! Problem isn't in the Communism, it is in the people! Same thing about capitalism...


Yea. So Communism only works when no one is actually following it. :p
However, even some of the anti-communist defenses of Capitalism are laughably absurd and simplistic. More black/white thinking than anything else.

For right now, capitalism is better, as private property rights are the truest and most efficient way to decentralize economic power.

And yet, more than half of the world is lacking fundamental goods. Five thousands (yes, more than one 9-11) children are dying every DAY of causes we could prevent.

Even in the richest of the capitalist country, one forth of the population is lacking healthcare, one fifth is living in poverty.

And meanwhile, we are WASTING 400 billions of dollar per year in something totally useless like advertising (inherent flaw of a laissez-faire competitive system: looking good is more important than being good), while ONE TENTH of those ressources could grant EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING with decent living.

And you dare to speak of an efficient system ? That's disgusting me.

Which fairy tales?



By what standard?


First of all, were you in support of intelligence exammes or not?

What faerie-tales? A large portion of the population, approaching 45%, believes literally in mircacles, creationism, and other manner of metaphysical bullshit wanking. To believe in such nonsense, you must have no or critically suppressed rational faculties.

I'm not talking intelligence, just knowledge...Slight difference.

I understand that, I was just showing the level you stooped to with you generalized implications.

Then, if non-financial incentives don't work, use financial ones. I have no objection to that.

The crucial issue typically ignored in these debates is who controls the economy - the rich elite, who own and control most of the means of production in a capitalist economy, or the people, who would own and control the economy in a real socialist economy.

If it is necessary to provide financial incentives, then it should be done, but in a manner implemented by the popular institutions that would control the economy and not by an elite class that dominates the system.

Thats not real communism.

So you are telling me that you mean that when you said:

"It's better than most Americans...They'd never read a book that long..."

If so, you need to specify more than "a book".

Well, the posted I quoted refered to 1984 didn't it? They probably wouldn't anyways, although if it's Harry Potter...Hmm...They'd never do anything that educational with their free time, I suppose.

And yet, more than half of the world is lacking fundamental goods. Five thousands (yes, more than one 9-11) children are dying every DAY of causes we could prevent.

Even in the richest of the capitalist country, one forth of the population is lacking healthcare, one fifth is living in poverty.

And meanwhile, we are WASTING 400 billions of dollar per year in something totally useless like advertising (inherent flaw of a laissez-faire competitive system: looking good is more important than being good), while ONE TENTH of those ressources could grant EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING with decent living.

And you dare to speak of an efficient system ? That's disgusting me.


Capitalism works, for those who can afford the goods. It is also fairly good at managing resources so they don't run out all of the suddent and leave consumers in the dust with shortages and overabundance.

However, that doesn't mean the free market works all the time and flawlessly or that it is the best solution to every problem.

A lot of the problems in the third world where people are starving are very complex, but the problem certainly is not lack of goods. It's distributive injustice that is one problem.

Now, you can sacrifice some efficiency and gain some other valued benefits. A mixed economy is more acceptable than either pure form. It takes the benefits while avoiding a lot of the problems.

Of course people are educated in Capitalist principles, but they are far more realistic and appeal more easily to our psychology. Humans are not communal hive creatures. They are social-independent ones that have a strong kinship bias that decreases as the group expands.

The larger the group, the less we give a shit, on average. Altruism in nature is usually what is referred to as reciprocal altruism, and it usually occures within a specific clan or kin group. It is done because it has a higher chance of perpetuating the closely related genes.

Many proto-communist societies collapsed because their mentality simply couldn't hack it. Early colonial America was a good example. However, I admit, there were many other factors that precipitated those failures as well.

Few will work for the greater good, especially all the time. It's an abstract principle and humans are just dumb animals who happen to be smarter than all the other dumb animals.

You are assuming that I am arguing something that I have not actually argued.

Here's the essence of my point:

You force people into capitalist modes of operation, too. If you don't work, you suffer because of it

In response to:

You always end up forcing people into Communist modes of operation, which is counterproductive anyway.

Then, if non-financial incentives don't work, use financial ones. I have no objection to that.

The crucial issue typically ignored in these debates is who controls the economy - the rich elite, who own and control most of the means of production in a capitalist economy, or the people, who would own and control the economy in a real socialist economy.

If it is necessary to provide financial incentives, then it should be done, but in a manner implemented by the popular institutions that would control the economy and not by an elite class that dominates the system.

Yes, but democratic legislation will always be manipulated by the powerful no matter what.

Also, the idea that a labor compensation could be handled appropriately by a democratic system is ludicrous.

I understand that, I was just showing the level you stooped to with you generalized implications.

*hustenyourhusten*

*shrug* Said most didn't I? There's exceptions.

I love communism, but I find that the true problem of it is that it does not match the current world culture in the least. The world culture is generally one more greed driven, and in order to absolutely change culture to the point where no body would worry about themselves, knowing that everyone would take care of them, and instead worrying about everyone else, a gradual, peaceful change over something like 700 years would have to take place. No killing people who disagree, but rather reeducating them, or isolating them, so that people dont rise against "unfair killings"

Communism requires the good nature of people to be absolute, and this is difficult, though not impossible to achieve. This is what makes communism so difficult

You are assuming that I am arguing something that I have not actually argued.

Here's the essence of my point:



In response to:


Where are they forced into capitalist modes of production? You are free to join a commune if you want. It will fail, though, most likely, most most communes. ou are failing to understand degree of effect. Even if we assume they BOTH exploit and deal with force--even if---communism is less efficient at doing the job and is worse.

It's not an on/off or a non/all.

I don't think Leninism failed to achieve real socialism because it couldn't deal with labor demand; Leninism failed to achieve real socialism because it was an authoritarian model that ultimately turned out to be incompatible with the democracy inherent in real socialsim.

I agree with you on that.

However, I was just saying that in many times government will take an authoritarian role in labor distribution for labor demand issues, which is what Hydesland was referring to.

And yet, more than half of the world is lacking fundamental goods. Five thousands (yes, more than one 9-11) children are dying every DAY of causes we could prevent.

Even in the richest of the capitalist country, one forth of the population is lacking healthcare, one fifth is living in poverty.

And meanwhile, we are WASTING 400 billions of dollar per year in something totally useless like advertising (inherent flaw of a laissez-faire competitive system: looking good is more important than being good), while ONE TENTH of those ressources could grant EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING with decent living.

And you dare to speak of an efficient system ? That's disgusting me.

Good luck with your causes. Maybe someday you will convince most democratic systems to follow them.

Thats not real communism.

Marx sure thought it was.

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

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

Adjust the principle to account for the inaccuracy of the Labor Theory of Value, and something much like what I have advocated comes into play.

Yea. So Communism only works when no one is actually following it. :p
However, even some of the anti-communist defenses of Capitalism are laughably absurd and simplistic. More black/white thinking than anything else.
Excatly!

Yes, but democratic legislation will always be manipulated by the powerful no matter what.

Of course. Which doesn't mean that such manipulation shouldn't be minimized.

Also, the idea that a labor compensation could be handled appropriately by a democratic system is ludicrous.

Why do you think so?

First of all, were you in support of intelligence exammes or not?

No, standardized tests cannot take into account societal roles and cultural differences.

What faerie-tales? A large portion of the population, approaching 45%, believes literally in mircacles, creationism, and other manner of metaphysical bullshit wanking. To believe in such nonsense, you must have no or critically suppressed rational faculties.[/QUOTE]

You can obviously disprove all metaphysical belief, correct?

And you can show me that the rest of the world doesn't follow religious teachings? Look up the percentage of Europeans who also believe in creationism over evolution, and then get back to me with what you find.

Communism is unworkable and unrealistic and thus is a waist of time and talent for its proponents.
They would accomplish so much more devoting their energies to reforming and streamlining the welfare state that could not exist without capitalist profits.

Where are they forced into capitalist modes of production? You are free to join a commune if you want.

If you can get the money to buy the resources necessary. And how do you do that? Through labor in the capitalist economy.

Furthermore, I wouldn't object to capitalist enclaves in a socialist society, as long as no one was coerced into it and anyone had the option of leaving.

Capitalism works, for those who can afford the goods. It is also fairly good at managing resources so they don't run out all of the suddent and leave consumers in the dust with shortages and overabundance.

Say that in Argentina. Or in 1929. Or in 20 years, when capitalism will have depleted all oil supplies.

A lot of the problems in the third world where people are starving are very complex, but the problem certainly is not lack of goods. It's distributive injustice that is one problem.

The problem is one of inefficency, among other. The system, in order to survive, needs to waste an incredibly high amount of ressources in completly useless things: advertising, duplication of infrastructure/research cost, cheap-throwable goods instaed of a tiny bit more expensive, but much more long-lived goods, and so on.

Of course, there is also an enormous problem of wealth distribution. And the combination of the two leads to the disaster of today's world.

Now, you can sacrifice some efficiency and gain some other valued benefits. A mixed economy is more acceptable than either pure form. It takes the benefits while avoiding a lot of the problems.

Which efficiency do you sacrifice ? Any look to actual figures will show you the opposite. Public healthcare systems are MORE efficient than private ones. Countries where electricity or trains are operated as public services have HIGHER quality of service and lower prices than where it is private (just look at EDF, both compared to other countries, and comparing now it is partly privatised to a few years ago when it was 100% public). And so on.

Capitalism is an enormous source of unefficiency. The first one is advertising, a complete, enormous waste. The second one is money taken by the stock owners: it doesn't go to the customers, it doesn't go to the workers, it doesn't go to the people. The third one is the duplication of infrastructure (3 cell phone networks ? wonderful, nearly three times more transmitters). And then you can add duplication of logistic costs, research costs, ...

Capitalism is, inherently, inefficient. And it shouldn't be a surprise: working against each other leads to more ressources being wasted than working together.

Communism is a long term goal,

:LOL:

Communism is state sponsored slavery. You may aspire to slavery - but not the rest of us.

Good things about Capitalism:

1) Efficient use of resources! Wasting resources is wasting money and wasting money is something no capitalist wants.

2) Technological Advancements! Without capitalism and a pursuit of money, we wouldn't need television, radio, Internet commerce, washing machines, toys, large military... :mp5:

3) Fair prices due to supply and demand. Rather than having one person/group controlling an industry and thus setting high prices, competing companies must lower prices to encourage people to buy their product. Why buy a $5000 toy from Company A when Company B is selling a similar toy for $10? This benefits the consumers, allowing them to buy more and enjoy life more, if they're materialistic...

Well, the posted I quoted refered to 1984 didn't it? They probably wouldn't anyways, although if it's Harry Potter...Hmm...They'd never do anything that educational with their free time, I suppose.

And the residents of other countries do?

*hustenyourhusten*

*shrug* Said most didn't I? There's exceptions.

It seemed that you implied a downward shift applies to Americans.

Yes, but democratic legislation will always be manipulated by the powerful no matter what.

Which powerful ? There are "powerful" people only because the democracy is not complete. One of the major reason of it is that there is another source of power than democracy: the economical power, which is totally ploutocratic in capitalism. So yes, there are powerful people, inherently, in a capitalist system.

Which powerful ? The elected representative ? But communists (since Marx time) always rejected the "bourgeois" representative democracy as an imperfect democracy, wanting a more real, direct democracy form. From Paris' Commune to the Soviet system (which, saddly, was quickly made powerless in order to win the civil war of 1917), to the proposals (and acts) of "communist" or "socialist" (real socialists, no social-democrats) of today (in South America, in Europe, ...), we see that communists often try to reach MORE democratic systems, in which there is no "elected monarch" ruling for x years.

And the residents of other countries do?

It seemed that you implied a downward shift applies to Americans.

I've never lived in other countries, so I made no comment on them.

No, standardized tests cannot take into account societal roles and cultural differences.

That's not true. The modern ones do, in fact, do that. The modern Standford Binet is not culturally biased at all. Even so, they account for that confounding variable. People in different societies are not going to have vastly different base intelligences.

You also don't do standarized intelligence test.



You can obviously disprove all metaphysical belief, correct?

Burden of Proof fallacy. I don't have to disprove a faerie-tale. They have to provide evidence for it. For example, logically, I don't need to prove that flying undetectable unincorns that live in your ear do not exit. You have to.

However, creationism can be disproven. It's absolutely absurd and scientifically inaccurate, yet vast swaths of idiots literally believe in a children's bed-time story. That's sad for adults.


And you can show me that the rest of the world doesn't follow religious teachings? Look up the percentage of Europeans who also believe in creationism over evolution, and then get back to me with what you find.

Actually, Americans are vastly higher in religiosity than many European countries, especially in terms of creationist belief. Western Europe is more secular, making the US the laughing stock of the Western World. I have statistics on American religiosity.

Of course. Which doesn't mean that such manipulation shouldn't be minimized.

How?

Why do you think so?

A democratic system can't handle civil rights, foreign policy, or even its own administration, yet it is supposed to handle complex economic systems?

Which powerful ? There are "powerful" people only because the democracy is not complete. One of the major reason of it is that there is another source of power than democracy: the economical power, which is totally ploutocratic in capitalism. So yes, there are powerful people, inherently, in a capitalist system.
No. There are always people with more power than others. That's how society has always been and will continue to be. It's part of our evolutionary history. When primates gather into groups they instinctively choose a leader, not only because certain people are naturally charismatic and have a knack for manipulating others, but because many people crave guidance, leadership and most importantly protection.

Communism, in its purest form, is against nature, not that it hasn't done a great deal of good in coaxing the middle classes of the world to consent to a welfare state.

People are selfish, and so the system would collapse through individual abuse.

thats the way they are now. arguably a reaction to a greed-based economic system. to say it can't work - end of story - because people are greedy does not take into account that people can change. it may be more accurate to say it cannot work for the time being...

Plus, there is an inherent evil in considering a group to be more important than an individual.
i've never understood this. the good of the many must, intrinsically, outweigh the good of the one. it just.... is. i can't see how it could be otherwise; how the individual could possibly be glorified to think he, or she, is of greater imporance than the group, the many, or the society in which they live. it just doesn't make sense to me.

of course a group-mentality can be used to fuel evil ends ("for the good of the state" - mao, stalin?) etc, but so can an individualistic outlook by furthering greed, corruption, a higher disregard for morals in search of endless want, a lack of compassion and social inequality... it boils down, probably, to which you value more - or believe to be more fair or 'just' - equality and fairness, or personal gain and 'freedom' (a misplaced concept as nobody is ever free - always under some greater tyranny, be it their employer, a money-based system, banks, or the state)


(apologies for the rant)

China has absolutely nothing to do with communism.

what my pal said *nods* :)

Say that in Argentina. Or in 1929. Or in 20 years, when capitalism will have depleted all oil supplies.


Can you say black and white fallacy? It's not all free-market laissez fair or nothing. Argentina was an abberation. 1929 was hardly a fault of capitalism itself. There are variets of Capitalism, and the basic principles work in reality.

The basic principles of communism don't work at all, anywhere, regardless of the varient.


The problem is one of inefficency, among other. The system, in order to survive, needs to waste an incredibly high amount of ressources in completly useless things: advertising, duplication of infrastructure/research cost, cheap-throwable goods instaed of a tiny bit more expensive, but much more long-lived goods, and so on.

