NationStates Jolt Archive

I hope you liberal socialists know that, while communism is a wonderfull IDEA. It could never work it is totally aganst human nature.

What is this 'human nature' you speak of and what makes it incompatible with communism?

It's been done into the ground, buddo. (http://www.wickedsunshine.com/WagePeace/Election2004/Images/AwJeez,NotThisShitAgain!.jpg)

while communism is a wonderfull IDEA.

What does it mean to be a "wonderfull idea"?

I hope you liberal socialists know that, while communism is a wonderfull IDEA. It could never work it is totally aganst human nature.
1. "Liberal Socialist" only works as a word in America.

2. Communism is probably the worst idea ever, not wonderfull at all.

3. Atleast here you're correct. It is against human nature and could never work, thank God.

It's been done into the ground, buddo. (http://www.wickedsunshine.com/WagePeace/Election2004/Images/AwJeez,NotThisShitAgain!.jpg)

HUZZAH!

communism is a wonderfull IDEA.

For some.

I hope you liberal socialists know that, while communism is a wonderfull IDEA. It could never work it is totally aganst human nature.

Like Jello B said, what is this human nature that you speak of? People who use the human nature argument utterly fail because they never provide a definition of what human nature is.

In any case, people have a wide range of behavior, ranging from the communistic cooperation of organic societies to the intensely egoistic capitalism of American business schools.

Like Jello B said, what is this human nature that you speak of? People who use the human nature argument utterly fail because they never provide a definition of what human nature is.


So Marx fails then? Since he is always talking about human nature and their inevitable types of civilisations.

I'm fairly sure there's only one "communist" on this board, and I'm pretty sure he's just doing it to wind people up.

So Marx fails then? Since he is always talking about human nature and their inevitable types of civilisations.
Ah, but that's the "good" human nature that makes Communism work, not the "bad" human nature that makes it fail. See the difference?

So Marx fails then? Since he is always talking about human nature and their inevitable types of civilisations.

Marx denied any concrete human nature. He felt that people were totally malleable, and would be made as a complete reflection of their material circumstances.

His position is no more supportable than his adamant opponents who argue their is only one set of human behaviors and one human social structure that represents the whole of human nature.

I feel that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Material conditions certainly shape people, and drive history, but they aren't absolute. There's still room for choice, and no one is completely malleable.

It's been done into the ground, buddo. (http://www.wickedsunshine.com/WagePeace/Election2004/Images/AwJeez,NotThisShitAgain!.jpg)

i wuz gonna post that :P

I'm fairly sure there's only one "communist" on this board, and I'm pretty sure he's just doing it to wind people up.

There's more than one. There is only one Marxist-Leninist (I'm sure that's what you mean by "communist"), but there are plenty of libertarian communists and anarcho-communists.

Marx denied any concrete human nature. He felt that people were totally malleable, and would be made as a complete reflection of their material circumstances.

If this isn't something about human nature, then what is?


His position is no more supportable than his adamant opponents who argue their is only one set of human behaviors and one human social structure that represents the whole of human nature.


I don't think anyone is arguing that there is only one human social structure, just that too many humans are greedy, or least wont work for nothing.


I feel that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Material conditions certainly shape people, and drive history, but they aren't absolute. There's still room for choice, and no one is completely malleable.

I feel that people create their material conditions, and not the other way around, but this is all speculation so.. whatever.

It could never work it is totally aganst human nature.

I've heard that ignorant view so many times, it's getting boring.

WHAT "human nature"? Do you know anything at all about non-Western societies? If human nature is against free and complete sharing of all ressources, against compassion and mutual help, then explain, for example, the inati system of Tokelau, or the traditional sharing principles at work in much of the Pacific.

I've heard that ignorant view so many times, it's getting boring.

WHAT "human nature"? Do you know anything at all about non-Western societies? If human nature is against free and complete sharing of all ressources, against compassion and mutual help, then explain, for example, the inati system of Tokelau, or the traditional sharing principles at work in much of the Pacific.

How on earth does that change anything? Gift economies are just primitive capitalist economies, where currency or coupons have not yet been invented to represent worth, so something with direct worth. In primitive societies, people believe that intangible things like karma have worth, so they work in exchange for it. In communism, work is not rewarded, dustbin men and doctors will get the same treatment.

I think that most people when they assert human nature speak of the fact that humans are seen as having individuality of some amount and the argument is that this individuality and communism are incompatible. Basically it can be summed up like this:

"Most varieties of socialism implicitly assume unanimous agreement on goals. Everyone works for the glory of the nation, the common good, or whatever, and everyone agrees, at least in some general sense, on what that goal means. The economic problem, traditionally defined as the problem of allocating limited resources to diverse ends, does not exist; economics is reduced to the "engineering" problem of how best to use the available resources to achieve the common end.

