NationStates Jolt Archive

1. communism is an alternate economic structure, on which any other political or governmental structure may be used. a democratic communist state is just as feasable as a democratic capitalist state.

2. communism is the end stage of human civilisation's development, as Marx saw it in his theory of historical materialism. to get to this stage, civilisation must progress through from agricultural society, to feudal, to capitalist, socialist, and eventually communism. caplitalism is an integral part of this process.
as once, so very succinctly, put by our own Kanabia: "Capitalism makes the wealth, Socialism distributes it, and Communism is what you get at the end"

3. the soviet union and communist china are/were not communist. they were socialist with a totalitarian governmental structure. they were not communist.

4. the atrocities attributed to communism - Mao, Stalin, Pot - were indeed awful, but were not a tenet of communism itself but of the totalitarian and militaristic political governmental structures used in those reigimes.

5. there are many communist ideologies, greatly differing in both intent (specifics about the end result) and method of achieving it. some of these ideologies condone - or even require - the mass murdering of people/bourgeois (as noted above), but not all. not all communism is inherently evil in this sense. it is a matter of governmental system, and not the core economic ideology, that can lead to arguably evil actions in persuit of the ideology.

6. communism is not facism. the central tenet of communism is to have a just socity by fairness of outcome, achieved by redistribution of wealth and income. this is not the case in facism. while the two share some core principles such as popularism and a shift of focus from the individual to the state, they are not the same. during world war two, the facist states of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy had state control over the means of production. this is one of the ways it is easy to confuse the two ideologies, as state production is not part of facism but simply the reality of the period of total war in which these particular states existed.
indeed, it is not necessarily true that state production need be a part of communism (in some communist ideologies).

7. communism is not a doctrine for the lazy. some may cheat the system by refusing to work, but that is also the case in other economic systems. only in a non-welfare state would this problem be removed, but only at the expense of quality of life and justice for the poor of society.
this is often used as a primary arguement against communism, misunderstanding that the primary goal of communism, as stated below, is not for economic growth or profit, making this attack moot (to an extent)

8. the incentive to work in communism is not personal gain or profit. in communist thinking, human nature is argued to be malleable, and it can be argued that greed is a result of capitalism itself, or at least simply currently a characteristic of most people that need not be. to construct a system whereby greed is not an issue would be to allow for a fairer society, and would mean that benefiting all people (the state) could become the primary motivator of people. (there is an issue of chicken-or-the-egg here).

On this topic, LazyHippies once wrote "People are not naturally lazy, people naturally seek fulfillment and purpose, being productive helps fill that natural need. Money is an artificial desire that has absolutely nothing to do with human nature. If people's only motivation in life were money, humanity would not predate money, yet it does. Money is an artificial need. The desire to be productive is the real nature of humanity."




these are just some thoughts i had and some common misconceptions i've witnessed. i'll probably get flamed or told i'm wrong in some areas, but this isn't a discussion of the merits or demerits of communism... just trying to set the record straight a little.
i'm open to editing in comments, corrections, and/or additions :)

ps: thanks to my little helper :D :fluffle:

If only people would take the effort of reading beyond the 2nd line.

:(

ps: thanks to my little helper :D :fluffle:
Hehe, my pleasure :fluffle:
It's a wonderful post, and I do hope people read it :)

Hey PM, can you give any examples of communist states in history that fit your criteria?

Hey PM, can you give any examples of communist states in history that fit your criteria?

No, he can't, because a pure communist state has never existed, nor will it ever.

Hey PM, can you give any examples of communist states in history that fit your criteria?
I think I know the answer to this

NONE

(except for small aboriginal tribes, some were truly communist)

Well as a capitalist NeoCon I feel I'm going to have to say why I have a problem with communism.

Human beings are pack animals, like wolves or lions or chimps. They all desire power, resources and sex within their group. This is not because they are "Bad" or "Immoral" but it is simply determinism. The ones who faught to gain these things past on their genes, those that did not, did not. That means human beings by exstension want power, resources etc. This is human nature, the law of the jungle. Human society needs to reflect human being want to dominate one another.

In a system when all are equal a human being's life is hopeless. He cannot improve himself or his family. He will die in the same state allocated hole he was born in. He will not work harder to better the collective, for he does not gain the rewards of his own labour but that of the many. Any extra effort will be sollowed by his comrades. He is without morals, without God without hope.

1. communism is an alternate economic structure, on which any other political or governmental structure may be used. a democratic communist state is just as feasable as a democratic capitalist state.
No, because in Communism everybody must agree with it in order for Coomunism to work. If only 5% don't believe in communism, those 5% will abuse the system and pervert it into forms we all know - unfortunatelly - too well.

2. communism is the end stage of human civilisation's development, as Marx saw it in his theory of historical materialism. to get to this stage, civilisation must progress through from agricultural society, to feudal, to capitalist, socialist, and eventually communism. caplitalism is an integral part of this process.
as once, so very succinctly, put by our own Kanabia: "Capitalism makes the wealth, Socialism distributes it, and Communism is what you get at the end"
That's a statement without any kind of proof or demonstration. i guess we'll take your word on it.

3. the soviet union and communist china are/were not communist. they were socialist with a totalitarian governmental structure. they were not communist.
That is debatable. I'm sure we can all agree, however, that they got that way trying to become Communist.

4. the atrocities attributed to communism - Mao, Stalin, Pot - were indeed awful, but were not a tenet of communism itself but of the totalitarian and militaristic political governmental structures used in those reigimes.
Which arose when they attempted to institute Communism.

5. there are many communist ideologies, greatly differing in both intent (specifics about the end result) and method of achieving it. some of these ideologies condone - or even require - the mass murdering of people/bourgeois (as noted above), but not all. not all communism is inherently evil in this sense. it is a matter of governmental system, and not the core economic ideology, that can lead to arguably evil actions in persuit of the ideology.
Not all Communist movements condone the mass murder of the opposition, indeed. But why only those condoning it managed to get the power?

6. communism is not facism. the central tenet of communism is to have a just socity by fairness of outcome, achieved by redistribution of wealth and income. this is not the case in facism. while the two share some core principles such as popularism and a shift of focus from the individual to the state, they are not the same. during world war two, the facist states of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy had state control over the means of production. this is one of the ways it is easy to confuse the two ideologies, as state production is not part of facism but simply the reality of the period of total war in which these particular states existed.
indeed, it is not necessarily true that state production need be a part of communism (in some communist ideologies).
Both Communism and Fascism/Nazism are extreme ideologies. They just go to different extremes. But that doesn't mean that one extreme is better than the other.

7. communism is not a doctrine for the lazy. some may cheat the system by refusing to work, but that is also the case in other economic systems. only in a non-welfare state would this problem be removed, but only at the expense of quality of life and justice for the poor of society.
this is often used as a primary arguement against communism, misunderstanding that the primary goal of communism, as stated below, is not for economic growth or profit, making this attack moot (to an extent)
Well, the lack of economic and techological growth is one of the biggest flaws of Communism. That would freeze us at the current level of developement. I don't know about others, but I want to live better and have more interesting gadgets 50 years from now. I also want my kids to live btter than I do. They'll want their kids to live better, too. And so on.

8. the incentive to work in communism is not personal gain or profit. in communist thinking, human nature is argued to be malleable, and it can be argued that greed is a result of capitalism itself, or at least simply currently a characteristic of most people that need not be. to construct a system whereby greed is not an issue would be to allow for a fairer society, and would mean that benefiting all people (the state) could become the primary motivator of people. (there is an issue of chicken-or-the-egg here).
More people are motivated by the idea of helping themselves than by the idea of helping others. Yes, you can also help others. But millions of years of evolution have ensured that we place ourselves and our close relatives and friends above the rest of the humanity.

On this topic, LazyHippies once wrote "People are not naturally lazy, people naturally seek fulfillment and purpose, being productive helps fill that natural need. Money is an artificial desire that has absolutely nothing to do with human nature. If people's only motivation in life were money, humanity would not predate money, yet it does. Money is an artificial need. The desire to be productive is the real nature of humanity."
The desire to be productive is the real nature of humanity?!? :confused: Where did LazyHippies get that? I don't see hunter gatherers or other such "primitive" pre-money societies struggling to "produce" all day long. Hunter gatherers, actually, only work for 2-3 hours a day. The basic desire we have is to achieve as much as possible through as little effort as possible.

No, he can't, because a pure communist state has never existed, nor will it ever.

I see. Just like a utopian state will never truly exist then?

So is it as nonsensical to advocate this form of communism or claim "I'm a communist" as it is to advocate an unfalsifiable, unreachable utopianism and claim "I'm a utopianist?"

Communism like anarchism is a post-state ideology so it's impossible to have a "purely communist state".

I would take issue about fascism and communism, is popularism (as it was ecpressed through fascist literature) really a core part of Communism? It's certainly not mentioned in the Manifesto. Also fascism may have said it was about the state but Hitler and Mussolini attempted to give a personal face to their totalitarianism (as did Stalin)... anyway i agree with everything thing you said. I'm just nit-picking

1. communism is an alternate economic structure, on which any other political or governmental structure may be used. a democratic communist state is just as feasable as a democratic capitalist state.

According to marx the only purpose of the state is as a means to support class divisions. Communist style democracy does rely on a lack on non communist opposition.


2. communism is the end stage of human civilisation's development, as Marx saw it in his theory of historical materialism. to get to this stage, civilisation must progress through from agricultural society, to feudal, to capitalist, socialist, and eventually communism. caplitalism is an integral part of this process.
as once, so very succinctly, put by our own Kanabia: "Capitalism makes the wealth, Socialism distributes it, and Communism is what you get at the end"


Uh-huh Marx takes someones concept on ideas. Turns it the opposite way around and says aha communism is inevitable and its science!!
I actually agree with Lenin's logic. Capitalism has grown to strong and at best the common working class will only achieve trade union mentality.


3. the soviet union and communist china are/were not communist. they were socialist with a totalitarian governmental structure. they were not communist.

As anarcho-communists argue. A totalitarian government structure is the only result of a Marxist revolution.


4. the atrocities attributed to communism - Mao, Stalin, Pot - were indeed awful, but were not a tenet of communism itself but of the totalitarian and militaristic political governmental structures used in those reigimes.


A conservative would argue. When you try radical ideas only thought up on paper you will get unpredicted results. :eek: 100 million death sounds unpredictable to me.




5. there are many communist ideologies, greatly differing in both intent (specifics about the end result) and method of achieving it. some of these ideologies condone - or even require - the mass murdering of people/bourgeois (as noted above), but not all. not all communism is inherently evil in this sense. it is a matter of governmental system, and not the core economic ideology, that can lead to arguably evil actions in persuit of the ideology.


Agreed. Some communist ideas are worse than others some I can even tolerate.



6. communism is not facism. the central tenet of communism is to have a just socity by fairness of outcome, achieved by redistribution of wealth and income. this is not the case in facism. while the two share some core principles such as popularism and a shift of focus from the individual to the state, they are not the same. during world war two, the facist states of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy had state control over the means of production. this is one of the ways it is easy to confuse the two ideologies, as state production is not part of facism but simply the reality of the period of total war in which these particular states existed.
indeed, it is not necessarily true that state production need be a part of communism (in some communist ideologies).