Communism wastes an incredible ammount of resources too trying to figure out supply and demand, leading usually to either huge shortfalls of products or heavy abundances of shit no one wants.

Competition is usually good (but not in EVERY industry). It produces superior quality goods for more people at lower costs. It makes good use of resources for what people want.


Of course, there is also an enormous problem of wealth distribution. And the combination of the two leads to the disaster of today's world.

I thin it's a problem too, but communism isn't the answer. Even if we went and emotionally felt bad for them, reality is still a factor. Communism doesn't work. No ammount of wishful thinking and hoping will make it a rational option. One major problem of the third world is also european colonialism. That was a mistake. We are now paying for it.



Which efficiency do you sacrifice ? Any look to actual figures will show you the opposite. Public healthcare systems are MORE efficient than private ones.

I know they are often. Canada is one example. That's why I never said it is absolute in every industry. I am not against any public sectors. Sometimes, it's true: the public sector does it better.


Capitalism is an enormous source of unefficiency. The first one is advertising, a complete, enormous waste.

Advertising gets people's attention and informs them on product availability. How else will people know? Telepathic communication?


The second one is money taken by the stock owners: it doesn't go to the customers, it doesn't go to the workers, it doesn't go to the people.

Well, I don't know why the money would go to customers. They buy the product. The company doesn't pay the customer to shop. That seems a bit silly.

It also shouldn't go all to the workers. Shareholders are an important part of any corporation--they provide a lot of financial backing. Stockholding is also an excellent means by which average joe and other citizens can accrue wealth and live better lives. Now, do I think a corporation should be able to do anything to satiate the desires of the shareholder? No.


The third one is the duplication of infrastructure (3 cell phone networks ? wonderful, nearly three times more transmitters). And then you can add duplication of logistic costs, research costs, ...

Duplication can be good when the alternative is one-choice monopololy or oligopoly. Monopolies are never good, whether they are corporate or labour-based.


Capitalism is, inherently, inefficient. And it shouldn't be a surprise: working against each other leads to more ressources being wasted than working together.

In the magic world of theory, communism is more efficient. In reality, Capitalis m is. I can come up with a perfect theory too which doesn't waste anything. However, it's still fantasy at the end of the day.

Good things about Capitalism:

1) Efficient use of resources! Wasting resources is wasting money and wasting money is something no capitalist wants.

I already answered to that. Capitalism is a totally, completely inefficient system, and that's because of inerehent flaws.

2) Technological Advancements! Without capitalism and a pursuit of money, we wouldn't need television, radio, Internet commerce, washing machines, toys, large military... :mp5:

Hum... let's see... world greatest scientists ? Einstein, fervent socialist, doing his research in order to help mankind.

Television, radio ? Hum... transistors ? Hum... invented in... state-sponsored Bell Labs of AT&T, in state-enforced monopoly position. Hardly a success of capitalism.

Internet ? Hum... military (state-owned, state-paid, not-for-profit) project, then university (mostly state-owned, state-paid, not-for-profit) projects, developped like that because of world... COOPERATION ! Foundations of Internet ? Not-for-profit Free Softwares, done in cooperation, and in a non-onwership system.

Add to that that most scientist do research of the fun of it, for the will to understand, or for the will to help, money being a necessity for them (they need to eat, after all), but very rarely a goal in itself.

So, what is making the world to progress ? Socialism, or capitalism ?

3) Fair prices due to supply and demand. Rather than having one person/group controlling an industry and thus setting high prices, competing companies must lower prices to encourage people to buy their product.

Sure, that's why privatisations in all domains but telecommunications always leaded to increased prices and lower quality (and for telecommunications, it's because of the current technological boom, countries who privatised earlier tend to have higher prices than those who waited more).

Want some examples ? Look at trains in UK, Argentina or Japan. Look at electricity in France or California. Look at post services. Look at healthcare. And so on.

How?

By maximizing democracy and eliminating sources of hierarchy, within reason.

A democratic system can't handle civil rights, foreign policy, or even its own administration, yet it is supposed to handle complex economic systems?

All institutions have that problem, to some degree. Corporations, however, manage pretty well, despite the fact that internally they are essentially command economies; they decide what they want to produce and pay enough to attain the labor necessary. A democratic economy could do the same.

A more pressing problem would probably be effectively responding to consumer demands; democratic accountability would have to be a priority, as well as a rigorous accounting of which goods sell and which don't.

i've never understood this. the good of the many must, intrinsically, outweigh the good of the one. it just.... is. i can't see how it could be otherwise;

The good of the many does outweigh the good of the few. The accusation that any collective effort or group value is evil is, quite frankly, absurd sohpistry.

Which powerful ? There are "powerful" people only because the democracy is not complete. One of the major reason of it is that there is another source of power than democracy: the economical power, which is totally ploutocratic in capitalism. So yes, there are powerful people, inherently, in a capitalist system.

Even if complete direct democracy was somewhat practical, democracy is not only skewed by economic factors.

EDIT: And regardless, I am saying that the powerful will use the legislation after the democratic vote is taken. Any government legislation will be put to use more effectively by the powerful.

Here's what's wrong with communism:
The fact that you have a government that treats every person equally is just stupid. It's hard to accept, but some people are BETTER than others. They are smarter, harder working, and have more to offer. So why should they be treated the same? Let the elite lead society...that's the way it works in nature as well.
...the way I see it, Karl Marx unleashed something horrible.

:LOL:

Communism is state sponsored slavery. You may aspire to slavery - but not the rest of us.
lol yourself. you think you are free but you are the slave of money, debt, banks, your bosses and those in society more well-off than you.

in a civilised or ordered society, people will always be slaves to something, be it the state, another individual, religion, or the system or society, or the tools of that (ie money), itself.

you believe you are free as you are told you are (there is capitalist propoganda and indoctrination just as much as there is with any system). you are 'free' to spend your money how you like. however you must submit yourself to the hand that feeds you - literally - by giving you your wage packet. if you do not work and submit yourself to a higher master, you would die... were it not for the socialsied welfare state, that is...

Burden of Proof fallacy. I don't have to disprove a faerie-tale. They have to provide evidence for it. For example, logically, I don't need to prove that flying undetectable unincorns that live in your ear do not exit. You have to.

Well, in this situation, yes, you are required to disprove it. It is impossible to provide evidence for it that holds any weight between individuals, as it is totally subjective.

However, creationism can be disproven. It's absolutely absurd and scientifically inaccurate, yet vast swaths of idiots literally believe in a children's bed-time story. That's sad for adults.

Perhaps you can explain how it is disproven.

Actually, Americans are vastly higher in religiosity than many European countries, especially in terms of creationist belief. Western Europe is more secular, making the US the laughing stock of the Western World. I have statistics on American religiosity.

I do want to see your statistics comparing the two.

By maximizing democracy and eliminating sources of hierarchy, within reason.

I got that far, how do you manage to do that without government legislation that is open to manipulation.

All institutions have that problem, to some degree. Corporations, however, manage pretty well, despite the fact that internally they are essentially command economies; they decide what they want to produce and pay enough to attain the labor necessary. A democratic economy could do the same.

Corporations are not command economies. They are entirely subject to the demands of the public.

However, the problems of democracy are not reflected within a corporation.

A more pressing problem would probably be effectively responding to consumer demands; democratic accountability would have to be a priority, as well as a rigorous accounting of which goods sell and which don't.

That is certainly a problem, but it is only a part of the labor demand problem. There is a very delicate equilibrium of labor where consumer demand is both driven and fulfilled by the labor force.

Well, in this situation, yes, you are required to disprove it. It is impossible to provide evidence for it that holds any weight between individuals, as it is totally subjective.


No. I don't have to disprove metaphysical faerie-tales. No one has to disprove that God exists either, since it's logically invalid to try to prove a metaphysical negative.

If the evidence cannot be objective to defend their belief, then their belief is unjustified. Subjective evidence isn't a logical defense. I don't have to disprove a mircal. Logically, the person who says it is real has to substantiate it. If their defense is inadequate, the proper course of action is to assume it not to be correct untill shown otherwise. (Note, this doesn't mean it is incorrect).



Perhaps you can explain how it is disproven.


Creationism is easy to disprove, unlike flying invisible unicorns in you ear. It's predictions are simply incorrect, and it's principles scientifically inaccurate. For example, a large portion of Americans belief that the Earth is less than 6 thousand years old. We call them YEC's. This belief is contracited by objective evidence that measures the age of the earth within a very accurate span of geologic time. Their age-assumption doesn't hold up to the observations, therefore, it is falsified.

There are many other physical and logical impossibilities in Creation-Theory, which either refute themselves or are futher demolished by scientific inquiry.

On American Religiosity compared to Europe, all are excellent sources,especially the last. It is well-documented that Europe has lower and decreasing religiosity than the United States. It's not suprising, since according to Pew and other pollers, almost half the US population believes in a literal translation of the Bible, which would be absurd in most of W.E.

1. http://www.cfr.org/publication/9960/great_god_divide.html
2. http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=76
3.http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
4. http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=29

In almost all categories of religiosity, Americans rank far higher than European averages. A wopping 49% of the American population believes literally in Satan, compared to: 11.1 in Austria, 13.2% norway, and 13.3% in the netherlands.

Higher quantities of Americans also believe in other bullshit like exorcism, astrology, scientology etc.

America is the backwater asscrack of the intellectual world.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm

I got that far, how do you manage to do that without government legislation that is open to manipulation.

You don't, at least going by a broad definition of "legislation." No system is perfect.

Corporations are not command economies. They are entirely subject to the demands of the public.

That's why I said "internally." An economic system consisting of multiple, competing corporations is indeed not a command economy.

The point is that corporations can respond both to labor supply and consumer demand, despite being complex, bureaucratic organizations, and a government could as well. An unaccountable government doesn't have to, unlike a corporation, which the market makes accountable to a degree, but we are talking about democratic systems.

However, the problems of democracy are not reflected within a corporation.

If the people choose inefficiency over, say, a higher degree of economic inequality, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

That is certainly a problem, but it is only a part of the labor demand problem. There is a very delicate equilibrium of labor where consumer demand is both driven and fulfilled by the labor force.

Which could also be dealt with on a democratic basis.

One of the chief reasons Communism would fail/does fail in reality - individual human selfishness - is exactly the same reason Capitalism has created such a disparity in wealth. The flaw is with us, not with the theories. (A perfect modern example of selfishness is the recent petrol scares in England - a few newspapers start rumours that we might be facing a petrol shortage so everyone goes out and fills up their tank, immediately creating a petrol shortage that, in fact, wouldn't have happened. Panic buying is human selfishness in action. Another example would be the gun laws in America - if people thought of the greater good they'd probably realise that much tighter laws would reduce the number of deaths massively, but they won't do that because they personally prefer to have a gun of their own to make them feel safe. Phew, that was a lengthy parenthesis.) Personally I feel that Capitalism is the best of a bad lot. Democracy as it is currently implemented is equally flawed. Personally I'd say that, if you want to keep most of the people happy most of the time go with the system set down by Brave New World (not nearly as interesting to read as 1984, but I feel its vision of the future is more likely than one based on oppression like 1984s).

On the subject of creationism, Vittos: You say there are as many creationists in Europe as there are in America, but perhaps you confuse 'creationist' with 'religious'. The Catholic Church, for instance (probably the largest religious organisation in Europe) actually states that the creation story is just a story, not literal truth. It's a great metaphor for evolution (look at the order in which the world is formed - not perfect, but still pretty good). But it's still just a story. I use the Catholic church as an example because not only is it the largest, it is still the most backward-thinking on most modern issues (contraception, female priests, homosexuals etc). Most other churches (ie the Church of England) are rather more progressive.

Can you say black and white fallacy? It's not all free-market laissez fair or nothing. Argentina was an abberation.

Still, two weeks before the collapse, it was the "model pupil" and a "miracle" for the most vocal defenders of capitalism.

1929 was hardly a fault of capitalism itself.

It was totally. Capitalism is inherently unstable system for at least two reasons. The first one is the working of specualtive markets (and stock market, something at the core of capitalism, is a speculative market): as long as the prices go up, people buy it making it go even more up (it's the opposite of the usual supply-and-demand law: when prices go up, demand goes up too). And when the prices start to go down for a reason or another, everyone sells, and it's a crash. That's inherent to the system.

The other reason is the cyclic effects of economy. A factory closes, firing 1000 workers. Those workers will have less money, and therefore will not be able to buy as they used to. Other companies will have to either lower their prices, or lower their production. In both cases, some will likely go into trouble, and have to fire workers too. Those will stop buying, and so on.

For those two reasons, capitalism is inherently an unstable system, in which a small perturbation (like a small scandal, or an earthquake, or whatever) can make the system to widely collapse. Keynesianism can lower and shorten this, but it failed to totally prevent it.

The basic principles of communism don't work at all, anywhere, regardless of the varient.

On what do you base this claim ?

Communism wastes an incredible ammount of resources too trying to figure out supply and demand, leading usually to either huge shortfalls of products or heavy abundances of shit no one wants.

Communism doesn't mean authoritarian centralism. That's the reason for which USSR failed, but that's not inherent to communism. In fact, if you read Marx, communism favor decentralisation and direct, local, democracy more than centralism (centralism is needed in some domains, sure, but not for everything).

It produces superior quality goods for more people at lower costs.

Superior quality ? Quality of goods tend to lower, and the more the competition is strong, the lower the quality is. To win the competition, you need 1/ good advertising 2/ aggressive commercial policies 3/ low prices. But not quality. That's why quality of stuff is so low, in capitalist world. Be it unhealthy food with toxic components, short-lived devices, or technically stupid choices (like putting 256K of cache on a 2GHz CPU, it's totally insane, but people look at GHz and not at cache size).

Asymetry of information is a major flaw of capitalism too.

It makes good use of resources for what people want.

Not, it wastes enormous amount of ressources to SHAPE what people want.

One major problem of the third world is also european colonialism. That was a mistake. We are now paying for it.

Colonialism, and neo-colonialism (economical colonialism) is how western countries manage to be, globally, that rich while having such an inefficient system as capitalism. Without colonialism, we wouldn't be able to sustand our standard of living within the capitalist framework.

Advertising gets people's attention and informs them on product availability. How else will people know? Telepathic communication?

Advertising, informing ? Most of advertising, maybe 90% or 95% of it, is just about products people already know about, but trying to make you want to buy it by having a nice motto, a cute half-naked girl, or a lovely music. For the few remaining ones, it's anyway biased, half-false information.

The only domain on which advertising is not doing too bad is on ponctual events (like movie release), but even for them, it's much, much more efficient to buy a 0.5 euros (or dollar) magazine about movie release than to watch the ads on TV: you have information on more movies, and less biased information. And you know where it is played, too. And with Internet, you don't even need to pay anymore.

Information, especially at the age of Internet, is much more easy to find, reliable and exhaustive in web sites, magazines, ... than in advertising. And it costs far less ressources, because only people interested in the field look at them.

Well, I don't know why the money would go to customers. They buy the product. The company doesn't pay the customer to shop. That seems a bit silly.

It could go to customers by lowering prices. The newly partly privatised EDF (electricty company) increased prices... and gave high profits to its new stock owners. Thank you, capitalism.

It also shouldn't go all to the workers. Shareholders are an important part of any corporation--they provide a lot of financial backing.

Providing financial backing can be done by the society. Either directly (by state-owned companies), or inderictly, through state-owned banks delivering micro-credits (or higher level credits). That would be much more efficient than stock holders, since the money won at the end would go back to the society, directly, through public services.

Stockholding is also an excellent means by which average joe and other citizens can accrue wealth and live better lives.

The average joe is taken money daily by stock holders. Two times. Once when he works, a second time when he buys.

Now, do I think a corporation should be able to do anything to satiate the desires of the shareholder? No.

That's what capitalism is about...

Duplication can be good when the alternative is one-choice monopololy or oligopoly. Monopolies are never good, whether they are corporate or labour-based.

Then why did the EDF monopoly on french electricity granted us a high-quality, cheap, reliable service, in all the country, for 60 years ? Why did SNCF monopoly on french trains granted us a high-quality, cheap, reliable service, in most of the country, for 70 years ?

Why did we have better quality of service, and lower prices, then in countries where is privatised ? Why did the quality of service went down, and prices went up, since EDF is partly privatised ?

That's why I said "internally." An economic system consisting of multiple, competing corporations is indeed not a command economy.

The point is that corporations can respond both to labor supply and consumer demand, despite being complex, bureaucratic organizations, and a government could as well. An unaccountable government doesn't have to, unlike a corporation, which the market makes accountable to a degree, but we are talking about democratic systems.

The trouble is that corporations rarely respond to labor supply and consumer demand from the top down. The best corporations react to supply and demand issues without the bureaucratic process.

If the people choose inefficiency over, say, a higher degree of economic inequality, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

Inefficiency in the economy leads to one group getting screwed.

Which could also be dealt with on a democratic basis.

There is no way that a democratic process could actually manage it. Voting would be nearly perpetual and would be nearly infinitely complex.

Still, two weeks before the collapse, it was the "model pupil" and a "miracle" for the most vocal defenders of capitalism.

So, they were wrong about Laissez-Fair. Again, that's not an indictment of all of Capitalism. Objectively, capitalist principles ARE correct. Their economic model of reality is verifiable. Communism's isn't.

Yall can dance and whine as much as you like, but you can't make an apple fall up when you drop on earth-gravity as much as you might like to. You can't circumvent natural laws without huge problems.


It was totally. Capitalism is inherently unstable system for at least two reasons. The first one is the working of specualtive markets (and stock market, something at the core of capitalism, is a speculative market): as long as the prices go up, people buy it making it go even more up (it's the opposite of the usual supply-and-demand law: when prices go up, demand goes up too). And when the prices start to go down for a reason or another, everyone sells, and it's a crash. That's inherent to the system.

That's an overly simplistic understanding of the Stock Market Crash and the subsequent Great Depression. It was far more than that. Rampant speculation can be a problem, but that's not a defeating aspect of Capitalism.


The other reason is the cyclic effects of economy. A factory closes, firing 1000 workers. Those workers will have less money, and therefore will not be able to buy as they used to. Other companies will have to either lower their prices, or lower their production. In both cases, some will likely go into trouble, and have to fire workers too. Those will stop buying, and so on.

Those workers will likely get another job. Yes. The economy has cyles--ups and downs. That's expected and predicted in capitalist models. Many of these problems are not as catastrophic as you are making them sound.


The basic principles of communism don't work at all, anywhere, regardless of the varient.

On what do you base this claim ?


I base it on the fact that, in reality, they don't work. Marx's ideas about labour/prices and Capital were grossely inaccurate--inaccurate on the level of Aristolean astronomy.

Communism's principles are objectively incorrect assumptions about the world. Their predictions don't work. Their mechanism is crap, except in very limited situations.

Marx's ideas, if you analyse them, always will lead to a totalitarian dictatorship. Always.


Communism doesn't mean authoritarian centralism. That's the reason for which USSR failed, but that's not inherent to communism. In fact, if you read Marx, communism favor decentralisation and direct, local, democracy more than centralism (centralism is needed in some domains, sure, but not for everything).


I have read Marx, and while I agree with some points, this seems to me like a huge "no true scotsman" argument. That's not communism--this is "TRUE communism!" The way communism is structured on Marxist principles of theory always lends itself to authoriatarian centration. Not all communalism does, if it's voluntary, though.

However, Marx actually didn't favour decentralization and democratization at all. I can list off the evidence if you want point-by-point from the Communist Manifesto. It's the basic ingrediants for a state-run economic chopshop.



Superior quality ? Quality of goods tend to lower, and the more the competition is strong, the lower the quality is. To win the competition, you need 1/ good advertising 2/ aggressive commercial policies 3/ low prices. But not quality. That's why quality of stuff is so low, in capitalist world. Be it unhealthy food with toxic components, short-lived devices, or technically stupid choices (like putting 256K of cache on a 2GHz CPU, it's totally insane, but people look at GHz and not at cache size).

Asymetry of information is a major flaw of capitalism too.

Yes. Superior quality, if quality is what people want to pay for. Competition ensures that consumers have adequate choice, and choice through competition lowers prices and increases consumer satisfaction. THis usually works. However, not always.

I agree, consumers cannot make proper decisions with crappy flow of information. For capitalism to work, the consumer base needs to be educated and the media needs to be useful (neither of which are).


Not, it wastes enormous amount of ressources to SHAPE what people want.


Sorry. No ammount of shaping will make someone buy something he has no desire to buy. You can dress up dogshit to look like candy, but only a retard would by it. If he does, he deserves what he gets.



Colonialism, and neo-colonialism (economical colonialism) is how western countries manage to be, globally, that rich while having such an inefficient system as capitalism. Without colonialism, we wouldn't be able to sustand our standard of living within the capitalist framework.


Colonalism itself was expensive and inefficient. The cost of Empire is grand. You cannot afford it withotu already having a strong economy.



It could go to customers by lowering prices. The newly partly privatised EDF (electricty company) increased prices... and gave high profits to its new stock owners. Thank you, capitalism.


Are stock owners not people? Are they martians? Corporations give most of the money to the stock owners because, without them, the business would collapose. It makes perfect sense.


Providing financial backing can be done by the society. Either directly (by state-owned companies), or inderictly, through state-owned banks delivering micro-credits (or higher level credits). That would be much more efficient than stock holders, since the money won at the end would go back to the society, directly, through public services.


Do you want to eliminate profit motive and have a government funded corporation? Those are notoriously unsuccessful.



Then why did the EDF monopoly on french electricity granted us a high-quality, cheap, reliable service, in all the country, for 60 years ? Why did SNCF monopoly on french trains granted us a high-quality, cheap, reliable service, in most of the country, for 70 years ?

Why did we have better quality of service, and lower prices, then in countries where is privatised ? Why did the quality of service went down, and prices went up, since EDF is partly privatised ?

Utilities are usually considered natural monopolies. I have no evidence to substantiate your claim, though. The general rule is that monopolies decrease quality, create laziness and unresponsiveness and hurt consumers.

If you are telling the truth, that's an exception to the rule.

Wanna see an example of monopoly? Micro$oft, former Standard Oil and US Steel, many Cable Companies (really they are oligopolies), overpowered labour unions that are helping to screw General Motors.

I have read Marx, and while I agree with some points, this seems to me like a huge "no true scotsman" argument. That's not communism--this is "TRUE communism!" The way communism is structured on Marxist principles of theory always lends itself to authoriatarian centration. Not all communalism does, if it's voluntary, though.

However, Marx actually didn't favour decentralization and democratization at all. I can list off the evidence if you want point-by-point from the Communist Manifesto. It's the basic ingrediants for a state-run economic chopshop.

Decentralization, no. Democratization, most definitely yes.

How is the Communist Manifesto's inherent totalitarianism democratic? Are we working off of different versions?

How is the Communist Manifesto's inherent totalitarianism democratic? Are we working off of different versions?

Where in the Communist Manifesto is totalitarianism advocated?

Is the Communist Manifesto the only work of Marx you have read?

lol yourself. you think you are free but you are the slave of money, debt, banks, your bosses and those in society more well-off than you.

Umm, no - I am not. None of those things imprison me, beat me, or take away any choice. My boss is only in charge of the portion of my life I allow him to be - and I can revoke that at will. You really have no concept of slavery.

in a civilised or ordered society, people will always be slaves to something, be it the state, another individual, religion, or the system or society, or the tools of that (ie money), itself.
You REALLY have no concept of slavery.

you believe you are free as you are told you are (there is capitalist propoganda and indoctrination just as much as there is with any system). you are 'free' to spend your money how you like. however you must submit yourself to the hand that feeds you - literally - by giving you your wage packet. if you do not work and submit yourself to a higher master, you would die... were it not for the socialsied welfare state, that is...
I AM the hand that feeds me. Nobody else. Nobody gives me a wage packet - I earn directly from my customers for a negotiated amount. I am fairly close to self employed and could be completely if I wished - no 'higher master' than myself. So really - your entire premise is quite stupid and now I've demonstrated it.

Where in the Communist Manifesto is totalitarianism advocated?

Is the Communist Manifesto the only work of Marx you have read?

Totalitarianism is advocated via the principles outlined. It's the blueprint for creating a statist regime in which the government controls (monopolizes) everything and the people are subservient to it. All industry, communication, transporation, and education are controlled by the government.

Families are to be abolished and children sent off to a perverse sort of mind-colonizing school where they do factory-work on the side for the government.

All private property is to be confiscated for the "greater good" and reapproriated by the state. All inheretence is to be abolished, which means they get everything you have, even after death. Your relatives get whatever they feel like giving to them.

Income tax is highly progressive, approaching 100%.

All industry is to be dismantled from urban centres and distributed by force among the rural areas, effectively trying to reverse industrialization and turn the country into a feudalist society.

Marxism is really absurd, but no, it's not the only thing I have read, but even if it were, that's enough to turn me off to it. I read Mein Kampf too. I didn't need to read any of his other stuff to know his idea was wack.

Umm, no - I am not. None of those things imprison me, beat me, or take away any choice. My boss is only in charge of the portion of my life I allow him to be - and I can revoke that at will. You really have no concept of slavery.


You REALLY have no concept of slavery.

your concept of slavery is narrow and small-minded.


I AM the hand that feeds me. Nobody else. Nobody gives me a wage packet - I earn directly from my customers for a negotiated amount. I am fairly close to self employed and could be completely if I wished - no 'higher master' than myself. So really - your entire premise is quite stupid and now I've demonstrated it.
in your case, that may be. in which case you may be argued to be a bourgeois who exerts control over others. i don't know your personal specifc situation, but was speaking in generalities about the majority of people in a capitalistic economy who must submit their labour in order to survive. you do NOT choose to submit that labour - only who to submit it to. you are still bound and enslaved by those above you and by the system. (and even then you have no true choice as to who to chose as your master as we are not born equal in skills nor in opportunities...)

i would not call my premise stupid (and i almost take offense at that). i would however call yours narrow-minded again - think more widely and you will see

Totalitarianism is advocated via the principles outlined. It's the blueprint for creating a statist regime in which the government controls (monopolizes) everything and the people are subservient to it. All industry, communication, transporation, and education are controlled by the government.

And the government is subservient to the people. Hence, not totalitarian. That is the whole idea behind the "dictatorship of the proletariat."

And the government is subservient to the people. Hence, not totalitarian. That is the whole idea behind the "dictatorship of the proletariat."


That's not true. The people are subservient to those in power under the authoritarian regimes necessary to put forth the communist principles from theory into practice. Nice try.

The very idea of socio-economic domination by the proles is absurd totalitarianism itself.

If you can rationalise the CM as being democratic and free, then you need some serious counseling help I can't provide. That's some brainwashing you got.

That's not true. The people are subservient to those in power under the authoritarian regimes necessary to put forth the communist principles from theory into practice. Nice try.

Since the Communist Manifesto is theory, and we are talking about the Communist Manifesto, that is irrelevant.

The very idea of socio-economic domination by the proles is absurd totalitarianism itself.

No, it's democratic, because as Marx envisioned it, the vast majority of the population was part of the proletariat.

Let's actually deal with what Marx wrote on the subject, in regard to one specific application of the principle during his lifetime: the Paris Commune.

He wrote about it:

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

In describing that "political form," he wrote:

The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms.

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

How very totalitarian.

Since the Communist Manifesto is theory, and we are talking about the Communist Manifesto, that is irrelevant.

False. Any theory which only works on paper is a worthless theory. Theory into practice is what matters. If you think a theory is good outside the human construct, then you just aren't being rational on this issue.

Like I said, the principles themselves are recepies for totalitarianism. That's a fact. A bad theory in practice is indicative of poor principles behind the theory. That's also a fact.



No, it's democratic, because as Marx envisioned it, the vast majority of the population was part of the proletariat.

Ahh, It's democratic because Marx said so. I see. Too bad it's not a government of the people, but rather an unaccountable, bureaucratic dictatorship.

In fantasyland, it was intended to be democratic. I agree. Fascism was intended to be good too. You have to realize not all communism is Marxism as well. Marxist-style Communism is totalitarian.

False. Any theory which only works on paper is a worthless theory. Theory into practice is what matters. If you think a theory is good outside the human construct, then you just aren't being rational on this issue.

You did say that application of Marxist theory would lead to totalitarianism, but you said more than that. You also said:

However, Marx actually didn't favour decentralization and democratization at all.

Which is demonstrably false, at least in regard to democratization.

America is the backwater asscrack of the intellectual world.

Tell me, then:

Why do so many technological innovations come from the US, and why are US universities among the best in the world?

Why does the US lead the world in patents granted, and why does it have some of the most start-up technology companies, lead in technological implementation, and dominate virtually all industries related to technology?

Why are American companies leaders in biotechnology, nanotechnology, computer processing, Internet commerce, and why do US companies consistently lead

Until you can explain to me how a "backward" nation like the United States can innovate in so many fields, provide some of the best universities in the world and lead the world in research I'm going to call BS on the statement that we are a backward nation. I hate to tell you, but idiots exist everywhere and are not representative of the nations as a whole.

In fantasyland, it was intended to be democratic.

Which contradicts what you said earlier. Interesting.

Fascism was intended to be good too.

"Good" according to a definition of "good" that most would not accept. Communism, on the other hand, advocates ideals that most people associate with a good society, even if it fails in actual implementation.

You have to realize not all communism is Marxism as well.

I'm quite aware of that, since I'm a non-Marxist Communist.

Tell me, then:

Why do so many technological innovations come from the US, and why are US universities among the best in the world?

Well, if we look at the United States, it ranks very low in both science and mathematical competence. It ranks about 28th in the world for math competence, and it's science isn't too much better. The US education in science and math are vastly inferior to many third world nations. That's sad.

A lot of technological innovations come from other countries too. America is behind in scientific progress in several areas, but namely biotechnolgy and biomedicine. Not everyone's stupid in America, though. I never said everyone is stupid. It takes extraordinary intelligence and dedication to strive the American System(TM) and become a competent individual in the field. We do, however, have a severe problem with not having ENOUGH professionals in those fields.