Agreed. But they are similar in many ways. And mismanaged communism has in almost all cases resulted in fascism.



7. communism is not a doctrine for the lazy. some may cheat the system by refusing to work, but that is also the case in other economic systems. only in a non-welfare state would this problem be removed, but only at the expense of quality of life and justice for the poor of society.
this is often used as a primary arguement against communism, misunderstanding that the primary goal of communism, as stated below, is not for economic growth or profit, making this attack moot (to an extent)


Not working isn't cheating the system. Most communists I've heard from are pretty harsh about those who refuse to do any work.
But the poor and unskilled who do trivial work are selfish in asking for the same pay as those who do the most difficult and skilled work in society. If someone beats you in a race you have no right to say you deserve a gold medal.


8. the incentive to work in communism is not personal gain or profit. in communist thinking, human nature is argued to be malleable, and it can be argued that greed is a result of capitalism itself, or at least simply currently a characteristic of most people that need not be. to construct a system whereby greed is not an issue would be to allow for a fairer society, and would mean that benefiting all people (the state) could become the primary motivator of people. (there is an issue of chicken-or-the-egg here).


Its an issue of. Human nature is anything we want it to be. How do we know when todays society says different.
Because the thing that we want to destroy anyway is the cause of it! And once we achieve a communist society we'll be proved right.

Problem is. Even if you did achieve a communist society and were proved wrong you'd prob say we need a few 100 years to remove all traces of evil capitalism.

You guys seem to require just as much faith as those religious types.



On this topic, LazyHippies once wrote "People are not naturally lazy, people naturally seek fulfillment and purpose, being productive helps fill that natural need. Money is an artificial desire that has absolutely nothing to do with human nature. If people's only motivation in life were money, humanity would not predate money, yet it does. Money is an artificial need. The desire to be productive is the real nature of humanity."


Money is meaningless on its own. It represents almost anything you want. Be it a holiday in barbados, be it a plasma screen or the most high quality food with service.
We don't all seek money just to be rich. But everyone values good quality food over poor quality food. A comfortable sofa over an uncomfortable sofa. It just happens we're willing to continue to work even when we don't have to because some people value higher quality stuff and perhaps enjoy their work.



these are just some thoughts i had and some common misconceptions i've witnessed. i'll probably get flamed or told i'm wrong in some areas, but this isn't a discussion of the merits or demerits of communism... just trying to set the record straight a little.
i'm open to editing in comments, corrections, and/or additions :)
]

Tough.
You can't say people dismiss communism because they don't understand it. "Correct us" and then not expect someone to still give reasons why we dismiss it.

thanks, but I Like my job better and I want to keep it, plus all of my private property. I don't like sharing.

:upyours: Carl Marx.

:upyours: Carl Marx.

ehem. Its :upyours: :upyours: Karl Marx.

No, because in Communism everybody must agree with it in order for Coomunism to work. If only 5% don't believe in communism, those 5% will abuse the system and pervert it into forms we all know - unfortunatelly - too well.

The point of communism is that it’s at a historical stage were that does not occur to anyone since the system is self-reinforcing. I’m not arguing that it is a realistic possibility since I’m not a communist but that’s how Marx and Engles described it.

That's a statement without any kind of proof or demonstration. i guess we'll take your word on it.

Well you could or you could read Marx before shooting your mouth off since it’s there that Marx quite clearly states communism is the final stage of human development. The point of this thread is not to provide empirical facts for or against communism but provide information on what communism as an idea actually is. Did you read the final paragraph in the first post?

That is debatable. I'm sure we can all agree, however, that they got that way trying to become Communist.

If by “trying” you mean rhetoric then sure they would have given all the stars away in heaven “trying” for communism but that’s not what Stalin or Mao were actually interested in achieveing.

Which arose when they attempted to institute Communism.

There were also lives lost in the American and French Revolution. [Counter] Revolutions cause violence (go read The Furies by Mayer) not communism.

Not all Communist movements condone the mass murder of the opposition, indeed. But why only those condoning it managed to get the power?

Communist/socialist parties that have resisted using violence have held varying degrees of power across the world from the 1929 Great Strike in Britain to the contemporary field of Italian parliamentary democracy. Many non-violent red movements have achieved power, most of the world was run by social democracies one way or another since the late nineteenth century.

Only the factions of the French Revolution that advocated violence stayed in power, the Nazis acquired power through violence, as did the British Monarchy in the civil war and the American Revolutionaries. Do you see the link? Violence in politically transitory states dictates which side wins regardless of ideology.

Both Communism and Fascism/Nazism are extreme ideologies. They just go to different extremes. But that doesn't mean that one extreme is better than the other.

No it doesn’t except we’re talking about generic communism which unlike fascism has never advocated brutality and violence as a core ideology. Again this is about the general concept of communism and how it defines itself. Not political point scoring in the void of the online forum.

Well, the lack of economic and technological growth is one of the biggest flaws of Communism. That would freeze us at the current level of development. I don't know about others, but I want to live better and have more interesting gadgets 50 years from now. I also want my kids to live better than I do. They'll want their kids to live better, too. And so on.

Again you’re relying on real world situational examples rather then focusing on the actual point of discussion. ‘what is ‘communism’' not ‘what is X (Russian, Chinese, Cuban, European etc) communism’. You yourself indicate communism must never have existed (see your first answer) so to make these kind of points derived from real world experiences is a moot one. Second of all I won’t believe you until you demonstrate a convincing argument based on communist ideology not examples from the tangible world since that is not what this thread is about.

More people are motivated by the idea of helping themselves than by the idea of helping others. Yes, you can also help others. But millions of years of evolution have ensured that we place ourselves and our close relatives and friends above the rest of the humanity.

Now where is YOUR proof? Telling me what you personally think is not the same a the provision of verifiable academic or tangible examples on the nature of the human condition. If you want to argue theory then by all means do but don’t try and make an argument based on something empirical like evolutionary development without backing evidence beyond your opinion.

The desire to be productive is the real nature of humanity?!? :confused: Where did LazyHippies get that? I don't see hunter gatherers or other such "primitive" pre-money societies struggling to "produce" all day long. Hunter gatherers, actually, only work for 2-3 hours a day. The basic desire we have is to achieve as much as possible through as little effort as possible.

Well as a living-breathing hunter-gatherer yourself I suppose you are the most obvious authority on the subject.

1. communism is an alternate economic structure, on which any other political or governmental structure may be used. a democratic communist state is just as feasable as a democratic capitalist state.

In the first place, in the socialist transitional phase, a totalitarian state is created (the measures that Marx says this socialist state should take positively require a totalitarian state, and his advocating of seizing the property of "emigrants and rebels" is certainly totalitarian)

In the second place, even if such a state weren't necessary to introduce socialism, it is necessary to maintain it. This is because socialism, lacking a means of rational economic calculation, inevitably fails in an economic sense. Since the government likes being the government, they will want to protect their power. Their failure threatens their power because people don't like failed governments, so these governments must become totalitarian to stay in office.

Another point to consider is that with the end of any means of rational economic calculation, massive shortages ensue of even the most basic items. This leads to black marketeering. Shutting down a black market requires the sort of measures that are those of a totalitarian state.


The basic point is this, discussion of purely theoretical communism is useless, because the theory is not one that can engage with reality. This is the root cause of its failure.

4. the atrocities attributed to communism - Mao, Stalin, Pot - were indeed awful, but were not a tenet of communism itself but of the totalitarian and militaristic political governmental structures used in those reigimes.

As I said, totalitarianism is inevitable in communism.

A more involved answer is that the totalitarian measures taken may not have been pure communism, but that is only because pure communism is not compatible with reality. These measures were therefore the result of the need to make reality compatible with communism.

6. communism is not facism. the central tenet of communism is to have a just socity by fairness of outcome, achieved by redistribution of wealth and income. this is not the case in facism. while the two share some core principles such as popularism and a shift of focus from the individual to the state, they are not the same. during world war two, the facist states of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy had state control over the means of production. this is one of the ways it is easy to confuse the two ideologies, as state production is not part of facism but simply the reality of the period of total war in which these particular states existed.
indeed, it is not necessarily true that state production need be a part of communism (in some communist ideologies).

The "fairness" of outcome advocated requires state control over a country's wealth. They must have the control in order to ensure that the wealth is distributed in accordance with what they believe to be fair.

State production was very much a part of fascism, as were state controls. It stemed from the nationalistic part of fascism (that the economy should serve the nation, and must therefore be directed by those directing the nation, namely the government).

7. communism is not a doctrine for the lazy. some may cheat the system by refusing to work, but that is also the case in other economic systems. only in a non-welfare state would this problem be removed, but only at the expense of quality of life and justice for the poor of society.
this is often used as a primary arguement against communism, misunderstanding that the primary goal of communism, as stated below, is not for economic growth or profit, making this attack moot (to an extent)

To state that the goal of an economic system is not growing wealth is like a football team saying "we do not aim to score goals".

8. the incentive to work in communism is not personal gain or profit. in communist thinking, human nature is argued to be malleable, and it can be argued that greed is a result of capitalism itself, or at least simply currently a characteristic of most people that need not be. to construct a system whereby greed is not an issue would be to allow for a fairer society, and would mean that benefiting all people (the state) could become the primary motivator of people. (there is an issue of chicken-or-the-egg here).

Greed (for want of a better term, and greed is a pretty bad term) is basic to humans.

The argument that greed is a result of capitalism is valid in only one sense, that capitalism is the economic corrolary of human nature.

Greed works quite well, in fact. Without greed, the sewers would not be cleaned, and the garbage not collected. This point of yours is quite illuminating, however, it shows that the communist seeks to change reality to suit his theory, rather than change the theory to suit reality. This necessarily means, as I said above, that a communist state, no matter how it begins, will always become totalitarian.




Pure Metal, from your initial post, it seems that you believed that anti-communists didn't understand communism. You are quite incorrect. We understand it, better than communists do.

If you had intended to dampen opposition to communism, you should address yourself to the problems of economic calculation.

Needless to say, I won't be holding my breath.

ehem. Its :upyours: :upyours: Karl Marx.

Kommie. I used Carl Marx on my paper, IIRC...

The basic point is this, discussion of purely theoretical communism is useless, because the theory is not one that can engage with reality. This is the root cause of its failure.

Argh, what is it with you anti-commies. You can't restrain yourselves to ever discuss pure philosophy of communism... and i wonder why?

One idea that I really don't understand is the idea that if communism has never existed in reality (debateable but let's assume it hasn't) then it isn't possible for it to exist.

Every form of government, economic system etc has been brought into existance, and before that didn't exist in reality.

I really don't get that train of logic.

Anyway, that's just one point. If I had the time, I'd attempt to reply to all these posts but sadly no. Another reason to hate Chemistry exams...