As for the Universities, they are good depending on what you want. You have to understand how the capitalist system works in American Education. You get what you pay for. If you can afford the absurd education costs, you get good education. However, even in those systems, there are many problems. AMerican Education is really a commodity to be bartered, which leads to a lot of grade-inflation and the procurement of bullshit courses--or "bird" courses, if you will.

A lot of people are getting educations in things they "like" or find "interesting" but are easy as shit or worthless in reality. The University is good because it caters to the demands of the population pretty well, even if those demands are uneducated.


Why does the US lead the world in patents granted

YOu can get almost anything patented, even if the inventions don't work. IE Perpetual motion machines, of which many have patents--none of which work. Someone also got a patent for making a different type of butterknife. Wooooo!


And why does it have some of the most start-up technology companies, lead in technological implementation, and dominate virtually all industries related to technology?

Money, power and the elite few. If true, you shouldn't confuse business shrewdness and control with unique intellectual ability. As well, I never said everyone in the US is stupid. The masses are. There are, however, still a pool of intelligent engineers, scientistis etc.


Why are American companies leaders in biotechnology, nanotechnology, computer processing, Internet commerce, and why do US companies consistently lead

Actually, America is behind in biological and biotech sciences. They don't consistantly lead in everything anyway, which is total hyperbole. Both Europe and Asia are superior in several fields of science. On basic education, they are also far ahead in Singapor, Hong Kong, most of Europe. Even third world nations, like I said, have superior science education.

The population of AMerica is also highly stupid. Don't take this to mean there are no smart people. The average is just stupid.


Until you can explain to me how a "backward" nation like the United States can innovate in so many fields, provide some of the best universities in the world and lead the world in research I'm going to call BS on the statement that we are a backward nation. I hate to tell you, but idiots exist everywhere and are not representative of the nations as a whole.

I just did. Showing that there are a few smart people who can do wonderful things doesn't exculpate the majority of commoners. A lot of the people are backwater. That doesn't mean everyone or everything is. However, statistically speaking, Americans are dumb.

The United States can also belch funds that many other nations cannot. For examle, the US spends almost 900 million and up for subsidies in nanotech. The US also has a large influx of scientists from other countries. In Biotech, it's also about funding and power. Most of the global biotech financing (79 percent) took place in the US during 2003.

http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=520

Money has a powerful effect.

Which contradicts what you said earlier. Interesting.

It doesn't contradict anything. Intention to be democratic doesn't mean it is in practice, nor does it mean that in theory, the principles he came up with were democratic. On both, he was wrong and his ideals were totalitarianism in consequence. Intention is less important than the utility of the points.

I don't care what Marx personally thought. His actual ideas are not democratic and are totalitarian.


"Good" according to a definition of "good" that most would not accept. Communism, on the other hand, advocates ideals that most people associate with a good society, even if it fails in actual implementation.

Not really. Massive state bureaucratic control over everything isn't desirable, even in theory. You have on power, the big, omnipotent state has all power. You are the peon, they are the masters. Wonderful ideal. Let's do that!

There's actually not that much different from Fascism and Communsim ideologically. A few differences, but that's it. In the end, it's all about absolute government power over the unwashed masses with the guise of providing for them all.



I'm quite aware of that, since I'm a non-Marxist Communist.

That's good, at least.

Well, if we look at the United States, it ranks very low in both science and mathematical competence. It ranks about 28th in the world for math competence, and it's science isn't too much better. The US education in science and math are vastly inferior to many third world nations. That's sad.

No, actually there are no Third-World nations ranking above the United States. We still rank higher than our former rival the USSR, so that's a plus. However, we lag other nations and that is a serious problem.

A lot of technological innovations come from other countries too. America is behind in scientific progress in several areas, but namely biotechnolgy and biomedicine. Not everyone's stupid in America, though. I never said everyone is stupid. It takes extraordinary intelligence and dedication to strive the American System(TM) and become a competent individual in the field. We do, however, have a severe problem with not having ENOUGH professionals in those fields.

Yes, but we also have a lot of very qualified people...it's nothing inherent about the US but our poor educational system that produces problems. We were one of the best educated nations in the world up until the 1970's when everything below the college level started going to shit.

The US is the world leader, but it is a leader dependent on other nations to run its research machine. We have the facilities but due to our shitty education system we have to import people from other nations. There's a huge gap between American academia and American society...almost two different nations.

As for the Universities, they are good depending on what you want. You have to understand how the capitalist system works in American Education. You get what you pay for. If you can afford the absurd education costs, you get good education. However, even in those systems, there are many problems. AMerican Education is really a commodity to be bartered, which leads to a lot of grade-inflation and the procurement of bullshit courses--or "bird" courses, if you will.

Grade inflation is not as serious as in public schools because of the capitalist system; universities have no incentive to inflate grades because the students are paying for their time, not recieving it. Unfortunately, the capitalist model also produces the need for sports teams to support the school and unfortunately that drives a lot of bullshit coursework and the like to support less-than-bright athletes for economic reasons.

Also, the cost of top-notch research and professors is higher tuition fees; that prevents a lot of bright but poor people from getting that opportunity, but thankfully the rise in tuition aid and credits is making it somewhat easier to go to a college or university than it was in the past.

A lot of people are getting educations in things they "like" or find "interesting" but are easy as shit or worthless in reality. The University is good because it caters to the demands of the population pretty well, even if those demands are uneducated.

Well, the good thing is that those people taking junk courses are still paying for them, and the cost of providing them is a lot less than it costs to provide research and advanced course facilities and professors. Those courses are a source of revenue rather than a real focus

YOu can get almost anything patented, even if the inventions don't work. IE Perpetual motion machines, of which many have patents--none of which work. Someone also got a patent for making a different type of butterknife. Wooooo!

But at the same time, they can be things like the transistor, the personal computer, carbon nanotubes and the like...the US leads in major inventions followed by Japan and Germany (of course, that's why we collaborate with those nations). The US leads in applied patents as much as overall ones.


Money, power and the elite few. If true, you shouldn't confuse business shrewdness and control with unique intellectual ability. As well, I never said everyone in the US is stupid. The masses are. There are, however, still a pool of intelligent engineers, scientistis etc.

The US research and development world is miles away from the ordinary one.

You can't confuse the US research and development base with the US population who is far from bright. We're one of the world's intellectual leaders with a population who is, by and large, dumb as a box of rocks.

Actually, America is behind in biological and biotech sciences. They don't consistantly lead in everything anyway, which is total hyperbole.

US companies are leaders, as are the universities...they are constantly developing or collaborating with others to release dozens of products against cancer, aging, rehabilitation, genetics, and the like. Unfortunately, the government greatly restricts the work in the fields, forcing our researchers to do their work in places where that government supports their work rather than denounces it as "evil" or "immoral".

Again, it's the US Academia vs. US split: The US has excellent universities and companies and our facilities are world leaders as are the people who work in them...and they are surrounded by the ignorant, malinformed, or just plain stupid. It's important to distinguish America's standing in the intellectual world and its standing in the mainstream world...the people who aren't working in research or academics are the ignorant backwater.

All theories suck in practice. You need to find the ones that suck the least. I believe that is communism. I think capitalist theory is immoral, and so it is even worse in practice. Stop with this vulgar oversimplification that communism only works on paper. Everything only works on paper. There is no pure application of any ideology, only interpretations. Please argue communism with that in mind.

All theories suck in practice. You need to find the ones that suck the least. I believe that is communism. I think capitalist theory is immoral, and so it is even worse in practice. Stop with this vulgar oversimplification that communism only works on paper. Everything only works on paper. There is no pure application of any ideology, only interpretations. Please argue communism with that in mind.

It is true that most theories do not work perfectly in practice as compared to the idealized form, I don't think communism works in practice better than moderated forms of Capitalism. I think the latter serves more utility.

From a historical precedent, capitalism has worked in practice, albeit not always perfectly. Historically, communism (or the extreme socialism necessary for it) doesn't work. Every time it is tried, it fails. Now, communism is merely an extreme form of socialism. If latter doesn't work trying to get to communism, I don't see how communism can work at all.

Cuba, China, Vietnam, and Laos are not failing... http://www.canadacuba.ca/education/compare.php

Cuba, China, Vietnam, and Laos are not failing... http://www.canadacuba.ca/education/compare.php


Who wants to migrate from Scotland to Cuba?

Communism can thrive in small communities where things like harvesting food and making shoes are important. However, when it comes to making progress, communism downright snuffs it out. Ingenuity is pointless in a communist society, because it is in no way rewarded, ie., "if you build the better mousetrap, who gives a damn?"Really? Does this mean that if someone in a communist society has a rodent problem and a way of solving the problem that's better than ordinary mousetraps, that they will not implement their method? The better mousetrap is its own reward.

None of those things imprison me, beat me, or take away any choice.Really? A lack of money doesn't take away your choice of what to eat for dinner? Or is it that having a choice is important, but implementing said choice is not?

Really? Does this mean that if someone in a communist society has a rodent problem and a way of solving the problem that's better than ordinary mousetraps, that they will not implement their method? The better mousetrap is its own reward.

In some cases, and for some people, discovery is indeed its own reward.

However, as a scientist, I kind of see both sides of this. On the one hand, there are elements of my work that I enjoy regardless of what rewards they might bring me, and I would want to continue even if I would never get any recognition or pay. On the other hand, if I knew that I would NEVER get any personal reward or pay for doing the work I do, it would be easy to become discouraged with some elements of my work, and it would be even easier to resent somebody who presumed to take away my justly-earned rewards. Research can be difficult, thankless, and boring at times, and scientists are human beings too...most of us are not totally selfless, and we'd like to feel that our work is improving our lot in life at least somewhat.

Now, I'm a person who feels VERY passionately about the work I'm doing already. What about a person who doesn't feel quite as passionate about their job to begin with? Plenty of people have jobs that aren't really something they love doing, and they really wouldn't be interested in doing those jobs unless there was some reward for what they do. If you offer some special bonus for inovation, these people may suddenly feel they have a reason to really apply themselves, as opposed to simply doing the minimum necessary to fulfill their job.

In other words, Ed works down at the mouse trap factory, and Ed doesn't much care about his job. He doesn't hate it, and it's certainly better than other jobs he's had, but he doesn't feel particularly motivated to do anything above and beyond the call of duty. He doesn't have a mouse problem in his own home, so he doesn't really care about building a better mousetrap.

Suddenly, you put out word that there will be a huge pay bonus for any employee who can work out the kinks in one of the new mousetrap designs. Ed would LOVE that bonus, as would many of his coworkers, so a bunch of them start tackling the problem. Ed comes up with a novel design that works better than any of the other mousetraps.

Ed's not a bad person, or a horrible selfish asshole, he's just a guy who feels pretty much the same way about his job that the average human being feels about theirs. Some lucky few of us may have jobs we happen to love, but most people don't. It's silly to assume they will go out of their way to excell at their job if they aren't provided any incentive to do so.

Disclaimer of biases: I'm a libertarian/anarchist, not a communist, but I do view the exclusive ownership of land and ideas as invalid.

It is true that most theories do not work perfectly in practice as compared to the idealized form, I don't think communism works in practice better than moderated forms of Capitalism. I think the latter serves more utility.
A practical scheme, says Oscar Wilde, is either one already in existence, or a scheme that could be carried out under the existing conditions; but it is exactly the existing conditions that one objects to, and any scheme that could accept these conditions is wrong and foolish.Emma Goldman
Relying only on practical theories (fascism, federalism, etc.) may seem pragmatic but it surrenders possible progress against the status quo.

From a historical precedent, capitalism has worked in practice, albeit not always perfectly. Historically, communism (or the extreme socialism necessary for it) doesn't work. Every time it is tried, it fails. Now, communism is merely an extreme form of socialism. If latter doesn't work trying to get to communism, I don't see how communism can work at all.
They maintain that only a dictatorship -- their dictatorship, of course -- can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up.Mikhail Bakunin
The collectivism of Bakunin seems to be a better model for how a "communist" economy could develop. It would be short-sighted to use the failures of Marxists (or other authoritarians) as evidence of the failure of communism in all its forms.

Yall can dance and whine as much as you like, but you can't make an apple fall up when you drop on earth-gravity as much as you might like to. You can't circumvent natural laws without huge problems.
Communism, in its purest form, is against nature
communism just doesnt take into account for human nature.
Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature.Emma Goldman
John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?Emma Goldman

The study of modern human behavior may seem to depict human nature but more reasonably it depicts human nature in the status quo.

Ahh, It's democratic because Marx said so. I see. Too bad it's not a government of the people, but rather an unaccountable, bureaucratic dictatorship.
Voting is "merely a labor-saving device for ascertaining on which side force lies and bowing to the inevitable... It is neither more nor less than a paper representative of the bayonet, the bully, and the bullet."Benjamin R. Tucker
A democracy is a type of dictatorship. :)

In some cases, and for some people, discovery is indeed its own reward.

However, as a scientist, I kind of see both sides of this. On the one hand, there are elements of my work that I enjoy regardless of what rewards they might bring me, and I would want to continue even if I would never get any recognition or pay. On the other hand, if I knew that I would NEVER get any personal reward or pay for doing the work I do, it would be easy to become discouraged with some elements of my work, and it would be even easier to resent somebody who presumed to take away my justly-earned rewards. Research can be difficult, thankless, and boring at times, and scientists are human beings too...most of us are not totally selfless, and we'd like to feel that our work is improving our lot in life at least somewhat.You can receive recognition for your work, that recognition just doesn't take the form of money. Additionally, your breakthroughs could personally benefit you; if you discover the cure for cancer and then develop cancer, then your breakthrough would benefit you.

Now, I'm a person who feels VERY passionately about the work I'm doing already. What about a person who doesn't feel quite as passionate about their job to begin with? Plenty of people have jobs that aren't really something they love doing, and they really wouldn't be interested in doing those jobs unless there was some reward for what they do. If you offer some special bonus for inovation, these people may suddenly feel they have a reason to really apply themselves, as opposed to simply doing the minimum necessary to fulfill their job.

In other words, Ed works down at the mouse trap factory, and Ed doesn't much care about his job. He doesn't hate it, and it's certainly better than other jobs he's had, but he doesn't feel particularly motivated to do anything above and beyond the call of duty. He doesn't have a mouse problem in his own home, so he doesn't really care about building a better mousetrap.

Suddenly, you put out word that there will be a huge pay bonus for any employee who can work out the kinks in one of the new mousetrap designs. Ed would LOVE that bonus, as would many of his coworkers, so a bunch of them start tackling the problem. Ed comes up with a novel design that works better than any of the other mousetraps.I would suggest that Ed shouldn't be in such a job, and any system in which the majority of people feel the way that Ed does about their jobs is inherently a bad system.

Ed's not a bad person, or a horrible selfish asshole, he's just a guy who feels pretty much the same way about his job that the average human being feels about theirs. Some lucky few of us may have jobs we happen to love, but most people don't. Yes, in a capitalist system.

It's silly to assume they will go out of their way to excell at their job if they aren't provided any incentive to do so.The ability to do something I enjoyed would be incentive in and of itself as I know that if I was in a different system it's unlikely I could do what I enjoyed.