Argh, what is it with you anti-commies. You can't restrain yourselves to ever discuss pure philosophy of communism... and i wonder why?
Because pure philosophy rarely has a practical application.

Argh, what is it with you anti-commies. You can't restrain yourselves to ever discuss pure philosophy of communism... and i wonder why?

I try to do both.

But on one hand the pure philosophy is a utopia with no serious concern of actually becoming a reality.

The practical communism at its peak occupied 40% of the world and was the basis of over 100 million dead and a 40 year cold war. I wonder which is most worth discussing.

I'm still perplexed as to what kind of person would try to implement this economic philosophy, one that would never work.

These people were undoubtedly intelligent and fairly smart, but they all had their heads up their asses. The only 'classless society' that they achieved was one where the commoners were dirt-poor, unless the government took that too.

Argh, what is it with you anti-commies. You can't restrain yourselves to ever discuss pure philosophy of communism... and i wonder why?

The pure theory is pure balderdash. Communism is intended to work in the real world, therefore discussion of communism must revolve around how it works (or, more accurately, how it fails) in the real world.

The pure theory is pure balderdash. Communism is intended to work in the real world, therefore discussion of communism must revolve around how it works (or, more accurately, how it fails) in the real world.

I agree. Discussing a "pure theory" of communism that we all know can't, and never has, worked in the real world is like discussing the pure theory of "perfect worldness", utopianism, or living on the sun. Anyone can create an idealistic scenario for any one of these things, but none of them can be made to work in the real world. Thus, it breaks down into absurdity.

When you try to create a utopia, you always end up with a disutopia, which is worse than whatever you began with.

No, he can't, because a pure communist state has never existed, nor will it ever.
If you buy into the Marxist theory, they are tribalist, the earliest phase of human history, not communist.

Of course other philosophers have also postulated different theories of human social evolution. I'm uncertain if it was Plato or another Greek philosopher of note who said societies work in a circle.

Dictatorship -> Monarchy -> Republic -> Corruption -> Chaos -> Dictatorship.

Is this concept any more valid than Marx's? Probably not, for the simple reason that Society does not follow a set track, and instead goes wherever the hell it wants, whenever the hell it wants. To say that there is an endstate is total rubbish, and anyone who claims to say that is little better than that Quarter-operated Gypsy at the arcade.

ehem. Its :upyours: :upyours: Karl Marx.
I think we ought to call him "Chuck"

Much as my floor two years back called Guillame "Big Bill"

If you buy into the Marxist theory, they are tribalist, the earliest phase of human history, not communist..

He defined it as primitive communism. Everyone was equal in their poverty. They had no leader in which could exploit them


Of course other philosophers have also postulated different theories of human social evolution. I'm uncertain if it was Plato or another Greek philosopher of note who said societies work in a circle.

Dictatorship -> Monarchy -> Republic -> Corruption -> Chaos -> Dictatorship.

Is this concept any more valid than Marx's? Probably not, for the simple reason that Society does not follow a set track, and instead goes wherever the hell it wants, whenever the hell it wants. To say that there is an endstate is total rubbish, and anyone who claims to say that is little better than that Quarter-operated Gypsy at the arcade.

Agreed. The fact he seems to say its inevitable just wait, science has proven communism must happen was the worst part of Marx.
Lenin was just as bad picking any excuse just to justify communism when Marx had clearly been wrong.

Did I just use the word rubbish?

The point of communism is that it’s at a historical stage were that does not occur to anyone since the system is self-reinforcing. I’m not arguing that it is a realistic possibility since I’m not a communist but that’s how Marx and Engles described it.
New Metal said: "a democratic communist state is just as feasable as a democratic capitalist state". I replied that it's not as feasible, because everybody must agree with it in order for it to work, whereas in a "normal" state that is not necessary. I fail to see what's wrong in my statement. :confused:

Well you could or you could read Marx before shooting your mouth off since it’s there that Marx quite clearly states communism is the final stage of human development. The point of this thread is not to provide empirical facts for or against communism but provide information on what communism as an idea actually is. Did you read the final paragraph in the first post?
Okay, so Marx states that communism is the final stage of human development. Should I just take his word on it? If the first post was intended as purely informative, then nobody should have replied to any of the points presented.

If by “trying” you mean rhetoric then sure they would have given all the stars away in heaven “trying” for communism but that’s not what Stalin or Mao were actually interested in achieveing.
Yes, we somehow always get back to those 5%. I wonder why? ;)

There were also lives lost in the American and French Revolution. [Counter] Revolutions cause violence (go read The Furies by Mayer) not communism.
Ahem. Most people in USSR died after the end of the civil war, during the collectivisation, purges and forced deportations.

Communist/socialist parties that have resisted using violence have held varying degrees of power across the world from the 1929 Great Strike in Britain to the contemporary field of Italian parliamentary democracy. Many non-violent red movements have achieved power, most of the world was run by social democracies one way or another since the late nineteenth century.
1) They did not turn their states into communist states.

2) I fail to see why you consider the Social Democrats as communists?

Only the factions of the French Revolution that advocated violence stayed in power, the Nazis acquired power through violence, as did the British Monarchy in the civil war and the American Revolutionaries. Do you see the link? Violence in politically transitory states dictates which side wins regardless of ideology.
Tzarist Russia and Imperial China were transitory states?

No it doesn’t except we’re talking about generic communism which unlike fascism has never advocated brutality and violence as a core ideology. Again this is about the general concept of communism and how it defines itself. Not political point scoring in the void of the online forum.
I keep seeing this oppinion, but I really can't understand how people came to belive that Fascism or Nazism officially and openly advocated mass murders. That's simply incorrect. Of course, in reality they proved to be repressive regimes, but we can say the same about Communism.


Again you’re relying on real world situational examples rather then focusing on the actual point of discussion. ‘what is ‘communism’' not ‘what is X (Russian, Chinese, Cuban, European etc) communism’. You yourself indicate communism must never have existed (see your first answer) so to make these kind of points derived from real world experiences is a moot one. Second of all I won’t believe you until you demonstrate a convincing argument based on communist ideology not examples from the tangible world since that is not what this thread is about.

Now where is YOUR proof? Telling me what you personally think is not the same a the provision of verifiable academic or tangible examples on the nature of the human condition. If you want to argue theory then by all means do but don’t try and make an argument based on something empirical like evolutionary development without backing evidence beyond your opinion.
I'm too lazy to do it. Anyway, if practical evidence is not enough for you, I don't think a theoretical explanation will be.

Well as a living-breathing hunter-gatherer yourself I suppose you are the most obvious authority on the subject.
Look it up. You'll be surprised.

Did I just use the word rubbish?

I'm afraid so. Just keep taking the tablets, and it will clear up ... eventually.

Just a few collected thoughts:

Communism can be a police state/totalitarianism. Many arguments are based on why democratic communism wouldn't work, something I can agree is possible. However, why can't totalitarian communism work?

Infact, lets look at, say the CCCP. Did many people die? Yes, but were the numbers that horrid after, say, 1955?

Communism brought russia into the industrial age. Which brings me to another point. Russia(I mean the USSR/CCCP, but I'm too lazy to write that, so just assume I mean one and the same here) was doing better and better economically, as time passed...

Extreme warfare and military spending can make economic troubles for any system. France, before the revolution, was spending obscene amounts on military, and it wasn't doing very well economically. It wasn't communist, though.

My point is, russia was trying to compete with the economic superpower of the world in military spending, and bankrupted doing it. It wasn't a failure of economics, on the national level. There weren't hordes of people not working, cheating the system into bankrupcy. Government spending simply was misappropriated. But the fact that even managed to keep up for so long, should be a testament if anything.

With computers, government control over the economy should get easier and easier. The government can track what needs more people, what needs less, who has what qualifications, and at least in a broad sense, figure out who has good potential for a job.

Also, innovation. The CCCP was innovative with space flight, it was innovative in certain military fields. Why couldn't a nation like the CCCP focus on internal affairs instead of real politik, and do the same thing with civilian products, etc? Hell, someone mentioned in the same post, that communism wouldn't innovate, and yet people want innovation for better things. If people want these things, they will innovate them. I look at modding for video games as a prime example. Most people don't get paid for this. They do it for enjoyment, for themselves and others. For things that the people want, there would likely be an impetus to create it, simply to have it.

Finally, its hard to listen to people who are americans(one of the most competitive nations on the planet) and living in a capitalist system(where we are conditioned to compete for money, and to be greedy), argue against altruism, when the opposite is ingrained in our lives so deeply.

I think of something I actually experienced in class, today. For our final in english, we played a game. Groups of people got together, and were nations. Basically, everyone could declare war or peace in time periods. There were rules, I don't feel like totally getting into it, but you got money for going to war, and the other people lost money when they were attacked. Also, if nobody declared war, everybody would gain money that turn. One group declared war in the very beginning, and it turned into a bunch of revenge attacks, etc, for the next 4 or so turns(people weren't allowed to congregate at the beginning).

Then, the teacher allowed every country to have one person each congregate in private. I watched, and while at first they were making alliances, etc, they finally thought about it, and realized if they all stopped being so greedy, they could all just keep making money by not being greedy, and helping each other, for if anyone declared war, every nation would declare war on them.

Until the game ended, everyone just kept declaring peace, and getting cash.

This is a public highschool. These people, not very bright as a whole imho, were able to decide on altruism over greed, because they could all prosper by helping each other out.

This gives me hope for communism, if nothing else.

Sorry, but these arguments leave me unconvinced. As Disraeliland said, many of us anti-communists tend to have a better understanding of the ideology than its proponents. Also, has he pointed out, Communism is non-feasible in reality. Indeed, a better understanding of Communism would help most. Personally, I'll stick to minarchism though.

Sorry, but these arguments leave me unconvinced. As Disraeliland said, many of us anti-communists tend to have a better understanding of the ideology than its proponents. Also, has he pointed out, Communism is non-feasible in reality. Indeed, a better understanding of Communism would help most. Personally, I'll stick to minarchism though.

Better understanding of its detractions, sure. But isn't that common, in general? Communists probably spend more time learning about the detractions of capitalism, atheists against religion, etc. Its not always true, but in many cases, seems to be so.

Doesn't make either party right. I think most people are overinflating their ego, claiming that communism is either impossible or unavoidable. Can't we just leave it as a possibility, and argue how likely or unlikely it is? Can you absolutely rule it out, or conversly, rule that it will be eventually, no matter what?

Better understanding of its detractions, sure. But isn't that common, in general? Communists probably spend more time learning about the detractions of capitalism, atheists against religion, etc. Its not always true, but in many cases, seems to be so.
Both the detractions and the principles. Likewise, too many Capitalists are unaware of their own ideology's theories and proper workings. I aim not to be one of those, and perhaps reach Disraeliland's level of knowledge on the matter.