You can receive recognition for your work, that recognition just doesn't take the form of money. Additionally, your breakthroughs could personally benefit you; if you discover the cure for cancer and then develop cancer, then your breakthrough would benefit you.

The thing is, most of the time scientists are working on projects that won't directly benefit themselves. As I said, I personally feel motivated to do this work regardless of my own personal gain, but there are limits.

For instance, if I wasn't getting paid over time, I would be a lot less willing to give up time with my family to stay late at the lab. I value my work, but I also deeply value my loved ones, and somebody's got to make it worth my while to give up time with them. I might still work over-time sometimes, but without the bonus pay (and, thus, the opportunity to take a really awesome vacation with my family), I wouldn't do it as often.

I don't think that makes me a dick. I also don't think I'm at all unusual in this regard.


I would suggest that Ed shouldn't be in such a job, and any system in which the majority of people feel the way that Ed does about their jobs is inherently a bad system.

There are a lot of jobs that need to be done which NOBODY wants to do. Anybody who's lived on their own knows that.

There are, I'm sure, some people in the world who feel that taking out the garbage is really fun and rewarding. But there aren't enough of those people to take out all the garbage that needs to go out. At some point, somebody who doesn't love taking out the garbage is going to have to take out the garbage.

It's a nice dream, to think that one day maybe everybody would love the job they do so much that they will do it for no pay. But I don't think it's remotely realistic to found an economic system on that dream.


The ability to do something I enjoyed would be incentive in and of itself as I know that if I was in a different system it's unlikely I could do what I enjoyed.
There are a lot of people who don't really enjoy doing anything that benefits anybody else. For instance, my old roommate only enjoyed playing MarioKart. He didn't want to design videogames, he didn't want to provide feedback to help other people develop videogames, he just wanted to play videogames for his own enjoyment. No matter what job you give him, he'd rather be playing videogames for his own pleasure. He has to be provided with some REASON to go do something other than play videogames, because he sure as hell would never choose to do anything else on his own.

There are plenty of people like this. There are plenty of people who would, frankly, prefer to diddle around with their stamp collection than do anything that will help other people. These are not awful people, they're just people who happen to love something that doesn't benefit the rest of society. Nothing wrong with that, it just means that you have to provide them with some incentive if you want them to apply their abilities to something that does benefit society.

The thing is, most of the time scientists are working on projects that won't directly benefit themselves. As I said, I personally feel motivated to do this work regardless of my own personal gain, but there are limits.

For instance, if I wasn't getting paid over time, I would be a lot less willing to give up time with my family to stay late at the lab. I value my work, but I also deeply value my loved ones, and somebody's got to make it worth my while to give up time with them. I might still work over-time sometimes, but without the bonus pay (and, thus, the opportunity to take a really awesome vacation with my family), I wouldn't do it as often.

I don't think that makes me a dick. I also don't think I'm at all unusual in this regard.I don't either; ideally there would be enough scientists so that the scientists wouldn't have to nor be expected to give up time with their family to pursue their careers. It seems to me that with free education, there will be more scientists, since the people who wish to become scientists but can't afford the education would become scientists if that hurdle is removed.

There are a lot of jobs that need to be done which NOBODY wants to do. Anybody who's lived on their own knows that.

There are, I'm sure, some people in the world who feel that taking out the garbage is really fun and rewarding. But there aren't enough of those people to take out all the garbage that needs to go out. At some point, somebody who doesn't love taking out the garbage is going to have to take out the garbage.

It's a nice dream, to think that one day maybe everybody would love the job they do so much that they will do it for no pay. But I don't think it's remotely realistic to found an economic system on that dream. That's a bit different; if someone doesn't want to take out their trash that's their decision, but if someone wants to have a living space that's uncluttered and doesn't smell like garbage then they will do so; nonetheless, there usually aren't paid trash-taker-outers.
Either way, people in communism get paid, paid enough to live comfortably. Certainly people wouldn't be expected to do things if they aren't living comfortably.

There are a lot of people who don't really enjoy doing anything that benefits anybody else. For instance, my old roommate only enjoyed playing MarioKart. He didn't want to design videogames, he didn't want to provide feedback to help other people develop videogames, he just wanted to play videogames for his own enjoyment. No matter what job you give him, he'd rather be playing videogames for his own pleasure. He has to be provided with some REASON to go do something other than play videogames, because he sure as hell would never choose to do anything else on his own.

There are plenty of people like this. There are plenty of people who would, frankly, prefer to diddle around with their stamp collection than do anything that will help other people. These are not awful people, they're just people who happen to love something that doesn't benefit the rest of society. Nothing wrong with that, it just means that you have to provide them with some incentive if you want them to apply their abilities to something that does benefit society.In this case, the incentive might be more free time; if a person can work fewer hours in a communist society and live comfortably than they would in a capitalist society, perhaps that would be the incentive that they need.

What critics of communism often fail to percieve is that a central tenet of communism is to radically alter human nature, and to supplant individualism and the concept of self with an overriding concern with the commune.

The above renders discussion of communism being contrary to human nature pointless, since communism has an avowed intention to alter human nature, whilst communal societies do exist in nature, notably shoals of fish and ants/ bees/ wasps.

As a conservative myself, I feel I ought to explain my opposition to communism. The route to communism that Marx extolled was one that progressed from feudalism to capitalism to socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat, to communism. Historical precedent, notably China, is testament to the truth of Marx's progression up to the dictatorship. However, no state has ever contrived either to facilitate, or prosecute, the transition from the dictatorship of the proletariat to communism. Therein lies my objection to communism; an objection on grounds of feasibility.

What critics of communism often fail to percieve is that a central tenet of communism is to radically alter human nature, and to supplant individualism and the concept of self with an overriding concern with the commune.

The above renders discussion of communism being contrary to human nature pointless, since communism has an avowed intention to alter human nature, whilst communal societies do exist in nature, notably shoals of fish and ants/ bees/ wasps.

There are quite a few historical and modern communists who do not want to change human nature since they view humans as social animals to begin with (e.g., see Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution).

Also, for evidence of the social instincts of man, you can go straight to Darwin.
Finally the social instincts, which no doubt were acquired by man as by the lower animals for the good of the community, will from the first have given to him some wish to aid his fellows, some feeling of sympathy, and have compelled him to regard their approbation and disapprobation.Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Man, from the activity of his mental faculties, cannot avoid reflection: past impressions and images are incessantly and clearly passing through his mind. Now with those animals which live permanently in a body, the social instincts are ever present and persistent. Such animals are always ready to utter the danger-signal, to defend the community, and to give aid to their fellows in accordance with their habits; they feel at all times, without the stimulus of any special passion or desire, some degree of love and sympathy for them; they are unhappy if long separated from them, and always happy to be again in their company. So it is with ourselves. Even when we are quite alone, how often do we think with pleasure or pain of what others think of us,- of their imagined approbation or disapprobation; and this all follows from sympathy, a fundamental element of the social instincts. A man who possessed no trace of such instincts would be an unnatural monster. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

With mankind, selfishness, experience, and imitation, probably add, as Mr. Bain has shown, to the power of sympathy; for we are led by the hope of receiving good in return to perform acts of sympathetic kindness to others; and sympathy is much strengthened by habit. In however complex a manner this feeling may have originated, as it is one of high importance to all those animals which aid and defend one another, it will have been increased through natural selection; for those communities, which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members, would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring.Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

As a conservative myself, I feel I ought to explain my opposition to communism. The route to communism that Marx extolled was one that progressed from feudalism to capitalism to socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat, to communism. Historical precedent, notably China, is testament to the truth of Marx's progression up to the dictatorship. However, no state has ever contrived either to facilitate, or prosecute, the transition from the dictatorship of the proletariat to communism. Therein lies my objection to communism; an objection on grounds of feasibility.

Your criticism is of only one type of communism.

Not really. Massive state bureaucratic control over everything isn't desirable, even in theory. You have on power, the big, omnipotent state has all power. You are the peon, they are the masters. Wonderful ideal. Let's do that!

I dealt with this already. You are not a peon when you control your supposed "master."

I do happen to agree that a centralized state, even without the distortions brought by extreme economic inequality, will end up being an elitist institution, but I think the argument could be made, from Marx's and Engel's observations of the Paris Commune, for instance, that they realized this to some degree and in fact advocated a less statist model than that implied by some parts of the Communist Manifesto.

Communism fails because it is never followed. On this planets face there has never been a "communist government" for two main reasons

1) The true meaning is warped to suit the needs of the so called revolutionaries, and as they just won a revolution they are problaby gonna be greedy.

2) Trotskeys world revolution hasn't happenned yet, he said that there would never be pure communism without a world revolution, thats never gonna happen.

So in conclusion, Communismsa nice idea but impractical due to the weakness of men and women when it comes to greed

Communism fails because it is never followed. On this planets face there has never been a "communist government" for two main reasons
Which type of communism? It seems most people who criticize communism believe that there is a monolithic definition of communism that all communists agree with.

1) The true meaning is warped to suit the needs of the so called revolutionaries, and as they just won a revolution they are problaby gonna be greedy.
But, what about those communists who disagree with revolution?

2) Trotskeys world revolution hasn't happenned yet, he said that there would never be pure communism without a world revolution, thats never gonna happen.
What about communists who disagree with Trotsky, Marx, or Engel? There are communists who believe in the evolution of society (instead of revolution).


So in conclusion, Communismsa nice idea but impractical due to the weakness of men and women when it comes to greed
Humans have social instincts as well.

I talk about pure communism not just a single path, though i use trotskey as he was quite right about the needs for world revolution. look at what happened to Russia, though saying look at russia i kinda blame Stalin for that.

Also the revolutionary aspect is the one that is most prevailent, correct me if im wrong but a democratic change to communism is unheard of (Nicaragua. was that communist or socialist? i can never remember, is one exception i can think of)

And you are right people do have social needs but some people are quite happy to make others miserable in order to live a life above that of thir own social needs.


i have to go now so dont expect a reply, feel free to TG me if you wanna continue. have fun

I talk about pure communism not just a single path, though i use trotskey as he was quite right about the needs for world revolution. An early form of communism worked in indigenous groups in the United States.

Also the revolutionary aspect is the one that is most prevailent, correct me if im wrong but a democratic change to communism is unheard ofThe more well-known type of communism might not work but that does not rule out all forms of communism. I'm not a communist but I just dislike lumping all kinds of communism into the same group.

And you are right people do have social needs but some people are quite happy to make others miserable in order to live a life above that of thir own social needs.Is that true of human nature or of human nature in modern society? It is in human nature to have some sympathy and love for other humans. Since those traits already exist in human nature, they just need to be encouraged. As Charles Darwin said "a man who possessed no trace of such instincts would be an unnatural monster."

There are quite a few historical and modern communists who do not want to change human nature since they view humans as social animals to begin with (e.g., see Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution).

Also, for evidence of the social instincts of man, you can go straight to Darwin.
Finally the social instincts, which no doubt were acquired by man as by the lower animals for the good of the community, will from the first have given to him some wish to aid his fellows, some feeling of sympathy, and have compelled him to regard their approbation and disapprobation.Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Man, from the activity of his mental faculties, cannot avoid reflection: past impressions and images are incessantly and clearly passing through his mind. Now with those animals which live permanently in a body, the social instincts are ever present and persistent. Such animals are always ready to utter the danger-signal, to defend the community, and to give aid to their fellows in accordance with their habits; they feel at all times, without the stimulus of any special passion or desire, some degree of love and sympathy for them; they are unhappy if long separated from them, and always happy to be again in their company. So it is with ourselves. Even when we are quite alone, how often do we think with pleasure or pain of what others think of us,- of their imagined approbation or disapprobation; and this all follows from sympathy, a fundamental element of the social instincts. A man who possessed no trace of such instincts would be an unnatural monster. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

With mankind, selfishness, experience, and imitation, probably add, as Mr. Bain has shown, to the power of sympathy; for we are led by the hope of receiving good in return to perform acts of sympathetic kindness to others; and sympathy is much strengthened by habit. In however complex a manner this feeling may have originated, as it is one of high importance to all those animals which aid and defend one another, it will have been increased through natural selection; for those communities, which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members, would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring.Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man



Your criticism is of only one type of communism.

Granted. I was referring the form of communism I have studied this year, Marxism, Leninism and Trotskyism, as part of the Russian Revolution.

Do you have anything to back this claim, or is it just the result of 30 years of TINA (There Is No Alternative) brainwashing by all the massmedia ?

In order to properly show you the light, you need to define the form of "communism" your speaking of.. Marxism... Leninism... Maoism. Each are distinct, with their own faults and reasons why they would or have failed.

Disclaimer of biases: I'm a libertarian/anarchist, not a communist, but I do view the exclusive ownership of land and ideas as invalid.


A practical scheme, says Oscar Wilde, is either one already in existence, or a scheme that could be carried out under the existing conditions; but it is exactly the existing conditions that one objects to, and any scheme that could accept these conditions is wrong and foolish.Emma Goldman
Relying only on practical theories (fascism, federalism, etc.) may seem pragmatic but it surrenders possible progress against the status quo.


They maintain that only a dictatorship -- their dictatorship, of course -- can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up.Mikhail Bakunin
The collectivism of Bakunin seems to be a better model for how a "communist" economy could develop. It would be short-sighted to use the failures of Marxists (or other authoritarians) as evidence of the failure of communism in all its forms.




Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature.Emma Goldman
John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?Emma Goldman

The study of modern human behavior may seem to depict human nature but more reasonably it depicts human nature in the status quo.


Voting is "merely a labor-saving device for ascertaining on which side force lies and bowing to the inevitable... It is neither more nor less than a paper representative of the bayonet, the bully, and the bullet."Benjamin R. Tucker
A democracy is a type of dictatorship. :)


It does not win an argument by quoting a bunch of socialist talking heads. You're just appealing to their authority and name-dropping.

There is nothing wrong with communism in theory, but practically it is impossible.

Exactly, nothing is wrong with it. The only way communism can work is if the whole world was a union of communist:

"In a proper communist world there would be no war, because the whole world would be a union. You must not forget that communism has not been properly achived untill all the nations in the world are communistic, and fused together."

and just to add some fuel to the fire with my opinion :eek:

I think communism is thought of ass "wrong" because of those who used it to promote their lust for power; i.e. Stalin

I can't believe people still haven't graduated to undrerstand that a theory isn't good if it cannot possibly work in reality. Theories are judged by the utility of their outcomes, now out good they are in a fantasy hypothetical world.

Eddie! You made a thread! Rock on!


Well, "Communism doesn't work 'cos people like to own stuff."- Frank Zappa.

Really? A lack of money doesn't take away your choice of what to eat for dinner? Or is it that having a choice is important, but implementing said choice is not?

No, it does not. Food stamps and other charitable issues are avaliable for the ultra poor. To qualify for assistance does not require one to submit a meal plan nor adhere to one. Even with modest means there are TONS of affordable food options to choose from. It is really quite nice.

Now - try coming up with a real point instead of some meaningless snarky sound bite you lifted from some cheezeball wannabe intellectual.

Erm, hi.

This is weird.

Say hi to everyone for me. ^^

Anyway.

The spirit of community in the world is really struggling to hang on at the minute. We live in a political, social and economic environment where the focus is almost entirely on privilege and rarely on responsibility, whether global, national or communal; such is the influence of "Western Civilisation" as a whole rather than merely Capitalism. A lot that is wrong with the world at the minute has its origins in people taking what they feel is owed to them (even when their fair share has already been given to them) without consideration to the consequences on those around them.

Inevitably, people will always think their fair share is more than it is, which means that others are forced to sacrifice part of their own livlihood. This attitude innately repels any suggestions of wealth redistribution or communal organisation. Communism, as a practical reality rather than a theoretical ideal, cannot succeed until responsibilities and privileges are held in equal importance in the eyes of both the system and the individual.

In that respect, Communism even as an ideal is pretty much unnecessary. Once we get to the stage where it can possibly be implemented, it won't be needed any more.

*Shrug*

your concept of slavery is narrow and small-minded.
waaa! Mommy! He called me small and narrow minded!

Damn you are so clever I dare not engage you lest you draw blood again!

Aww, what the hell. If accurate to you is small and narrow minded then aboslutely. You pathetic attempt to redefine the evil of slavery to just a convenient buzz word in your hopeless argument is so inaccuate as to be an insult to anyone who has ever been, or is descended from, a person who did have to deal with real slavery in all of it's uglyness.


in your case, that may be. in which case you may be argued to be a bourgeois who exerts control over others.
Ack! You're on to me! I thought my Jedi mind-trick was undetectable. Damn!
"We don't need to see his identification. These aren't the droids we're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along. Move along."

(though actually I have no employees. I am responsible only for myself.)


i don't know your personal specifc situation, but was speaking in generalities about the majority of people in a capitalistic economy who must submit their labour in order to survive.
As aopposed to other economies where people can just sit on their ass? How novel!


you do NOT choose to submit that labour
Umm, that's life, Bucky.

- only who to submit it to.
Like working for yourself or someone else.

you are still bound and enslaved
oooh, and whipped and beaten and starved and raped!

by those above you and by the system. (and even then you have no true choice as to who to chose as your master as we are not born equal in skills nor in opportunities...)
Choice is not about the infinite. I cannot choose to stop my car right now. Mostly because I am not in it at the moment. You run your argument out to the absurd and expect everyone to follow...?


i would not call my premise stupid. The fact that you would not call a stupid premise stupid tells more about you than the premise.

(and i almost take offense at that).

Gee - and calling me a narrow minded, indoctrinated slave is not offensive to me? Not to meniton people who ever really were slaves? Awwww. poa baby.

i would however call yours narrow-minded again - think more widely and you will see
Damn - accuracy is soooo narrow minded. I'd much rather run everything to the absurdly infinite then I can truly be free. Gimme another drag of that doob, bro!

schhhhhhwwwoft!
ait..
almost...
eh..
ak..

pffffffffffffffffffffffft. cough cough.

OK, let me try now. I am a slave to Seven Eleven because, like, they make such tasty slurpees, and I, um, only have $1.29 but they cost, like, $1.39, but if Seven Eleven didn't make ther slurpees sooo, you know, tasty then I'd be just as content with a drink of water - which, though less tasty, is totally free!

Whooooooooa. :eek:

Inevitably, people will always think their fair share is more than it is, which means that others are forced to sacrifice part of their own livlihood.



In the states we call that 'Paying taxes'

your concept of slavery is narrow and small-minded.

While some will purposefully avoid leftist arguments that state the labor force is disadvantaged in some ways, you are far too liberal with your use of the the word "slavery".

First off, you are using a different definition of the word in reference to money and debt. There is no actual servitude to money, there is only a necessity for it, but that necessity applies to all resources required for living, and money simply offers a basis for subjective valuation of these resources. As for debt, I cannot imagine what you mean there.

As for banks, I don't know how you can get away from an idea of mutual benefit in that relationship. Seriously, I have a Bank of America account, and they charge me absolutely nothing for that account. Meanwhile, I have an incredible array of financial tools on my hands. Banks offer great services at very low cost because they can do things with money that you can't.

Now for bosses, where I think the only true correlation to slavery exists, as there is some servitude directed from one person to another. I will not disagree that some factors may skew the exchange of labor towards the side of the employer. However, in the vast majority of situations there is a reciprocal mean-end relationship. Both sides serve as a means to the others ends, so that each can concentrate on specializing their labor, which causes their labor to have its greatest value.

Erm, hi.

This is weird.

Say hi to everyone for me. ^^



Hi! Have said hi from you to everyone here (Norn Iron!) My mum hopes you are well and enjoying yourself. (Although she still hasn't woken up properly yet)

This topic seems to have been busy, 12 pages already...
Now to start reading through all of them! I rather stupidly made this topic just before I went to bed so I didn't get a chance to reply to most of these messages.

No, it does not. Food stamps and other charitable issues are avaliable for the ultra poor.Food stamps are only available in the welfare state, which doesn't exist in pure capitalism.
Charity itself is insufficient, which necessitiated the need for the welfare state in the first place.

To qualify for assistance does not require one to submit a meal plan nor adhere to one. Even with modest means there are TONS of affordable food options to choose from. Modest means is different than no means, and I specified no means.

It is really quite nice.But not as nice as it would be in communism.

Now - try coming up with a real point instead of some meaningless snarky sound bite you lifted from some cheezeball wannabe intellectual.Now - try taking your own advice.

I can't believe people still haven't graduated to undrerstand that a theory isn't good if it cannot possibly work in reality. Theories are judged by the utility of their outcomes, now out good they are in a fantasy hypothetical world.

A theory is judged on both.

Food stamps are only available in the welfare state, which doesn't exist in pure capitalism.
No, you do not get to build a straw man. I will not let you re-define capitalism to suit your petty needs. Sorry.


Charity itself is insufficient, which necessitiated the need for the welfare state in the first place.
Welfare IS charity. Duh.

Modest means is different than no means, and I specified no means.
Semantics - the last resord of losers.

But not as nice as it would be in communism.
ROFLMAO!! Since I have already shared exactly how communism really IS state sponsored slavery I find that quite funny. Sorta like the last fleeting pathetic whimper.

Now - try taking your own advice.
LOL even louder! "help meeee! help meeeee! eeeeeeeeeeee.....!"

It does not win an argument by quoting a bunch of socialist talking heads. You're just appealing to their authority and name-dropping.

Actually, the quotes were used for two reasons:

1) Since I'm not a communist, I wanted to adequately represent the views of some famous communists/socialists.

2) To demonstrate that your view of communism is narrow since it ignores whole schools of communism.

Nevertheless, even if I was appealing to authority, I summarized each point I was making after each quote. You could have ignored the quotes and just read my comments but, instead of responding rationally, you just claim "appealing to their authority" without any response to my actual points.

SNIP
To demonstrate that your view of communism is narrow since it ignores whole schools of communism.
SNIP

What we do have is the really existant communism to judge.
And school of theorists go hang.

What we do have is the really existant communism to judge.
And school of theorists go hang.

We don't judge "democracy" by what it says in a book - we look at the nations that try to implement it.

The difference between theory and reality.

We're interested in the reality, because that's what affects us. Crap in a book that stays in the book is just crap.

Communism should be judged solely by its actual attempted implementations - not by "what Marx really said".

Just like every other governmental system.

Sure, monarchy may appeal to some as an idealized system on paper - but in practice, most people hate it (well, everyone except the King).

I can't believe people still haven't graduated to undrerstand that a theory isn't good if it cannot possibly work in reality. Theories are judged by the utility of their outcomes, now out good they are in a fantasy hypothetical world.

The problem is that no one has proven that all forms of communism cannot work in reality. In fact, it is impossible to prove that since at least an early form of communism existed in some indigenous tribes in North America.

You might have an argument if you claim that "most forms of communism cannot work in an industrial world" but instead you make a general statement "communism cannot work in reality."

I am not a communist but I value intellectual honesty and your claims seem to disregard a lot of the history and philosophy of communism.

The problem is that no one has proven that all forms of communism cannot work in reality. In fact, it is impossible to prove that since at least an early form of communism existed in some indigenous tribes in North America.

You might have an argument if you claim that "most forms of communism cannot work in an industrial world" but instead you make a general statement "communism cannot work in reality."

I am not a communist but I value intellectual honesty and your claims seem to disregard a lot of the history and philosophy of communism.

If we judge a governmental system by how many people it has killed, large scale state communism has intentionally killed a lot more people than capitalist democracy. Fascism is slightly behind, only because there haven't been as many fascist states as communist states.

We don't judge "democracy" by what it says in a book - we look at the nations that try to implement it.

The difference between theory and reality.

We're interested in the reality, because that's what affects us. Crap in a book that stays in the book is just crap.

Communism should be judged solely by its actual attempted implementations - not by "what Marx really said".

Just like every other governmental system.

Sure, monarchy may appeal to some as an idealized system on paper - but in practice, most people hate it (well, everyone except the King).


Indeed.
*agrees*
( Except for the observation that the mix of Monarchy + Democracy ( as in UK, Sweden, Benelux, Japan etc ) is The Best Thing Ever )

Indeed.
*agrees*
( Except for the observation that the mix of Monarchy + Democracy ( as in UK, Sweden, Benelux, Japan etc ) is The Best Thing Ever )

there, the monarchy is a decoration on top of welfare "something or other"

the people seem happy with it, and they didn't have to put people against the wall and shoot them in order to implement it.

Very good!

Government of the People, by the People, and for the People,
so ordered by Their Majesties the Kings ( etc ).

One very happy and effective grabbags
Looks silly in theory,
but works dandy in reality.

If we judge a governmental system by how many people it has killed, large scale state communism has intentionally killed a lot more people than capitalist democracy. Fascism is slightly behind, only because there haven't been as many fascist states as communist states.

What about non-state communism (e.g., anarcho-communism)?

Criticism of "state communism" is not criticism of all types of communism. It is incorrect to make generalized statements about all of communism based on examples of authoritarian communism.

No, you do not get to build a straw man. I will not let you re-define capitalism to suit your petty needs. Sorry. Capitalism is defined by many things, one of which is its lack of a welfare state. You are the one attempting to redefine it.

Welfare IS charity. Duh.

Semantics - the last resord of losers.Everybody and their mother knows that when people talk about charity they mean private charity, except of course, people who resort to semantics.

ROFLMAO!! Since I have already shared exactly how communism really IS state sponsored slavery I find that quite funny. Sorta like the last fleeting pathetic whimper. Since you are provably wrong in the fact that not all forms of communism are state-based, I don't see your point...of course, this is you I'm talking to, I should know by now to expect this from you.

LOL even louder! "help meeee! help meeeee! eeeeeeeeeeee.....!"Aww aren't you just the cutest wittle thing, yes you are, yes you are. <Pats your head.>

Communism should be judged solely by its actual attempted implementations - not by "what Marx really said".

Just like every other governmental system.Certainly, and we do judge communism by its actual attempted implementations, namely the Paris Commune and the anarchists during the Spanish Civil War.

What we do have is the really existant communism to judge.
And school of theorists go hang.
Communism should be judged solely by its actual attempted implementations - not by "what Marx really said".

The anarcho-capitalists would have a problem with that. They claim that many of the problems of capitalism are the result of government interference so that judging anarcho-capitalism by modern capitalism is wrong.

Nevertheless, it is unfair to dismiss all of communism based on examples of state communism since state communism is drastically different from anti-state communism (e.g., absence of coercion).

waaa! Mommy! He called me small and narrow minded!

Damn you are so clever I dare not engage you lest you draw blood again!

hah well, you know what? i'm not going to bother to reply to your post. except this part. i mean, for one, yes i could pick apart your responses, as you did with mine (subdividing an arguement and picking at the pieces rather than dealing with the whole concept is always an easy approach, don't you find?), but lets be honest. a) it would angry up my blood again, b) we're not going to agree or find any common ground, c) you will only end up exaggerating what i say again, and d) your renaming me "pure mental" is just the icing on the cake to show me you are not worth debating with and are quite pathetic. good day to you sir.

The anarcho-capitalists would have a problem with that. They claim that many of the problems of capitalism are the result of government interference so that judging anarcho-capitalism by modern capitalism is wrong.

Nevertheless, it is unfair to dismiss all of communism based on examples of state communism since state communism is drastically different from anti-state communism (e.g., absence of coercion).

As If the Paris Commune was not coercive...

Objection overruled...

You can't ask another man to judge your fiction based on your perceptions.
He has the undeniable right to judge your fiction based on his own perceptions.

Nothing. It works... in theory. Look at China and Cuba for example.
China? You mean the country that's well on it's way to matching Hong Kong with the freedom and openness of it's markets? You make me laugh. The Chinese economic boom didn't occur until Mao was dead, and the PRC had opened up to the outside world.

Cuba, meanwhile has stagnated since Castro came to power. Life in Cuba is virtually exactly like it was in the nineteen-fifties. Castro has shown an amazing ability to make it so his economy just marks time, neither grows nor recedes.

<This is my first proper post on this forum so please don't bite off my head!>

Well I have heard plenty of people arguing for Communism, they have very influential speaches indeed.

But what sort of points make Capitalism better?
Uh ... how about Communism has repeatedly proven that it's an unworkable political ideology, and capitalism has worked by taking into account human traits such as greed? Ya think??? :rolleyes:

You can't ask another man to judge your fiction based on your perceptions.
He has the undeniable right to judge your fiction based on his own perceptions.
Truthfully, I don't think a pure form of communism could work on a large scale. I just don't like the arrogant "every form of communism is wrong, it has never worked, and it can never work."

Truthfully, I don't think a pure form of communism could work on a large scale. I just don't like the arrogant "every form of communism is wrong, it has never worked, and it can never work."

It isn't about arrogance.
But it definetely is about refusal to give the slightest tinge of respect towards a school of thought that has done nothing to earn it.
Respect is a privilege, not a right.

The revolutionary left, throughout the 20th century, has done very very little towards explaining what they were for - while it has done a lot to explain what it was against. The revolutionary left has, throughout an entire century, offered nothing but ad-systeminems. No such school of thought merits anything but disgust, contempt and derision.

At least the revolutionary right had the 'decency' to be straight-forward in explaining what it actually had in mind - even if what was in their mind was revulsion-enducing.

Ultra-left policies are, at best, political malpractise.

<This is my first proper post on this forum so please don't bite off my head!>

Well I have heard plenty of people arguing for Communism, they have very influential speaches indeed.

But what sort of points make Capitalism better?

What's wrong with Communism is the same thing as what's wrong with phlogistonism. It explains some observable facts, but it ultimatly doesn't work. Predictions based on it fail.

hah well, you know what? i'm not going to bother to reply to your post. except this part. i mean, for one, yes i could pick apart your responses, as you did with mine (subdividing an arguement and picking at the pieces rather than dealing with the whole concept is always an easy approach, don't you find?), but lets be honest. a) it would angry up my blood again, b) we're not going to agree or find any common ground, c) you will only end up exaggerating what i say again, and d) your renaming me "pure mental" is just the icing on the cake to show me you are not worth debating with and are quite pathetic. good day to you sir.


I accept your surrender. Now go fetch me a platter of truffles.

I accept your surrender. Now go fetch me a platter of truffles.
who said anything about surrender? i said it was pointless. now stop being quite so childish.