Doesn't make either party right. I think most people are overinflating their ego, claiming that communism is either impossible or unavoidable. Can't we just leave it as a possibility, and argue how likely or unlikely it is? Can you absolutely rule it out, or conversly, rule that it will be eventually, no matter what?
I'm not dogmatic in my outlook, but suffice to say, I will not be turning Communist any time in my life. I don't believe in the ideology. If it happens, then it happens, and I'll be quite surprised. I only see this happening in some distant, utopian future though, where either society has regressed to its more base forms, or scarcity has been eliminated entirely and humans have changed somehow in their nature. Even then, I don't see this as certainty. Capitalism may remain the dominant economic system, even with non-scarcity. Anarcho-capitalism, indeed, may be the utopia that arises. Or even a Platonic-style oligarchy.

3. the soviet union and communist china are/were not communist. they were socialist with a totalitarian governmental structure. they were not communist.

4. the atrocities attributed to communism - Mao, Stalin, Pot - were indeed awful, but were not a tenet of communism itself but of the totalitarian and militaristic political governmental structures used in those reigimes.

5. there are many communist ideologies, greatly differing in both intent (specifics about the end result) and method of achieving it. some of these ideologies condone - or even require - the mass murdering of people/bourgeois (as noted above), but not all. not all communism is inherently evil in this sense. it is a matter of governmental system, and not the core economic ideology, that can lead to arguably evil actions in persuit of the ideology.

6. communism is not facism. the central tenet of communism is to have a just socity by fairness of outcome, achieved by redistribution of wealth and income. this is not the case in facism. while the two share some core principles such as popularism and a shift of focus from the individual to the state, they are not the same. during world war two, the facist states of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy had state control over the means of production. this is one of the ways it is easy to confuse the two ideologies, as state production is not part of facism but simply the reality of the period of total war in which these particular states existed.
indeed, it is not necessarily true that state production need be a part of communism (in some communist ideologies).

7. communism is not a doctrine for the lazy. some may cheat the system by refusing to work, but that is also the case in other economic systems. only in a non-welfare state would this problem be removed, but only at the expense of quality of life and justice for the poor of society.
this is often used as a primary arguement against communism, misunderstanding that the primary goal of communism, as stated below, is not for economic growth or profit, making this attack moot (to an extent)

8. the incentive to work in communism is not personal gain or profit. in communist thinking, human nature is argued to be malleable, and it can be argued that greed is a result of capitalism itself, or at least simply currently a characteristic of most people that need not be. to construct a system whereby greed is not an issue would be to allow for a fairer society, and would mean that benefiting all people (the state) could become the primary motivator of people. (there is an issue of chicken-or-the-egg here).

On this topic, LazyHippies once wrote "People are not naturally lazy, people naturally seek fulfillment and purpose, being productive helps fill that natural need. Money is an artificial desire that has absolutely nothing to do with human nature. If people's only motivation in life were money, humanity would not predate money, yet it does. Money is an artificial need. The desire to be productive is the real nature of humanity."




these are just some thoughts i had and some common misconceptions i've witnessed. i'll probably get flamed or told i'm wrong in some areas, but this isn't a discussion of the merits or demerits of communism... just trying to set the record straight a little.
i'm open to editing in comments, corrections, and/or additions :)

ps: thanks to my little helper :D :fluffle:

umm I don't know all that much, but I think you got socialism and communism mixed.

Socialism from what I gathered is designed to mix n match with other political systems. Russia and China are/were communist. And Communism is a strict, not to mention fascist system.

Both the detractions and the principles. Likewise, too many Capitalists are unaware of their own ideology's theories and proper workings. I aim not to be one of those, and perhaps reach Disraeliland's level of knowledge on the matter.


I'm not dogmatic in my outlook, but suffice to say, I will not be turning Communist any time in my life. I don't believe in the ideology. If it happens, then it happens, and I'll be quite surprised. I only see this happening in some distant, utopian future though, where either society has regressed to its more base forms, or scarcity has been eliminated entirely and humans have changed somehow in their nature. Even then, I don't see this as certainty. Capitalism may remain the dominant economic system, even with non-scarcity. Anarcho-capitalism may be the utopia that arises. Or even a Platonic-style oligarchy.

Can we simply agree that most people don't know what the hell they are talking about? :P

And to get that out of you is an accomplishment, in my eyes at least. I rarely try to convince people of things on these forums; simply to get them to open their eyes and look at things in a different light.

Communism is a strict, not to mention fascist system.

Communism is an economic system. If you believe it leads to a certain type of governence system, thats fine, but communism is an economic system, not a governmental one.

Can we simply agree that most people don't know what the hell they are talking about? :P
Well that's a given, almost.

And to get that out of you is an accomplishment, in my eyes at least. I rarely try to convince people of things on these forums; simply to get them to open their eyes and look at things in a different light.
I'm fairly open-minded as it is. I find dogmatism to be a hindrance. I see Capitalism as the best and most rational economic system, and I doubt anything else will ever replace it, successfully in any event. Yet, like I said, that is by no means an absolute certainty.

I'm fairly open-minded as it is. I find dogmatism to be a hindrance. I see Capitalism as the best and most rational economic system, and I doubt anything else will ever replace it, successfully in any event. Yet, like I said, that is by no means an absolute certainty.

And if only everyone in the world were like you, finding what they believed was the best choice, after knowing well about the other choice/s, it would be such a better world...

Extreme warfare and military spending can make economic troubles for any system. France, before the revolution, was spending obscene amounts on military, and it wasn't doing very well economically. It wasn't communist, though.

Guns or butter is a choice only socialists have to make. While the Soviet Union was choosing guns over butter, the United States had the highest standard of living in the world, and forces mighty enough to defeat the USSR.

In any case, you are revealing a basic flaw in communism, namely the inability of communists to make a rational allocation of capital, brought on by the lack of a real price system.

There weren't hordes of people not working, cheating the system into bankrupcy.

The Russians used to say "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us", everyone slacked off in Russia. That is inevitable without the disclipline of a market (and the disclipline of a police state is a poor substitute). Blackmarketeering was rife in the Soviet Union, as it tends to be under socialism. The destruction of the price system brings economic chaos, and that is where black markets come to the fore.

Government spending simply was misappropriated. But the fact that even managed to keep up for so long, should be a testament if anything.

Government spending could never be properly appropriated, and they managed to keep it us because they kept being baled out, or they simply stole from their colonies, sorry, partners.

With computers, government control over the economy should get easier and easier. The government can track what needs more people, what needs less, who has what qualifications, and at least in a broad sense, figure out who has good potential for a job.

No, without a price system, any amount of computing will simply produce crap. It is one of the oldest phrases in computing, "If you put rubbish in, you will get rubbish out".

Also, innovation. The CCCP was innovative with space flight, it was innovative in certain military fields.

Not even the Russians believed that. They invented nothing, they worked from what others had done (in space flight, mainly the Germans).

Why couldn't a nation like the CCCP focus on internal affairs instead of real politik, and do the same thing with civilian products, etc?

Because when you've an economy which is run solely on political preferences, you can never get anything right. They couldn't even make enough bread to feed everyone. In capitalism, the problem is not how do you get bread, it is which type of bread do you want?

Finally, its hard to listen to people who are americans(one of the most competitive nations on the planet) and living in a capitalist system(where we are conditioned to compete for money, and to be greedy), argue against altruism, when the opposite is ingrained in our lives so deeply.

Altruism? It is a self-deception. People have, and advance what they believe to be in their best interests.

Until the game ended, everyone just kept declaring peace, and getting cash.

This is a public highschool. These people, not very bright as a whole imho, were able to decide on altruism over greed, because they could all prosper by helping each other out.

They worked out what would mean more cash, and that is the triumph of altrusim over greed?

Actually, you have demonstrated capitalism rather than communism, because capitalism is, at its simplest, voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit.

Communism is none of these things. It is, at its simplest, slavery.

This gives me hope for communism, if nothing else.

They, motivated by greed, found the best way to prosper. That gives hope for the free market.

Hey PM, can you give any examples of communist states in history that fit your criteria?

I can, but it's in 'future history'.

The United Federation of Planets. i.e. Star Trek

Would you want totalitarian communism to work? Totalitarianism when it is in place tends to lead to negative consequences for its people and corruption. Totalitarian communism would be as likely to be flawed as totalitarian fascism, and perhaps just as bad for its citizens.

Well, really I don't have data after 1955. I do remember one stat stating that at one point the number 1 death in the Soviet Union was from televisions setting houses on fire. Either there weren't a lot of deaths from other sources or those were some crappy televisions, I tend to think the latter.

A testament? To what? The ability of a totalitarian system to force itself forward? A totalitarian system can keep on going forward no matter what the conditions are, there are no safeguards to keep leaders from doing anything stupid. What you say about communism would probably hold just as true about fascism or any other system that is the result of powerful leaders and lacking freedoms.

Computers do not eliminate bureacracy. All you are saying is that you want a government that will micro-manage the economy and become a more dominating force in our lives than ever before. This will not lead to more efficiency, the reason being that people have to run those computers as well, errors and flaws in the system could easily continue and grow to great proportions without being addressed, at the very least you would have to deal with some very talented hackers who would try to crash the system. As well, the idea sounds very orwellian, a state with such power is likely to abuse such power for its own means. I mean, that you would have almost total control over consumer choice and little incentive to appeal to the consumers, not only that but really, with such micro-management who is to say that they don't start having arranged marriages to reduce genetic defects just to save money on health costs? A system like that has too much about it that could be abused.

The reason that the CCCP was innovative with spaceflight is because they immediately devoted all of their resources to rocketry. It is not a sign of efficiency or effectiveness considering that America had growth in many varied fields during that time and was able to increase the standard of living of its people and still do well technologically. They are right though, communism would lack innovation. You are comparing the simple act of modding to actually getting a large group together to design the program. Making a mod is not the easiest thing but it is relatively easy. However, I tend to doubt that a group of people would get together to form their own rocket science group or anything like that. Some innovation will always occur given the right tools, however, capitalism creates more innovation by giving it incentive. The programmers that create the actual programs are employees, the engineers that improve upon cell-phones are employees as well. They are not necessarily there because of a love of their craft but rather an ability and willingness to do this. I know many people going into the field of engineering, future innovators and the like but most of them are doing so out of their desire for a better life, not because of their great love of the field, not saying that they hate it but that most people don't like taking on all of the hard work for funsies. Capitalism encourages people to innovate because innovation pays well and the wealth is desirable because it can be made into so many things.

That game in english is not a lesson lost on people who study oligopolies. All you are describing is game theory and if you have many players it becomes one of the driving forces of capitalism: competition. Capitalism works BECAUSE of what you have described. As corporations war and compete with each other they drive prices down in order to get more people to buy their product compared to their competitors. This hurts the corporations in terms of profit but helps every consumer in terms of buying their products and leads to overall efficiency. Certainly though businesses do come to your conclusion that it is better to work together and they all profit by doing so, but what they do is they create a monopoly that drains workers of their money by charging high prices for their products. Cooperation to get more profit hurts the economy in that sense. Truly though what you are describing is not altruism over greed, it is recognition that stable relations are better to satisfy greed. It is a reason why trade tends to reduce the chances of war with a nation as by doing so you hurt your own profits. Self-interest is a dominant driving force, people do things because of the benefits given to them and we need a system that gives them benefits for doing societally beneficial acts and there we have capitalism. One can be an altruist and a capitalist, those people are called philanthropists and one can be a selfish hedonist and a capitalist as well, but both ways they still end up having to benefit society.