Capitalism is defined by many things, one of which is its lack of a welfare state. You are the one attempting to redefine it.
Umm. No - it is not. No matter how often you repeat that it still is not true. Welfare is a policy - not an economic theory.

Everybody and their mother knows that when people talk about charity they mean private charity, except of course, people who resort to semantics.
Umm, no. The government participates in considerable charity and everyone knows that - except you and apparently yo momma. And if you are going to try turning around my semantics argument at least keep it on the same point I used for you - the meaning of 'people of limited means'.

Since you are provably wrong in the fact that not all forms of communism are state-based, I don't see your point...of course, this is you I'm talking to, I should know by now to expect this from you.
I can only presume you are attempting to drive a parallel between a commune and a commuist state. The similarity is arguable either way but still moot - I have yet to see either one create anything resembling success approaching the successes of capitalism.

Aww aren't you just the cutest wittle thing, yes you are, yes you are. <Pats your head.>
Yes - I'm fucking adorable! :D

It isn't about arrogance.
But it definetely is about refusal to give the slightest tinge of respect towards a school of thought that has done nothing to earn it.
Respect is a privilege, not a right.

You don't have to respect those you disagree with but it seems like arrogance to claim I know everything that will ever come from communist theory and it will all fail. Of course, this arrogance also disregards the successful communist societies that existed before communist theory.

The revolutionary left, throughout the 20th century, has done very very little towards explaining what they were for - while it has done a lot to explain what it was against. The revolutionary left has, throughout an entire century, offered nothing but ad-systeminems. No such school of thought merits anything but disgust, contempt and derision.

It agains seems that you paint all of communism with the merits of one group of 20th century communists. After all, there is an evolutionary left as well.

At least the revolutionary right had the 'decency' to be straight-forward in explaining what it actually had in mind - even if what was in their mind was revulsion-enducing.
What do you consider to be the revolutionary right (e.g., Anarcho-capitalists, right wing minarchists, fascists)?

We don't judge "democracy" by what it says in a book - we look at the nations that try to implement it.

Like, say, the German Democratic Republic?

1. You don't have to respect those you disagree with but it seems like arrogance to claim I know everything that will ever come from communist theory and it will all fail. Of course, this arrogance also disregards the successful communist societies that existed before communist theory.


2. It agains seems that you paint all of communism with the merits of one group of 20th century communists. After all, there is an evolutionary left as well.


3. What do you consider to be the revolutionary right (e.g., Anarcho-capitalists, right wing minarchists, fascists)?

1. I don't comment on the theories of others. I comment on practises.
The theories will be study-able once they are operational ( I want to see a 4ft Meccano bridge before I consider your blueprints for a Meccano bridge across the channel. )

2. What communism is there but the 20th century? We'll look into the other theories once the others present us with some proper engineering studies, including the proper plywood models and all.

3. Mostly: Nazism and Fascism. And !no passaran! to that!

who said anything about surrender? i said it was pointless. now stop being quite so childish.

Yes - it is pointless to argue against irrefutable fact. THanks for admitting that. Now - about those truffles...
http://www.thesoundarchive.com/spsounds/Respect.wav

Yes - it is pointless to argue against irrefutable fact. THanks for admitting that. Now - about those truffles...
http://www.thesoundarchive.com/spsounds/Respect.wav


*arms photon-torpedoes*
*locks 'em on Bozzy*

Umm. No - it is not. No matter how often you repeat that it still is not true. Welfare is a policy - not an economic theory.Yes, and certain policies are incompatible with economic theories. Welfare is incompatible with the economic theory of capitalism.

Umm, no. The government participates in considerable charity and everyone knows that - except you and apparently yo momma. Except of course, for the fact that people do not refer to what the government does as charity, they refer to it as welfare.

I can only presume you are attempting to drive a parallel between a commune and a commuist state. The similarity is arguable either way but still moot - I have yet to see either one create anything resembling success approaching the successes of capitalism."Success" is a relative term.

The revolutionary left, throughout the 20th century, has done very very little towards explaining what they were for - while it has done a lot to explain what it was against. The revolutionary left has, throughout an entire century, offered nothing but ad-systeminems. No such school of thought merits anything but disgust, contempt and derision.

Making things up is fun, isn't it?

Communism is a system predacated on dogmatic values statements and opinions - much as religion based styles of government are, ie Marxist communism places just as much creedence to marxs word as christianity does to christs. Capitalism doesn't have a set of values statements or opinions under pinning it, it allows for people to choose to participate or not, its doesn't arbitrarily decide what is RIGHT or WRONG and what is JUST or UNJUST.

Communism like full on free market capitalism is a system that can only work if every nation takes part with the same rules, otherwise some will be worse off than others and that isn't communism. But communism places alot of trust on the individual to act in a way that is beneficial to the collective, its proponents are generally quite liberatarian. As people keep saying we are selfish - we all seek to maximise our standard of living, and it is likely that libertarian policies would be ineffective at removing the selfish element to the human psyche and are open to abuse by selfish people. This would mean that to install communism and maintain it authoritarian policies would have to be used to pin down and remove the last of the capitalists.

People who describe them selves as communists (esp on this forum) give conflicting descriptions of that communism IS and ISN'T so tell me if communists can't agree on what communism is then how can they persuade the rest of the world to buy into it?

1. I don't comment on the theories of others. I comment on practises.

Since you don't comment on theories, would you agree that a political theory of communism may work in practice some day? :D

2. What communism is there but the 20th century? We'll look into the other theories once the others present us with some proper engineering studies, including the proper plywood models and all.
There were successful communist societies that predate the actual theory of communism.

3. Mostly: Nazism and Fascism. And !no passaran! to that!Yeah, Nazis and Fascists are usually clear about their goals. On the other hand, that can viewed as a negative thing since they want society to follow a pre-defined plan instead of allowing democracy to form the society as some anarcho-communists desire.

Yes, and certain policies are incompatible with economic theories. Welfare is incompatible with the economic theory of capitalism.
Seems to be working pretty well lately...

Except of course, for the fact that people do not refer to what the government does as charity, they refer to it as welfare.
Like Tsunami welfare - or Katrina welfare...

"Success" is a relative term.
That does not negate my point in any way whatsoever. If anything it reinforces it. Thanks.

Like, say, the German Democratic Republic?
You'll notice that I'm not saying that all democracies are beer and skittles.

1. Since you don't comment on theories, would you agree that a political theory of communism may work in practice some day? :D


2. There were successful communist societies that predate the actual theory of communism.

3. Yeah, Nazis and Fascists are usually clear about their goals. On the other hand, that can viewed as a negative thing since they want society to follow a pre-defined plan instead of allowing democracy to form the society as some 3A.anarcho-communists desire.

1. Odder things have happened. I don't wish to underrate human ingenuity, and happily concede the possibility.

2. *shrug*

3. I take the more gracious Christian option, andd describe 3.A as Anarchists.( without that other word. )
Being a Ditz is no sin - unlike being a bully.
Meanwhile, I've seen some good nazis. They were all dead.

3. Mostly: Nazism and Fascism. And !no passaran! to that!
Fascism is more left and not really the right at all.

Fascism (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/fascism)
The name of Mussolini's group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.

http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/fascism
a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state's benefit. This "total state" is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.
Sounds alot like communism to me!

1. Odder things have happened. I don't wish to underrate human ingenuity, and happily concede the possibility.
I think I can agree with you now. I just don't like ruling communism out without qualifications. :)

Fascism is more left and not really the right at all.

Mussolini considered it to be a right wing ideology in opposition to "socialism, liberalism, democracy."
Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.Mussolini

Fascists might be better defined as populist (on the Nolan chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart)) instead of left or right wing since fascism restricts personal and economic freedom. Nevertheless, I think fascism leans toward the right.

You'll notice that I'm not saying that all democracies are beer and skittles.

Do you know what the German Democratic Republic was? Do you think its experience could be legitimately used to attack the advocacy of democracy? What about that of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?

Do you know what the German Democratic Republic was? Do you think its experience could be legitimately used to attack the advocacy of democracy? What about that of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?

Yes, I know what it was. And I know what North Korea is, too.

While they might have Democratic in the name, each has made it quite clear that they were Communist.

It's one thing to label yourself Democratic - another to explicitly and constantly say you're a Communist.

And if you claim to be a Communist, then I put you on the list to be judged.

If they had not only labeled themselves Democratic, but claimed to be as well, then I would argue that they were a form of democracy (ill-implemented, but there it is).

State Communism has nearly universally been ill-implemented - at the very least, it has involved putting millions of people to death for the simple crime of not agreeing with it, or even worse, the crime of being a teacher or intellectual.

While republics and democracies may have their faults, and their atrocities, their body count is nowhere near as high as that of communist states. Not even close.

Take Iraq for example. It's not official policy to commit atrocities, and those who do seem to get court martialed eventually. But in Communist takeovers of states, it's common policy and practice to round up teachers and shoot them before they get any ideas in their heads about resisting.

My grandfather was one of the teachers shot - just for being a teacher - along with his wife, and several of his children. Shot by North Koreans.

When a state like the USSR is shooting people execution style so often that they don't have enough lead to make enough bullets, and are shooting wads of newspaper out of cartridges at contact range to the head to save resources, that's Communism in action to me.

Communism is a system predacated on dogmatic values statements and opinions - much as religion based styles of government are, ie Marxist communism places just as much creedence to marxs word as christianity does to christs.

I don't think this is as much of a fault with Marxist Communism as it is with Marxist Communists.

Capitalism doesn't have a set of values statements or opinions under pinning it,

Yes, it does. It is based on a certain conception of property, and without that conception it cannot function.

Communism like full on free market capitalism is a system that can only work if every nation takes part with the same rules, otherwise some will be worse off than others and that isn't communism.

Nonsense. What you are doing here is assuming that communism must be global communism. If global communism existed, it is true that global economic equality would be pursued. But if communism only existed in a limited area, only in that area would economic equality be pursued. So while global communism wouldn't exist, communism would still exist.

But communism places alot of trust on the individual to act in a way that is beneficial to the collective, its proponents are generally quite liberatarian. As people keep saying we are selfish - we all seek to maximise our standard of living, and it is likely that libertarian policies would be ineffective at removing the selfish element to the human psyche and are open to abuse by selfish people.

Only if it also mandates that people who do not participate nevertheless be treated to the full luxuries of those who do. "From each according to his ability" means "from each according to his ability."

People who describe them selves as communists (esp on this forum) give conflicting descriptions of that communism IS and ISN'T so tell me if communists can't agree on what communism is then how can they persuade the rest of the world to buy into it?

There are conflicting views on the best model, yes, and those will be resolved democratically if a socialist society ever occurs.

Yes, I know what it was. And I know what North Korea is, too.

Good.

While they might have Democratic in the name, each has made it quite clear that they were Communist.

No, they said they were Communist. And they said they were Democratic, too. In fact, they were neither.

It's one thing to label yourself Democratic - another to explicitly and constantly say you're a Communist.

And another thing entirely to actually be honest.

And if you claim to be a Communist, then I put you on the list to be judged.

Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro both claim to be democrats.

If they had not only labeled themselves Democratic, but claimed to be as well, then I would argue that they were a form of democracy (ill-implemented, but there it is).

If you label yourself as something, you are claiming to be it. The distinction you are drawing here is nonsensical.

Do you know what the German Democratic Republic was? Do you think its experience could be legitimately used to attack the advocacy of democracy? What about that of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?

But you'll notice democracys which function well actually exist. And we can argue the successes and cons of such societys. Therefore unless we want to debate utopian ideas I think its fair to mention the failures of attempted communist prodjects.

But you'll notice democracys which function well actually exist. And we can argue the successes and cons of such societys. Therefore unless we want to debate utopian ideas I think its fair to mention the failures of attempted communist prodjects.

You are muddling together two arguments here.

The first is "real socialism has never been seriously attempted on a national scale before." That is a fair argument, though I would point out that a few hundred years ago, democracies were hardly commonplace, either.

The second is "real socialism has indeed been attempted, and it was a failure. After all, we know that totalitarian monsters would never lie and would never claim things about their societies that were not in fact accurate." That is transparent nonsense.

You are muddling together two arguments here.

The first is "real socialism has never been seriously attempted on a national scale before." That is a fair argument, though I would point out that a few hundred years ago, democracies were hardly commonplace, either.

The second is "real socialism has indeed been attempted, and it was a failure. After all, we know that totalitarian monsters would never lie and would never claim things about their societies that were not in fact accurate." That is transparent nonsense.

Socialism, as implemented in other forms, has been fairly successful without killing people. Market socialism, in particular, is a fairly good system.

But we're talking Communism. In order to implement it, you have to kill people on a scale that makes the US atrocities in Iraq look like Mother Teresa helping the poor.

You are muddling together two arguments here.

The first is "real socialism has never been seriously attempted on a national scale before." That is a fair argument, though I would point out that a few hundred years ago, democracies were hardly commonplace, either.

The second is "real socialism has indeed been attempted, and it was a failure. After all, we know that totalitarian monsters would never lie and would never claim things about their societies that were not in fact accurate." That is transparent nonsense.

My point is perhaps "real socialism" is a utopian impossibility on a large scale.

Either its never "properly" been attempted word for word for what Marx argued (despite the fact his ideas are outdated and underdeveloped on the issues of parties) thus not real socialism.

But I would argue it has been attempted on many times and all failed to translate into what Marx said on a peice of paper will happen. Issues such as putting trust into dictatorships and the impossibilities of long term anarchism (even if it somehow ever reaches that stange) make both criticisms fair.

In order to implement it, you have to kill people on a scale that makes the US atrocities in Iraq look like Mother Teresa helping the poor.

Its not the communists who want to kill people. Its those filthy property owners who will defend themselves from theft when the government comes knocking!

Socialism, as implemented in other forms, has been fairly successful without killing people. Market socialism, in particular, is a fairly good system.

Provide some examples, please. I would like to know what precisely you mean by "socialism."

My point is perhaps "real socialism" is a utopian impossibility on a large scale.

And as I said, that is a fair point, if you have a real basis for it.

But I would argue it has been attempted on many times and all failed to translate into what Marx said on a peice of paper will happen.

It is often argued that Communists advocate the same policies while distancing themselves from the results. Yet this is not the case; most Communists today reject the policies as well as the results of the ultra-authoritarian statist regimes that called themselves socialist, and in that light this criticism cannot fairly be made.

Issues such as putting trust into dictatorships

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a dictatorship of a class, not of an individual. Its manifestation would be highly democratic.

and the impossibilities of long term anarchism (even if it somehow ever reaches that stange) make both criticisms fair.

What is "impossible" about long-term anarchism?

most Communists today reject the policies as well as the results of the ultra-authoritarian statist regimes that called themselves socialist, and in that light this criticism cannot fairly be made.


Strong government is still needed. You're not going to reform the entire of society, our entire economic system/currency and concept of property via a weak government with a 51% majority. And should a majority in a country democratically elect a communist government a strong state will also be needed to prevent the counter attack from the "rich/powerful" people who will obviously reject it.


The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a dictatorship of a class, not of an individual. Its manifestation would be highly democratic.