Communism is an economic system. If you believe it leads to a certain type of governence system, thats fine, but communism is an economic system, not a governmental one.

The socialist phase of which Marx speaks does not explicitly say it, but it necessitates a totalitarian state, especially his point about seizing the peoperty of emigrants and rebels.

By rebels, I don't think he meant people like insurgents, or guerillas, as they, already being violent criminals would be imprisoned or executed. To specify rebels, he means those who simply oppose the state.

As for emigrants, look up the Berlin Wall.

Even if one doesn't start that way, one must end that way, either that or give up.

This latter point marks the main difference between communists and democratic socialists, when democratic socialists fail, they will allow themselves to be removed through the constitutional means appropriate (elections mainly).

Guns or butter is a choice only socialists have to make. While the Soviet Union was choosing guns over butter, the United States had the highest standard of living in the world, and forces mighty enough to defeat the USSR.

In any case, you are revealing a basic flaw in communism, namely the inability of communists to make a rational allocation of capital, brought on by the lack of a real price system.

Hardly. The United states had already gone through the industrial revolution, lived in a land of natural abundance, and had little to worry about, in defense of its homeland. The USSR, on the other hand, was still a feudal country in 1910, and managing to compete with the US is a grand achievement in its own right.

I havn't revealed any flaw, really. Yes, the CCCP didn't allocate capital well. I fail to see how this means no communists can distribute goods correctly. With the rise of technology and computers, etc, it should become easier and easier to figure out what people need the most, and when those goods are fulfilled, what goods are most wanted with extra capital.

The Russians used to say "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us", everyone slacked off in Russia. That is inevitable without the disclipline of a market (and the disclipline of a police state is a poor substitute). Blackmarketeering was rife in the Soviet Union, as it tends to be under socialism. The destruction of the price system brings economic chaos, and that is where black markets come to the fore.

I really don't care for some anedoctal quote. I look at the USSR, and see how well it did, considering its consideration. I see how it did prosper, compared to nations in similar straits. I see how it actually was able to compete with the US, despite being incredibly war torn from two world wars, and not having a good starting place.

If it had chosen butter over guns, then I see no reason why it wouldn't have prospered. It was doing fine, just with a bad allocation of resources, which lead to slow death.

Government spending could never be properly appropriated, and they managed to keep it us because they kept being baled out, or they simply stole from their colonies, sorry, partners.

Because their "colonies" were so rich and prosperous? I might be misinterpreting what you're writing, its hard to tell with some of your spelling. Still, everything I've seen has shown that the USSR was doing well, economically, the allocation of resources being what screwed them over.

No, without a price system, any amount of computing will simply produce crap. It is one of the oldest phrases in computing, "If you put rubbish in, you will get rubbish out".

More anedoctal quotes. I fail to see the need for a price system, I'd be more than happy to hear your explanation for it. I fail to see whats so hard about finding out the nessecities for people. The people work, and the government provides them with food, a place to live, clothing, etc. Things that aren't as nessecary, can be made based on how many people need them, or conversly, want them with left-over capital. But again, please tell me why a price system is so incredibly important.

Not even the Russians believed that. They invented nothing, they worked from what others had done (in space flight, mainly the Germans).

Yet they did work on it. The germans didn't create sputnik. They didn't make the life support nessecary for people to actually go into space. Everything comes from something, often from another nation. Doesn't change the fact that the russians were improving technologically, they were innovating things, parts of things if not the entirety.

And Tetris. Who did they steal tetris from? ^_^

Because when you've an economy which is run solely on political preferences, you can never get anything right. They couldn't even make enough bread to feed everyone. In capitalism, the problem is not how do you get bread, it is which type of bread do you want?

I'll be honest, I'm not sure what you are getting at. The best answer I can give, trying to understand what you mean, is again, the USSR was putting too much capital into military goods, etc. If the system had been in a fertile land like america, and there wasn't the huge allocation of capital towards guns, I don't see why they couldn't have allocated enough food, etc to the people.

Altruism? It is a self-deception. People have, and advance what they believe to be in their best interests.

And when people believe altruism to be in their ultimate interests, they can use it. Most likely, a totalitarian state would educate its children with the idea that altruism advances the whole population.

They worked out what would mean more cash, and that is the triumph of altrusim over greed?

They worked out that instead of immediate gains from war, they could all get money by not attacking each other, and instead working together.

Actually, you have demonstrated capitalism rather than communism, because capitalism is, at its simplest, voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit.

Not really. I've demonstrated that people will do whatever they think will help them the most, even if the immediate gains aren't apparent. Long-term altruism over short term greed.

Communism is none of these things. It is, at its simplest, slavery.

Capitalism is at its simplest slavery then too, because those who don't participate in the "voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit" die of starvation, cold, what have you, except for the few people that can manage to be completely self sufficient in all the bare nessecities.

They, motivated by greed, found the best way to prosper. That gives hope for the free market.

They, motivated by a wish to prosper, didn't do the greedy thing by taking money and eliminating opposing nations, but instead what in the long term would allow everyone to prosper by working together. The free market is about competition, altruism is about working together.

If only people would take the effort of reading beyond the 2nd line.

:(
No. The dirty godless commies are bad:upyours:
:p


Seriously though, I think it's a little naive to think that you can bring about something like end-stage communism. The only way that it is possible to live a perfectly utopian life is to live a simple, completely untechnological life as tribal hunter-gatherers. Why? Because that is how we evolved to live, and you're not going to change three million years of evolution in a matter of decades or even centuries.

Seriously though, I think it's a little naive to think that you can bring about something like end-stage communism. The only way that it is possible to live a perfectly utopian life is to live a simple, completely untechnological life as tribal hunter-gatherers. Why? Because that is how we evolved to live, and you're not going to change three million years of evolution in a matter of decades or even centuries.Yeah, Marx was a philosopher during the romantic period and he was also a Hegelian so he created his ideal world and his stark contrasts as well. The idealism being in the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the end stage of communism and the stark divide being between the bourgeois and the proletariat, a divide that is now considered false by many.

Hardly. The United states had already gone through the industrial revolution, lived in a land of natural abundance, and had little to worry about, in defense of its homeland. The USSR, on the other hand, was still a feudal country in 1910, and managing to compete with the US is a grand achievement in its own right.

Russia has a huge wealth of natural resources, mostly untapped, and it could have been very wealthy.

I havn't revealed any flaw, really. Yes, the CCCP didn't allocate capital well. I fail to see how this means no communists can distribute goods correctly. With the rise of technology and computers, etc, it should become easier and easier to figure out what people need the most, and when those goods are fulfilled, what goods are most wanted with extra capital.

You still don't get it. It is not simply a matter of working out what people want (and governments have never shown that they can do this, certainly not with the skill and speed of the free market), capital must be allocated in the proper amounts, in the proper ways, and in the proper places.

The price system allows a comparison of all the ways, and amounts of production.

I really don't care for some anedoctal quote. I look at the USSR, and see how well it did, considering its consideration. I see how it did prosper, compared to nations in similar straits. I see how it actually was able to compete with the US, despite being incredibly war torn from two world wars, and not having a good starting place.

How well it did? Bread lines? The Russian Empire was a net food exporter, the Soviet Union was a food importer.

Japan was destroyed by the war, and got far ahead of Russia. (Before you put this down to aid, remember that aid has achieved little elsewhere)

If it had chosen butter over guns, then I see no reason why it wouldn't have prospered. It was doing fine, just with a bad allocation of resources, which lead to slow death.

It could not have protected itself, or expanded its influence.

That the USSR had to choose guns or butter, while the US could have both shows the inferiority of socialism.

I fail to see the need for a price system, I'd be more than happy to hear your explanation for it.

Ignorance is no excuse for following socialism.

Here is a basic answer:

A free-market system permits the relative scarcities of goods to be brought in line with the demand for them. The system deals not only with the present but also with the future. Without prices, it is inevitable that a good will be either over- or underutilized. There really is no middle ground.

You can't compare 10 bushels of this with 14 bushels of that without prices. The price system informs everyone, producers and consumers.

(Source: http://www.mises.org/story/643)

Here another reading:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/5_1/5_1_1.pdf

Yet they did work on it. The germans didn't create sputnik. They didn't make the life support nessecary for people to actually go into space. Everything comes from something, often from another nation. Doesn't change the fact that the russians were improving technologically, they were innovating things, parts of things if not the entirety.

Sputnik was a combination of different technologies which had already been invented, without German research, Sputnik would have been impossible.

The life support had largely been invented already. They took it a step further (in that previous life support research was about high altitudes, rather than space)

You have to realise the difference between invention, and combination of existing technologies.

They did not show themselves innovative.

And Tetris. Who did they steal tetris from? ^_^

Wow, they created a game. That surely is not your argument? That they're innovators because they can create a game.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure what you are getting at. The best answer I can give, trying to understand what you mean, is again, the USSR was putting too much capital into military goods, etc. If the system had been in a fertile land like america, and there wasn't the huge allocation of capital towards guns, I don't see why they couldn't have allocated enough food, etc to the people.

Communists could never properly allocate capital because the necessary information cannot be obtained without the price system. If you're going to criticise capitalism, at least learn about it. (Is that not what you commies keep telling us to do?)

And when people believe altruism to be in their ultimate interests, they can use it. Most likely, a totalitarian state would educate its children with the idea that altruism advances the whole population.

You've just proven me right. People taking actions that appear altruistic because they see them as being in their interests shows self-interest at work.

They worked out that instead of immediate gains from war, they could all get money by not attacking each other, and instead working together.

Which, as I said, is evidence for the free market. The free market will tend to favour people who are more rational, more intelligent.

Not really. I've demonstrated that people will do whatever they think will help them the most, even if the immediate gains aren't apparent. Long-term altruism over short term greed.

But they weren't being altrusitic, they were being greedy, they sought the maximum for themselves.

That their considerations were more long term than short term merely indicates greater wisdom, not altrusim.

Capitalism is at its simplest slavery then too, because those who don't participate in the "voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit" die of starvation, cold, what have you, except for the few people that can manage to be completely self sufficient in all the bare nessecities.

What you've said is a contradiction, because their participation is dependent on their seeing benefit.

They, motivated by a wish to prosper, didn't do the greedy thing by taking money and eliminating opposing nations, but instead what in the long term would allow everyone to prosper by working together. The free market is about competition, altruism is about working together.

No, altrusim is about putting the interests of others before oneself, which is self-deception because it is impossible to do that.

Competition is about choosing the best people to work with. People compete for your willing cooperation.

I can, but it's in 'future history'.

The United Federation of Planets. i.e. Star Trek
another reason why i love star trek so much :p

SNIP



Bravo Sierra.

Communism is just another bogus-construction which has historically failed to compete with Market Economy.

No bulldusting around - just shove the more troublesome proponents of that crap straight into the looneybin.

Unsuccesful experimentation with that has led to more deaths in the 20th century than Hitler and the Kaiser combined.

3. the soviet union and communist china are/were not communist. they were socialist with a totalitarian governmental structure. they were not communist.


They're socialist now?

edit: I'll try and post a full response to your opening snippet later PM. Look forward to a Marxist analysis of your take on Marxism.

No, he can't, because a pure communist state has never existed, nor will it ever.

The same can be said for Fascism. Fascism is also a very good idea, with thick layers of socialism in its system. Unfortunately it got a very bad reputation because the only well known Fascist states (Mussolini's Italy, and I suppose Hitler's Germany as well) decided to try and take over Europe. Although I thoroughly dislike communism, it is more similar to Fascism than people think. Fascism has enough socialism in it to ensure that no-one is left behind, but enough capitalism in it for the country to be successful and rich; and not collapse in on itself like the Soviet Union. I would be interested to see how a modern Fascist state works. Unfortunately everyone seems to hate dictatorships because they also have a bad reputation, and i'm sure the West would come and "save" the people should a Fascist state arise.

Thanks for a great post, PM! Just a couple of points.

1. communism is an alternate economic structure, on which any other political or governmental structure may be used. a democratic communist state is just as feasable as a democratic capitalist state.

Technically, the achievement of communism is often thought to parallel a political evolution towards direct democracy, and to accompany the withering away of the (socialist) State. By that definition, a communist dictatorship would be a contradiction in terms. You can have a socialist dictatorship, but not a communist one.


8. the incentive to work in communism is not personal gain or profit. in communist thinking, human nature is argued to be malleable, and it can be argued that greed is a result of capitalism itself, or at least simply currently a characteristic of most people that need not be. to construct a system whereby greed is not an issue would be to allow for a fairer society, and would mean that benefiting all people (the state) could become the primary motivator of people. (there is an issue of chicken-or-the-egg here).

On this topic, LazyHippies once wrote "People are not naturally lazy, people naturally seek fulfillment and purpose, being productive helps fill that natural need. Money is an artificial desire that has absolutely nothing to do with human nature. If people's only motivation in life were money, humanity would not predate money, yet it does. Money is an artificial need. The desire to be productive is the real nature of humanity."


Quite so. People often mistakenly believe that the Western emphasis on selfish greed is both natural and universal. It is neither, as they would know if they knew a little about non-Western societies.

That means human beings by exstension want power, resources etc. This is human nature, the law of the jungle. Human society needs to reflect human being want to dominate one another.

In a system when all are equal a human being's life is hopeless. He cannot improve himself or his family. He will die in the same state allocated hole he was born in. He will not work harder to better the collective, for he does not gain the rewards of his own labour but that of the many. Any extra effort will be sollowed by his comrades. He is without morals, without God without hope.

Wrong. Your post shows definite ignorance of non-Western societies. Most societies (in Africa, Asia and the Pacific) traditionally place the collective above the individual. I'm no expert on Asia or Africa, sadly, but I do know a fair bit about Pacific societies. There the emphasis is on the sharing of ressources - not as bartering, but as free reciprocal gifts. The individual is not the centre; he or she is defined by hs/her relation to the group. Your comment on "human nature" is founded on a false, ignorant premise. The notion that individual selfishness should be paramount and encouraged is an artificial construct of Western societies.

Thanks for a great post, PM! Just a couple of points.

hehe my pleasure :)


Technically, the achievement of communism is often thought to parallel a political evolution towards direct democracy, and to accompany the withering away of the (socialist) State. By that definition, a communist dictatorship would be a contradiction in terms. You can have a socialist dictatorship, but not a communist one.

ok, good point. shall i edit it in?


Quite so. People often mistakenly believe that the Western emphasis on selfish greed is both natural and universal. It is neither, as they would know if they knew a little about non-Western societies.
and if they stopped to examine themselves and their behaviour, rather than accepting things at face-value *nods*

umm I don't know all that much, but I think you got socialism and communism mixed.

Socialism from what I gathered is designed to mix n match with other political systems. Russia and China are/were communist. And Communism is a strict, not to mention fascist system.

No. You're confused. In Marxist theory, there are four stages in human society. Feudalism, capitalism (what we have at present in the West), socialism (in which there is still a State, but radical economic changes), and communism (in which humans have evolved to such a point that the State has withered away). The Soviet Union and China never made it past socialism (and China has now reverted to a form of capitalism). Vietnam and Cuba today both label themselves socialist, in accordance with Marxist theory (although Vietnam is also moving more towards capitalism than communism).

Communism is an economic theory, but most often thought to be compatible only with a form of direct democracy. Why? Because communism can only be achieved through the evolution of mankind's way of thinking. Communism is only sustainable once humans have rejected the notions of greed, profit and selfishness.

I hope that clears things up for you. If you're going to talk about communism, you need to understand what it means.

ok, good point. shall i edit it in?


It's your post. ;) But yes, I would.


and if they stopped to examine themselves and their behaviour, rather than accepting things at face-value *nods*

Indeed. Most people seem unable to grasp that their way of life is not the only one imaginable, and that it is not natural or universal.

Technically, the achievement of communism is often thought to parallel a political evolution towards direct democracy, and to accompany the withering away of the (socialist) State. By that definition, a communist dictatorship would be a contradiction in terms. You can have a socialist dictatorship, but not a communist one.

Marx advocated a dictatorship in the socialist transition phase, and this is yet another point at which Marx and the real world diverge.

This parallel evolution towards direct democracy cannot happen because the state is controlled by men who like being in power. State will tend to be equated with nation, and therefore those controlling the socialist state will be able to call upon the loyalties of the soldiers etc.

They will not allow their power to wither away, they will try to maintain it no matter what the cost.


Needless to say that the withering away of which you speak can only occur with the economic success of socialism. That is impossible.

There the emphasis is on the sharing of ressources - not as bartering, but as free reciprocal gifts.

That is sophistry, what is the direct exchange of things, but barter? I give you something you want, and you give me something I want.

Most societies (in Africa, Asia and the Pacific) traditionally place the collective above the individual.

And look at how they live, starving, uneducated, dying from diseases we wiped out decades ago.

Once you peel away all this "noble savage" BS, you find that life is "nasty, brutish, and short".

That is sophistry, what is the direct exchange of things, but barter? I give you something you want, and you give me something I want.


The difference is fundamental: it is not perceived as barter by those who engage in it. Also (but less importantly) barter implies that you know (and agree to) what you'll get in exchange for what you're giving away.


And look at how they live, starving, uneducated, dying from diseases we wiped out decades ago.


I think the Japanese, Koreans, most Asians and all Pacific Islanders would beg to differ. Also, Africans' soco-economic system pre-dates colonisation. They were definitely not starving back then, nor were they uneducated.


Once you peel away all this "noble savage" BS, you find that life is "nasty, brutish, and short".

Again your ignorance shows. Go and spend a few months in an Asian or Pacific Island country, and tell me what you find there. You'll be surprised.

marxism's principal shortcomming is that it appears to have proven an inadiquite counter to the machiavilian machinations of trying to make everything have to begin and end with little green pieces of paper.

that and that it is after all, just another damd idiology, and are idiologies, of any flavour, what we really need?

communitsm is?

1 - the scourage of freedom everywhere?

2 - the work of 'the devil'?

3 - the last best hope for humanity?

4 - just another damd idiology?

there are good things about it. although the best may be merely that it is not capitolism.

but in my 'final' analisys, i'm sorry but i see it principly as number four; just another damd idiology.

indiginous cultures everywhere got along just fine for ten if not tens, of thousands of years, before anyone ever heard of communism OR capitolsim.

we would do better to study and learn from how they did, then to merely expect replacing one idiology with another to be any kind of panacea.

just as the shift from communism to capitolsim has chainged little more then the names and faces where it has occured, likewise no more of value is likely to come of the equivelant shift in the opposite direction.

heavin is any place where no one robbs anyone else of their calmness. hell is any place where they do. one idiology is niether more nor less of an illigitimate excuse for doing so then another.

=^^=
.../\...

The difference is fundamental: it is not perceived as barter by those who engage in it. Also (but less importantly) barter implies that you know (and agree to) what you'll get in exchange for what you're giving away.

If it is perceived as an albino chicken singing "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm OK" in Martin Place, it is still barter.

If they don't know what they are getting in exchange for what they offer, they are stupid. No rational person makes such a deal.

I think the Japanese, Koreans, most Asians and all Pacific Islanders would beg to differ. Also, Africans' soco-economic system pre-dates colonisation. They were definitely not starving back then, nor were they uneducated.

The Japanese and Koreans (or at least those Koreans who are allowed to) have the same economic system as we.

The Pacific Islands are hardly a shining example.

Africa is in devastation, and before colonisation, they were at the stone age level, and had been there for a damned long time.

They have used social structures and family pressure to suppress individualism, and have suffered for it.

Again your ignorance shows. Go and spend a few months in an Asian or Pacific Island country, and tell me what you find there. You'll be surprised.

Their life expectencies are far less than those in the West, they are going nowhere fast, and they are still trying to deal with diseases unheard of in decades in the West.

Face it, the noble savage is a myth.

You know, I'm really freaking sick of people insisting that China and the USSR weren't communist countries. Look, they WERE, okay? Quit with the "no True Scotsman" bullshit, and just deal with it. If any modern nation counts as capitalist, then those countries count as communist. Sure, they weren't perfect examples, but that's because no real-world country is going to perfectly embody any theoretical model.

Bravo Sierra.

Communism is just another bogus-construction which has historically failed to compete with Market Economy.

No bulldusting around - just shove the more troublesome proponents of that crap straight into the looneybin.

Unsuccesful experimentation with that has led to more deaths in the 20th century than Hitler and the Kaiser combined.

The problem is that this new generation seems to think communism/socialism will lead us to world peace.
I'm freightened what they will do to the world.

If people's only motivation in life were money, humanity would not predate money, yet it does. Money is an artificial need. The desire to be productive is the real nature of humanity."[/I]

Productive humanity on a grand scale does not predate money.

The reason the USSR couldn't keep up was because its productivity was so low compared to Western nations.

If it is perceived as an albino chicken singing "I'm a
lumberjack, and I'm OK" in Martin Place, it is still barter.


No, it isn't. The concept of barter is absent from those societies. Barter implies that you intend to do barter. They don't.


If they don't know what they are getting in exchange for what they offer, they are stupid. No rational person makes such a deal.


Your narrow-minded cultural ignorance shows again. For centuries they've had a system that works a lot better than ours (in some ways at least; not in all, granted). You know nothing about the underlying principles of Pacific Island gift economies... and yet you call them stupid? It's a well worked-out system that functions perfectly well, if only because nobody would dream of cheating others through low value reciprocal gifting. There's a lot of prestige involved in giving sumptuous gifts. Anyone who would short-change someone would be looked down upon and shunned by society.