Either it’s going to be revolutionary in which cases a "dictator" will be needed to keep order but as we've already seen that’s not what most communists are about these days its more "evolutionary" then. In which case it'll take years of redistribution and welfare in which the working class is made smaller and most of the country is middle class thus losing such revolutionary tendencies. Like Lenin said, all the people will ever achieve is a trade union consensus at best.


What is "impossible" about long-term anarchism?

The inevitability of "gangs/groups" or leaders to emerge to get things done its natural and necessary in a world of foreign policy and large scale management. Then of course the "we can't tell you what to do" but we can tell you to leave our society if you disagree with us etc... Mentality I hear from most anarchists. But perhaps that’s for a different thread.

Nothing. It works... in theory. Look at China and Cuba for example.

Cuba's Socialist! But yes, Communism only works in theory.

(Before someone starts complaining, Cuba is run by the Communist Party but is considered Socialist.)

Communism asks of all individuals to forget about their individuality and work together for the good of society. This in essence means that individuals are expected to put the good of society above that of themselves.

Thus, individuals are absolutely unfree. Their own desires or wishes do not matter. Only the good of society. The result is that the individual itself is irrelevant. And so are it's rights.

Another problem: who defines what the good of society is? That can only be decided by a powerfull central government wich will need to use absolute power to enforce it. It can not tolerate any dissent. The result of this is tyranny and a policy of terror.

What is best for society, is in this situation not the best for the invididual. Not even the best for the majority of society. Indeed, it is only the best for a very small minority, those who can define what the best of society IS. I.E. the ruling class (communist party).

Communism thus creates a political system that creates the very thing they were opposed to, and destroys all means to go against it with an even greater terror and tyranny than the one they originally rebelled against.

And that's just politics.

Economically, communism can't keep up. Private initiative and visionary new things don't get a change to develop. Economic booming is impossible, and nobody works hard, why should they?

The result is that technology rapidly becomes outdated, innovation halts and nobody really has a clear view of the entire production process, but the government. The fact that this means that supply and demand can not interact creates a huge black market and corruption.

Also, since the individual is irrelevant and new discoveries and products are determined by the leaders of society, the level of welbeing of the individual does not go up.

Communism does not work. It ignores the fact that mankind is a species of conscious entities who all have a small or great desire for freedom. It also ignores the fact that all individuals try to improve their situation or atleast perpetuate a good thing. (attaining wealth or power). It ignores the fact that the great power the central government has can easily be abused and WILL be abused unless the perfect leader who only cares about the peoples wellbeing gets and keeps power.

A communist society will eventually be technologically backwards and will be lead by cruel dictators who use force against anyone who opposes them or might oppose them. The result is that eventually the state becomes the citizen's greatest enemy.

Communism doesn't even work in theory.

I don't think this is as much of a fault with Marxist Communism as it is with Marxist Communists.



Yes, it does. It is based on a certain conception of property, and without that conception it cannot function.



Nonsense. What you are doing here is assuming that communism must be global communism. If global communism existed, it is true that global economic equality would be pursued. But if communism only existed in a limited area, only in that area would economic equality be pursued. So while global communism wouldn't exist, communism would still exist.



Only if it also mandates that people who do not participate nevertheless be treated to the full luxuries of those who do. "From each according to his ability" means "from each according to his ability."



There are conflicting views on the best model, yes, and those will be resolved democratically if a socialist society ever occurs.

You said that my comment likening marxist communists views to religious views is more of a comment against them as a group than communism as a whole however as you said there is no definition 'communism' only people's interpretations of it (i acknowledge the same can be said of capitalism and i give you that capitalism is based on a certain interpretation of property) however behind every conception of communism is a values statement and an arbitrary judgement of what is right or wrong and just or unjust? Capitalism is based on some arbitrary definitions but the arbitrary values definitions in communism run much deeper - it tells us what is right and wrong and is just and unjust, capitalism leaves room for govenrments and people to make up their own minds about social issues, as it is not a social template it is simply a mechanism of resource allocation, whereas communism attempts both at the same time. I agree that the capitalism we see today is not the same as what I am talking about but that is the same agrument as the USSR wasn't communist, im discussing capitalism as a theory as opposed to communism as a theory.

You said that communism could exist over a limited area however, no nation has all the resources it needs to sustain its population to a reasonable standard, much less the utopian standards that communists believe can be created under communism. To get these extra resources a communist nation would still have to participate in a capitalist trading system if the other nations of the world were capitalist so in that way it has an inherentally capitalist side unless all the other nations were communism. You also said at the end of your post 'if a socialist society occurs' however communism and socialism are not the same. Socialism can be accomodated into the capitalist model as it uses capitalist mechanisms to reach its goals whereas communism cannot.

It is disingenuous of people to argue that Communism in practice isn't real Communism, but rather a perversion or deviation of theory. The reality is that the world has had nearly a century to witness Communism in action around the globe and as working political system for diverse populations.

What is the track record?

Others may debate the cost in human freedom, but the single greatest argument against Communism is their atrocious record of murdering their own population.

Soviet Union - killed nearly 62 million people between 1917 and 1987.
Communist China - killed over 35 million since 1949
Cambodia's Khmer Rouge - 2 million killed
North Korea - nearly 1.6 million
Tito's Yugoslavia - over a million

What is wrong with Communism? After having murdered over 100 million of their own people in the 20th century Communism makes the Nazi's look like amateurs.

It is disingenuous of people to argue that Communism in practice isn't real Communism, but rather a perversion or deviation of theory. The reality is that the world has had nearly a century to witness Communism in action around the globe and as working political system for diverse populations.

What is the track record?

Others may debate the cost in human freedom, but the single greatest argument against Communism is their atrocious record of murdering their own population.

Soviet Union - killed nearly 62 million people between 1917 and 1987.
Communist China - killed over 35 million since 1949
Cambodia's Khmer Rouge - 2 million killed
North Korea - nearly 1.6 million
Tito's Yugoslavia - over a million

What is wrong with Communism? After having murdered over 100 million of their own people in the 20th century Communism makes the Nazi's look like amateurs.

I agree

However as has been admitted there is no definition of communism, so for all we know the USSR, China, Cambodia etc were communist (you certianly didnt hear the USSR proclaiming "but we're not communist" when the USA made comments against communism) but of a different flavour than is in fasion now. So i agree with both sides acctually (although they'll probably both disagree with me) i think that the communism of the past is a bad thing but it is unfair to not leave room for the possibility that the concept can evolve to account for past mistakes.

Mussolini considered it to be a right wing ideology in opposition to "socialism, liberalism, democracy."
Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.Mussolini

Fascists might be better defined as populist (on the Nolan chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart)) instead of left or right wing since fascism restricts personal and economic freedom. Nevertheless, I think fascism leans toward the right.

You can think what you please - even if it is wrong. For the real world fascism is best defined as it is currently defined - and populist is not part of that. I will not re-post my earlier accurate definition of fascism. One time is adequate unless someone provides a compelling argument it is inaccurate - which you have not done; Mussolini is certainly not the end all authority on government nor economic principle.

As far as populism goes you are also quite wrong.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/populism
A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.

Which is quite contrary to the accurate definition of Fsscism. Populsm has been seen in the territory of both the left as well as the right.

I agree

However as has been admitted there is no definition of communism, so for all we know the USSR, China, Cambodia etc were communist (you certianly didnt hear the USSR proclaiming "but we're not communist" when the USA made comments against communism) but of a different flavour than is in fasion now. So i agree with both sides acctually (although they'll probably both disagree with me) i think that the communism of the past is a bad thing but it is unfair to not leave room for the possibility that the concept can evolve to account for past mistakes.


Just like feudalism did... :rolleyes:

Just like feudalism did... :rolleyes:

hmm...yawn

It is disingenuous of people to argue that Communism in practice isn't real Communism, but rather a perversion or deviation of theory. The reality is that the world has had nearly a century to witness Communism in action around the globe and as working political system for diverse populations.

What is the track record?

Others may debate the cost in human freedom, but the single greatest argument against Communism is their atrocious record of murdering their own population.

Soviet Union - killed nearly 62 million people between 1917 and 1987.
Communist China - killed over 35 million since 1949
Cambodia's Khmer Rouge - 2 million killed
North Korea - nearly 1.6 million
Tito's Yugoslavia - over a million

What is wrong with Communism? After having murdered over 100 million of their own people in the 20th century Communism makes the Nazi's look like amateurs.

All of the above are communist in name only. Not in nature

BECAUSE RED MAKES BULLS ANGRY!

All of the above are communist in name only. Not in nature

See my post above, unless you can give me the actual definition of communism?

No, it does not. Food stamps and other charitable issues are avaliable for the ultra poor. To qualify for assistance does not require one to submit a meal plan nor adhere to one. Even with modest means there are TONS of affordable food options to choose from. It is really quite nice.

So then you support wealth redistribution in order to maintain a certain desirable standard of living? How decidedly socialistic of you.

All of the above are communist in name only. Not in nature

But the devotion of the masses to the cause of communism creates a population incredibly succeptable to tyrannical government. Considering the nature of politics, one could surmise that the chances of a communism lasting any substantial time without corrupt leaders that manipulate the communism lies between slim and none.

See my post above, unless you can give me the actual definition of communism?

yeagh thats a hard one. you want mainstream definition or purist?

yeagh thats a hard one. you want mainstream definition or purist?

Which ever, but if theres two, is there not room for more? Who gets to say what is and isn't communist?

You can think what you please - even if it is wrong. For the real world fascism is best defined as it is currently defined - and populist is not part of that. I will not re-post my earlier accurate definition of fascism. One time is adequate unless someone provides a compelling argument it is inaccurate - which you have not done; Mussolini is certainly not the end all authority on government nor economic principle.
I think your definition was fine. I just had a problem with calling it leftist. It is more a combination of left and right wing tendencies (with a right wing lean).

The Columbia Encyclopedia (http://www.bartleby.com/65/fa/fascism.html) gives 3 primary characteristics of fascism:
1) subordination of the individual to the state
2) imperialism and aggressive militarism
3) elitism and hierarchy

It goes on to say that:
While socialism (particularly Marxism) came into existence as a clearly formulated theory or program based on a specific interpretation of history, fascism introduced no systematic exposition of its ideology or purpose other than a negative reaction against socialist and democratic egalitarianism.

It depends on how you define "left wing" and "right wing" but I always assume socialism and democratic egalitarianism are left wing. So, fascism which glorifies a class hierarchy seems to contradict most leftist thought.

(By the way, the other 2 traits (i.e., glorified state, imperialism) can appear in left or right wing theories in my opinion.)


Populsm has been seen in the territory of both the left as well as the right.
That's the point I was making. :) Fascism (like populism on the Nolan chart) combines left and right principles of statism.

All of the above are communist in name only. Not in nature

There is no difference. A rose by any other name....

There is no difference. A rose by any other name....
Exactly. The nature of a rose does not change depending on the name it is called. So, a totalitarian state that calls itself communist is still totalitarian....

Who gets to say what is and isn't communist?

If it turns out with a society that isn't full of rainbows and bunny rabbits where everyone sings sweet songs of happyness its a betrayal of true communism!!

Exactly. The nature of rose does not change depending on the name it is called. So, a totalitarian state that calls itself communist is still totalitarian....

And a communist state that is called a totalitarian state is still communist...

And a communist state that is called a totalitarian state is still communist...

The "rose by any other name" statement means that we know something by its nature, not by its title.

Those governments were tyrannical and did not follow communist ideals, so your statement doesn't apply.

The "rose by any other name" statement means that we know something by its nature, not by its title.

Those governments were tyrannical and did not follow communist ideals, so your statement doesn't apply.

Why didn't they follow communist ideals? Because they weren't your communist ideals? There is no fixed in stone definition of communism and there is no list of communist and noncommunist ideals as no one has a monopoly on what it is. Its an evolving set of concepts which differ between users. Its arrogant to assume you can define what communism is or define communist ideals, I could say im communist and you'd have no basis to say I wasn't communist you'd only have a basis to say that I'm not the same kind of communist as you. So I would still be a rose by any other name.

The "rose by any other name" statement means that we know something by its nature, not by its title.

Those governments were tyrannical and did not follow communist ideals, so your statement doesn't apply.

How do you define a thing? Is Communism defined by Marx and Engels? By Lenin? Trotsky? Stalin? Mao?

As far as I am concerned those regimes that self-identify as Communist are Communist. Just as I would not presume to tell Catholics, Mormans, Jehovah Witnesses, or Seventh Day Adventists they are not Christian even though some Christians say they are not.

We must judge Communism by its actions in the real world, not as an abstract philosophy that lives only in books.

How do you define a thing? Is Communism defined by Marx and Engels? By Lenin? Trotsky? Stalin? Mao?

As far as I am concerned those regimes that self-identify as Communist are Communist. Just as I would not presume to tell Catholics, Mormans, Jehovah Witnesses, or Seventh Day Adventists they are not Christian even though some Christians say they are not.

We must judge Communism by its actions in the real world, not as an abstract philosophy that lives only in books.

Exactly! just because another arm of your political ideology acts in a way you disagree with is not a reason to say they aren't part of the political ideology as you don't have that power.

How do you define a thing? Is Communism defined by Marx and Engels? By Lenin? Trotsky? Stalin? Mao?
I think the definition of communism is agreed on by most people: "community ownership of the means of production."

As far as I am concerned those regimes that self-identify as Communist are Communist. Just as I would not presume to tell Catholics, Mormans, Jehovah Witnesses, or Seventh Day Adventists they are not Christian even though some Christians say they are not.
What if an individual claims to be Christian without believing in Christ? Not fitting a fundamental part of the definition is a good sign that the term is incorrectly applied.

Soviet Russia, for instance, had national (rather than communal) ownership of the means of production. So, to me, it did not fit the most basic definition of communism.

Why didn't they follow communist ideals? Because they weren't your communist ideals? There is no fixed in stone definition of communism and there is no list of communist and noncommunist ideals as no one has a monopoly on what it is. Its an evolving set of concepts which differ between users. Its arrogant to assume you can define what communism is or define communist ideals, I could say im communist and you'd have no basis to say I wasn't communist you'd only have a basis to say that I'm not the same kind of communist as you. So I would still be a rose by any other name.

Communistic ideals are egalitarian. If the government doesn't seek egalitarian ideals, it is not a communism.

And no, you are saying that anything called a rose is a rose, regardless of smell.

How do you define a thing? Is Communism defined by Marx and Engels? By Lenin? Trotsky? Stalin? Mao?

Things are defined by their basic nature, the basic nature of communism is egalitarianism through collective ownership of economic resources.

As far as I am concerned those regimes that self-identify as Communist are Communist. Just as I would not presume to tell Catholics, Mormans, Jehovah Witnesses, or Seventh Day Adventists they are not Christian even though some Christians say they are not.

So you are saying that, if a person who refuted the existence of God claimed to be a christian, he would be right?

A huge problem with communism is that it is a group cause. Take modern China for example, they self-identify as a communism, even though it has some distinctly capitalistic policies. When they identify themselves as communistic, they associate themselves with the cause in order to provide false justification for their actions.

We must judge Communism by its actions in the real world, not as an abstract philosophy that lives only in books.

Agreed, but this has nothing to do with the rest of your post.