But I suppose it's easier for you to cling to your ignorance and pretend you actually know what you're talking about.


The Pacific Islands are hardly a shining example.


Oh, this should be interesting... Pray, do elaborate.


Africa is in devastation, and before colonisation, they were at the stone age level, and had been there for a damned long time.


And? So were Australian Aboriginals. For the most part, they were a lot better off then than they are now. I'll grant you that technological underdevelopment has its definite downsides (such as, generally, a fairly low life expectancy), but if you had ever bothered to gain a more in depth knowledge of the societies you so easily dismiss, you'd realise the situation is a lot more complicated than you would like it to be.

Tell me, how much do you know about pre-colonial Africa or Australia? Their political, social and economic systems? Their beliefs and customs and ways of life? Their education system, land use system and knowledge?


They have used social structures and family pressure to suppress individualism, and have suffered for it.


Wrong again. I challenge you to show me any correlation between their emphasis on family and group identity, and "suffering". They haven't "suppressed" individualism, because (except, one assumes, in rare cases), individualism would have been an alien concept to them. Once more you're considering that the Western notion of individualism, which is highly culture-specific, is somehow "natural" and universal. It isn't. If anything, it goes against what you find in the rest of the world.


Face it, the noble savage is a myth.

This has got nothing to do with the "noble savage" myth. That myth is a construct of Western perceptions which, like you, were unable to grasp the fundamentals of non-Western societies, and sought to simplify and distort them into concepts a Westerner could understand.

You know, I'm really freaking sick of people insisting that China and the USSR weren't communist countries. Look, they WERE, okay?

No, they weren't. Not by any possible definition of the word "communist".

Just because anti-Soviet "Red scare" Western propaganda has repeated a falsehood over and over again doesn't make it true.

You can go on being ignorant, or you can ask yourself what communism actually means. The Soviet Union was a State-socialist dictatorship.

No, they weren't. Not by any possible definition of the word "communist".

Just because anti-Soviet "Red scare" Western propaganda has repeated a falsehood over and over again doesn't make it true.

You can go on being ignorant, or you can ask yourself what communism actually means. The Soviet Union was a State-socialist dictatorship.
I've done my homework. I know the arguments. And the "debate" is as stupid and pointless as the "debate" over whether or not Mormons get to call themselves Christians. If the US is going to be held up as an example of a "capitalist" country (which it pretty much always is), then those countries get to count as communist countries. Both examples are equally ill-suited examples of their respective models, but who the hell cares?!

I've done my homework. I know the arguments. And the "debate" is as stupid and pointless as the "debate" over whether or not Mormons get to call themselves Christians. If the US is going to be held up as an example of a "capitalist" country (which it pretty much always is), then those countries get to count as communist countries. Both examples are equally ill-suited examples of their respective models, but who the hell cares?!

Then tell me, I prithee, how do you define communism?

You can say that a light grey horse is black; that doesn't make it so.

No, they weren't. Not by any possible definition of the word "communist".

Just because anti-Soviet "Red scare" Western propaganda has repeated a falsehood over and over again doesn't make it true.

You can go on being ignorant, or you can ask yourself what communism actually means. The Soviet Union was a State-socialist dictatorship.

It was attempted communism under huge influence from Marxist ideas. Capitalism happend to put up a good fight and the state had to remain to defend itself and it never achieved its final aim. But that is what Marxism will result in.

No, it isn't. The concept of barter is absent from those societies. Barter implies that you intend to do barter. They don't.

Firstly, you've shown no evidence that the direct exchanges aren't barter. Secondly, exchanging something known for something unknown is clearly not a good exchange.

Your narrow-minded cultural ignorance shows again.

Bollocks.

For centuries they've had a system that works a lot better than ours (in some ways at least; not in all, granted).

Works better? Cobblers! If it worked better, they would have a better standard of living than us.

I suspect what you mean by better is that their reality more closely fits your theories.

You know nothing about the underlying principles of Pacific Island gift economies... and yet you call them stupid?

Exchanging a known good for something unknown is clearly an irrational exchange. What one is giving in exchange is good (it must be, or they would have no reason to believe they would want it), yet they are exchanging it for something unknown.

Would you accept a job offer that went along the lines "turn up, and we'll see what happens"? Surely not.

It's a well worked-out system that functions perfectly well, if only because nobody would dream of cheating others through low value reciprocal gifting.

Horseshit, of course they'd try to cheat.

And? So were Australian Aboriginals. For the most part, they were a lot better off then than they are now. I'll grant you that technological underdevelopment has its definite downsides (such as, generally, a fairly low life expectancy), but if you had ever bothered to gain a more in depth knowledge of the societies you so easily dismiss, you'd realise the situation is a lot more complicated than you would like it to be.

Tell me, how much do you know about pre-colonial Africa or Australia? Their political, social and economic systems? Their beliefs and customs and ways of life? Their education system, land use system and knowledge?

That's an awfully involved way to say "I disagree, therefore you must be stupid/ignorant"

Wrong again. I challenge you to show me any correlation between their emphasis on family and group identity, and "suffering".

Collectivism, both in these tribal settings, and other settings has consistantly displayed bad results.

This has got nothing to do with the "noble savage" myth. That myth is a construct of Western perceptions which, like you, were unable to grasp the fundamentals of non-Western societies, and sought to simplify and distort them into concepts a Westerner could understand.

The "noble savage" myth is your entire argument, that these people, who've not advanced in centuries, live half as long as we, and die of diseases that for us are simply cured or unheard of, live a better way of life than we do.




The very fact that most of what you have said boils down to "your stupid" shows that your arguments are pure balderdash.

If people's only motivation in life were money, humanity would not predate money, yet it does. Money is an artificial need. The desire to be productive is the real nature of humanity.

Money is simply a means of indirect exchange. It is a perfectly natural function of a free market.

"Capitalism makes the wealth, Socialism distributes it, and Communism is what you get at the end"

This is a glaring illustration of the complete ignorance of economics that so many communist theorists suffer from. Wealth is not something that, once created, can be kept and distributed around. Wealth is a continuous process of production. When production is low, wealth will quickly shrink to match - regardless of any previous highly productive system that was in place.

Here is another one:

If people's only motivation in life were money, humanity would not predate money, yet it does. Money is an artificial need. The desire to be productive is the real nature of humanity."

The last sentence is correct, the rest is not. And you also need to add that the desire to consume what we have produced, and to reap the benefits of our productivity is also a part of our nature. So what of money? Money is simply a useful tool that we use to determine the allocation of resources in society. It is only even remotely desirable or useful because it is linked to resources that we have produced as a society, and therefore to our desire to produce and to reap the benefits of that production. It cannot be separated from production.


This thread should be called "communism's (mis)understanding of economics". Or possibly it should be called "communism's (mis)understanding of people," given that we have also heard all the usual stuff about people will one day happily live together in a society where everything they create is shared around voluntarily and happily without any dispute or need for any sort of government. It's pretty ridiculous when you think about it, and you think about all the people that you have met in life, and you try to imagine them living that way.

Firstly, you've shown no evidence that the direct exchanges aren't barter.

Yes, I have.

1) Barter implies an exchange in which both sides agree to grant one another goods or services which are seen to be of equal value. This is not what happens here, since those who give first do not know what they will get in exchange, and since (in some Pacific societies at least) those who grant a reciprocal gift are under strong traditional pressure to give back more than they have received (and consequently do). The cultural onus is on giving, not on receiving. Receiving is a matter of necessity; giving is a matter of prestige, and far more valued.

2) Bartering implies a wish to barter, which is absent from these societies.

3) They aren't direct exchanges. The reciprocal gift may come a long time later.


Secondly, exchanging something known for something unknown is clearly not a good exchange.

I've explained to you in detail why you're wrong. You've conveniently ignored it. Go back and read my previous post; I'm not going to repeat myself. The system has existed for centuries. If it didn't work, it would (d'uh!) have stopped working.


Exchanging a known good for something unknown is clearly an irrational exchange. What one is giving in exchange is good (it must be, or they would have no reason to believe they would want it), yet they are exchanging it for something unknown.


See above.


Horseshit, of course they'd try to cheat.


You may try to, with your background in an individualist, profit-driven, selfishness-encouraging Western society. They do not. I'm sorry if facts inconveniance you, but yet again you're displaying ignorance of the topic you want to discuss.


That's an awfully involved way to say "I disagree, therefore you must be stupid/ignorant"


Indeed. I'm saying that I know what I'm talking about, and you don't.


Collectivism, both in these tribal settings, and other settings has consistantly displayed bad results.


No, it hasn't. It worked well for them for centuries.


these people, who've not advanced in centuries,

Narrow Western perceptions again. Why would they need to "advance"? (Incidentally, their cultures were never entirely static. There was evolution, albeit rather minimal.)


live half as long as we, and die of diseases that for us are simply cured or unheard of

In the context of the Pacific: wrong, and wrong. Parts of Melanesia have got a fairly high rate of disease, yes, but it's an exception rather than the norm. Disease is definitely not a problem in Polynesia, Micronesia and most parts of Melanesia. Neither is life expectancy. The main diseases in Polynesian countries are related to bad eating habits due to the introduction of Western junk food. When the first European explorers reached Polynesia, they commented on the Islanders' excellent health, rating it as far superior to that of Europeans.

Yet again, you don't know what you're talking about.


The very fact that most of what you have said boils down to "your stupid" shows that your arguments are pure balderdash.


My arguments are based on fact. Yours are based on ignorance.

The problem is that this new generation seems to think communism/socialism will lead us to world peace.
I'm freightened what they will do to the world.


Hence, the threat of the looney-bin for the rabid cases.

Then again, my father's generation also thought salvation would come from Marx, but somehow, post-30, those idealists also became predominantly centrists.

No, they weren't. Not by any possible definition of the word "communist".

Just because anti-Soviet "Red scare" Western propaganda has repeated a falsehood over and over again doesn't make it true.

You can go on being ignorant, or you can ask yourself what communism actually means. The Soviet Union was a State-socialist dictatorship.

Yet another No True Scotsman fallacy.

Yet another No True Scotsman fallacy.

Marx did say communism will only happen once capitalism collapses and all the workers of the world unite. Every example of attempted communism has updated marx's ideas to suit themselves and their situation (malicious or not). So I guess we should stick to Marx and sit back and wait for a global depression. Then criticise "true" communism.

1) Barter implies an exchange in which both sides agree to grant one another goods or services which are seen to be of equal value. This is not what happens here, since those who give first do not know what they will get in exchange, and since (in some Pacific societies at least) those who grant a reciprocal gift are under strong traditional pressure to give back more than they have received (and consequently do). The cultural onus is on giving, not on receiving. Receiving is a matter of necessity; giving is a matter of prestige, and far more valued.

That doesn't actually change anything. Dress it up with all sorts of poppycock, and it is simply barter with more stuffing around.

3) They aren't direct exchanges. The reciprocal gift may come a long time later.

You don't even know what "direct exchange" means, and you're blustering on about disagreement with you being ignorance?!

Let me tell you what an indirect exchange is. I sell something for money, I use the money to buy something else. In a direct exchange, take out the money, I give something in exchange for something else.

The "reciprocal gift" stuff is merely stuffing around since, so you tell us (and I don't know whether or not to believe you), I can expect goods in exchange some time later, and social pressures operate to ensure a good gift in exchange.

I've explained to you in detail why you're wrong. You've conveniently ignored it. Go back and read my previous post; I'm not going to repeat myself. The system has existed for centuries. If it didn't work, it would (d'uh!) have stopped working.

"We've always don it this way" has been used to defend innumerable bad ideas.

You may try to, with your background in an individualist, profit-driven, selfishness-encouraging Western society.

I think you've summed up your argument, make as many insults as you can.

No, it hasn't. It worked well for them for centuries

Nonsense.

In the context of the Pacific: wrong, and wrong. Parts of Melanesia have got a fairly high rate of disease, yes, but it's an exception rather than the norm. Disease is definitely not a problem in Polynesia, Micronesia and most parts of Melanesia. Neither is life expectancy. The main diseases in Polynesian countries are related to bad eating habits due to the introduction of Western junk food. When the first European explorers reached Polynesia, they commented on the Islanders' excellent health, rating it as far superior to that of Europeans.

You seem to ignore Africa.

Cherry picking your evidence doesn't advance your arguments (assuming you had an argument)

I knew most of it from before.

And much of it has to do with worthless semanics.

I dislike the way idealist believe they have the right to play lexicons.

It is basically telling people what they should think becouse this how they define it.

While at the same time most idealogies with their definitions have no mutual
definitions.
They just think of themselves.

And still comunism for example encourage the term capitalism which as
best is just a satir of libralism.
At worst it is an abstract generalisation
that have nothing to do with real people who most unfair are put to represent
sometning they doesn't.

While Liberals define socialism as an parody of socialism.
And feminists generalize sexism while very few people
actually stand for sexism as idealogy.

It sucks.
All idealogies are just wothless semanitcs. Just becouse you name it you think you can control it or make up your own psychotic reality.

I could preach about how I define everything according to Satanism but I choose not to becouse I don't like semantics.

I hate the pathetic human misconseption.

That doesn't actually change anything. Dress it up with all sorts of poppycock, and it is simply barter with more stuffing around.


Then obviously we have different definitions of bartering. I maintain that bartering is an economic concept which is meaningless in this context. If you want to make a relevant comment on this topic, you need to be able to project yourself outside your own cultural values. Something which is exceedingly hard for most Westerners to do, it seems.


Let me tell you what an indirect exchange is. I sell something for money, I use the money to buy something else. In a direct exchange, take out the money, I give something in exchange for something else.


Erm... Mea culpa. I wasn't thinking there.


The "reciprocal gift" stuff is merely stuffing around since, so you tell us (and I don't know whether or not to believe you), I can expect goods in exchange some time later, and social pressures operate to ensure a good gift in exchange.


Heh. If you don't believe me, I can give you a list of books on Pacific societies for you to look it up. And yes, that is what I'm saying. I can see the point you're trying to make, and I'll admit it's not absurd. But what you need to understand is that, from their cultural perspective, the gifting is the essence of the process, not mere "stuffing".


"We've always don it this way" has been used to defend innumerable bad ideas.

True. In the West it's been the battle cry of Conservatives defending all sorts of nonsense. But there's nothing fundamentally bad about this idea. (I'm not saying it's perfect either, mind you.)


I think you've summed up your argument, make as many insults as you can.


How very convenient. As I've said, I base my arguments on facts; you do not.


Nonsense.


If you're going to deny reality, this conversation is quickly becoming pointless. For goodness' sake, find out a little more about the topic you're trying to discuss. Or admit that you don't know enough about it to give an educated opinion.


You seem to ignore Africa.


And you seem to be focusing exclusively on post-colonial Africa. Which in itself is a vastly complex topic. I've admitted I don't know enough about Africa to hold up an intelligent debate on the situation there (although I intend to remedy my lack of knowledge as soon as possible). Hence my focus on the Pacific Islands.

All idealogies [sic] are just wothless [sic] semanitcs [sic].

You oppose capitalism? I'm glad to hear it.

1. communism is an alternate economic structure, on which any other political or governmental structure may be used. a democratic communist state is just as feasable as a democratic capitalist state.

Communism is indeed and economic ideology--but communism is also a governmental incarnation of socialism. While democratic socialism may be feasible, no governmental structures are compatible with communism itself, as it is a complete system of government.

Communism

1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

[/QUOTE]2. communism is the end stage of human civilisation's development, as Marx saw it in his theory of historical materialism. to get to this stage, civilisation must progress through from agricultural society, to feudal, to capitalist, socialist, and eventually communism. caplitalism is an integral part of this process.
as once, so very succinctly, put by our own Kanabia: "Capitalism makes the wealth, Socialism distributes it, and Communism is what you get at the end"[/QUOTE]

This is purely theoretical conjecture; it has not been proven or substantiated.

[/QUOTE]3. the soviet union and communist china are/were not communist. they were socialist with a totalitarian governmental structure. they were not communist.[/QUOTE]

No, they were a form of communism. Just like America (sorry, the United States of America) is not truly democratic. The establishment of an authoritarian leadership (this arose from the need to control the nation(s) in the wake of revolution, and was corrupted by human nature) was certainly not what was intended when the idea of communism was first put forth. However, the aims to which each government acceded were indeed communist--the subjugation of wealth for the equal benefit of all (though this was far from perfect).

[/QUOTE]4. the atrocities attributed to communism - Mao, Stalin, Pot - were indeed awful, but were not a tenet of communism itself but of the totalitarian and militaristic political governmental structures used in those reigimes.[/QUOTE]

The atrocities were not necessarily attributed to communism, but to the communist leaders that led each nation (which is basically what you said :))

[/QUOTE]5. there are many communist ideologies, greatly differing in both intent (specifics about the end result) and method of achieving it. some of these ideologies condone - or even require - the mass murdering of people/bourgeois (as noted above), but not all. not all communism is inherently evil in this sense. it is a matter of governmental system, and not the core economic ideology, that can lead to arguably evil actions in persuit of the ideology.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. The implementation of communism is what generates the evil actions perpetrated by the leaders of a communist government in the name of "communism."

[/QUOTE]6. communism is not facism. the central tenet of communism is to have a just socity by fairness of outcome, achieved by redistribution of wealth and income. this is not the case in facism. while the two share some core principles such as popularism and a shift of focus from the individual to the state, they are not the same. during world war two, the facist states of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy had state control over the means of production. this is one of the ways it is easy to confuse the two ideologies, as state production is not part of facism but simply the reality of the period of total war in which these particular states existed.
indeed, it is not necessarily true that state production need be a part of communism (in some communist ideologies).[/QUOTE]

Indeed, Fascism and Communism are diametrically opposed systems of government.

[/QUOTE]7. communism is not a doctrine for the lazy. some may cheat the system by refusing to work, but that is also the case in other economic systems. only in a non-welfare state would this problem be removed, but only at the expense of quality of life and justice for the poor of society.
this is often used as a primary arguement against communism, misunderstanding that the primary goal of communism, as stated below, is not for economic growth or profit, making this attack moot (to an extent)[/QUOTE]

Agreed. This is precisely where the government part of communism steps in--to ensure that all those capable of work, do so.

[/QUOTE]8. the incentive to work in communism is not personal gain or profit. in communist thinking, human nature is argued to be malleable, and it can be argued that greed is a result of capitalism itself, or at least simply currently a characteristic of most people that need not be. to construct a system whereby greed is not an issue would be to allow for a fairer society, and would mean that benefiting all people (the state) could become the primary motivator of people. (there is an issue of chicken-or-the-egg here).[/QUOTE]

Not exactly. Greed is inherent in any human (and therefore, any human ideology). Greed is not the result of capitalism, capitalism is the philosophy of transforming that greed into a productive economic system.

[/QUOTE]On this topic, LazyHippies once wrote "People are not naturally lazy, people naturally seek fulfillment and purpose, being productive helps fill that natural need. Money is an artificial desire that has absolutely nothing to do with human nature. If people's only motivation in life were money, humanity would not predate money, yet it does. Money is an artificial need. The desire to be productive is the real nature of humanity."[/QUOTE]

No argument there :D .

A few final points:
When debating ideal communism, it is understood that, in a perfect world, communism is the perfect ideology. But when debating communism in the real world, one must take into account that an authoritarian system is needed in any society that wishes to prosper under a communist government--unless, of course, the societies (as in the past) are of small enough number for such a system to be effective.
And also remember, to all those extreme pro-capitalist laissez-faire economists who firmly believe in a true free market, in its complete meaning and implication (that is, without government interference whatever): true capitalism is just as dangerous as the authoritarian communist states we have seen in the past. For those familiar with US history, imagination a world where the Rockefellers and the Morgans govern the market, as if old Teddy had never cracked down and implemented government regulation...

No, he can't, because a pure communist state has never existed, nor will it ever.

LIES!

I hereby break free of great britain and establish a pure communist state of My house.

Population 2.
RAWRRAWRRAWR you lose.

Then obviously we have different definitions of bartering. I maintain that bartering is an economic concept which is meaningless in this context. If you want to make a relevant comment on this topic, you need to be able to project yourself outside your own cultural values. Something which is exceedingly hard for most Westerners to do, it seems.

Barter is simply another term for direct exchange.

It is you who are not projecting yourself outside your own values. You take what is a minor variation, and conflate that into an argument that their way is completely different.

The real difference (providing the conventions established are in fact followed) is that the system of barter Westerners understand is more certain, in that exchange occurs when you offer me something you know I want (because I've told you so), and I offer your something I know you want (because you have told me so), although the greater simplicity in material needs would tend to reduce that difference.

Heh. If you don't believe me, I can give you a list of books on Pacific societies for you to look it up. And yes, that is what I'm saying. I can see the point you're trying to make, and I'll admit it's not absurd. But what you need to understand is that, from their cultural perspective, the gifting is the essence of the process, not mere "stuffing".

It is essentially barter. Why they have the extraneous procedures is not really important.

It seems to me that because this is something that has been going on for a very long time that the recripocal gift is hardly suprising, nor that it would be a good gift.

I don't think the essence is in the giving because of the amount of time this has been going on. They might say "oh, what a wonderful suprise", but it is rather like my family giving me books for birthdays and Christmas.

True. In the West it's been the battle cry of Conservatives defending all sorts of nonsense. But there's nothing fundamentally bad about this idea. (I'm not saying it's perfect either, mind you.)

It is irrational. There is a rational variation which goes into transition costs, but I'm not seeing that here.

And you seem to be focusing exclusively on post-colonial Africa. Which in itself is a vastly complex topic. I've admitted I don't know enough about Africa to hold up an intelligent debate on the situation there (although I intend to remedy my lack of knowledge as soon as possible). Hence my focus on the Pacific Islands.

I'm not. They've remained static for centuries, and the real cultural differences revolve around the place of the individual.