The organization of a capitalist society implicitly assumes that different people have different ends and that the institutions of the society must allow for that difference."

And most libertarian criticisms of communism ultimately fall back to this logic framework and how it ties into economic calculation in a socialist society. This topic has been done to death though. The rest of the argument now hinges upon the argument of capitalism's relationship to some good and how it is better(or worse) than a variant of socialism at providing this good.

1. "Liberal Socialist" only works as a word in America.

2. Communism is probably the worst idea ever, not wonderfull at all.

3. Atleast here you're correct. It is against human nature and could never work, thank God.

1. Not really, you can be liberal on social values but still prefer a socialist economy.

2. I can think of worse ideas.

3. I'm not saying that marxism or any of it's 20th century offspring is a good idea, but I'm pretty sure communism could work on a small scale.

I hope you liberal socialists know that, while communism is a wonderfull IDEA. It could never work it is totally aganst human nature.

No it isn't.

And I'm not a communist. At all.

How on earth does that change anything? Gift economies are just primitive capitalist economies, where currency or coupons have not yet been invented to represent worth, so something with direct worth. In primitive societies, people believe that intangible things like karma have worth, so they work in exchange for it. In communism, work is not rewarded, dustbin men and doctors will get the same treatment.

There was no concept of private property, and by and large, much of the redistribution of the group's resources was based on need. That's communism.

There was no concept of private property, and by and large, much of the redistribution of the group's resources was based on need. That's communism.

Private property didn't exist because it couldn't exist, not because people had an aversion to it. That said, it seems quite likely that we are naturally altruistic and even communal to a degree.

Private property didn't exist because it couldn't exist, not because people had an aversion to it. That said, it seems quite likely that we are naturally altruistic and even communal to a degree.

Maybe to people in a small scale, but clearly not to a large population. Splitting the population up into many communities (a common approach) will not be wanted by most people anyway, but if it were wanted, they would need some sort of central regulation, since I am sure not all communities will subscribe to the communist ideology (so in effect we have forced communism).

Private property didn't exist because it couldn't exist, not because people had an aversion to it. That said, it seems quite likely that we are naturally altruistic and even communal to a degree.

I would agree with that.

It's not so much that property couldn't exist, it's that no one had created it yet. Contemporary research seems to suggest that the concept of private property arose most often after the rise of primitive states, whose leaders defined the concept to distribute tribute and often the resources of other tribes that had been subjugated.

Extreme redistribution = huge economic disadvantage for reasons mentioned above
No form of redistribution at all = the rich will grow richer and the poor grow poorer and the sum of it is somewhat less effective than a 'normally' governed economy.
That's pretty much been the consencus for the last 50 years or so, no?

First,Human nature is impossible to "define" but one BIG aspect of it is selfishness. That is why communism could never work. Anyway i know this was done to death i just knew that would get commie responces if i did it. So i did just to get them riled up.

First,Human nature is impossible to "define" but one BIG aspect of it is selfishness. That is why communism could never work. Anyway i know this was done to death i just knew that would get commie responces if i did it. So i did just to get them riled up.

Actually, rational self-interest plays a big part in my formulation of a communist society. It's not a hurdle.

First,Human nature is impossible to "define" but one BIG aspect of it is selfishness.

do you have any sources? Like this one for instance (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4766490.stm)?

do you have any sources? Like this one for instance (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4766490.stm)?

All you have to do is look at the world for my source. How many conflicts are started by selfishness? I want MORE power MORE things MORE land.

All you have to do is look at the world for my source. How many conflicts are started by selfishness? I want MORE power MORE things MORE land.

How do you know that is human nature? Couldn't this just be the product of your cultural upbringing?

All you have to do is look at the world for my source. How many conflicts are started by selfishness? I want MORE power MORE things MORE land.

because of human nature or because of the way our society and economy is organized?

because of human nature or because of the way our society and economy is organized?

And who organises are economies? That's right, humans.

Well if it is society then it has been most throughout civilized history. Thats quite a coinsidence. Anyway, are you suporting communism or just debating philosophy?

"it's against human nature" is one of the WEAKEST arguments possible.
there is no such thing as human nature, babies are born with only basic instincts, expose a child only toset of belifes, and he/she will follow them. Expose the child to the most belifes possible, he will follow the one that he likes.

And if communism is against human nature, then why was the idea ever accepted by anyone?

Anyway I must leave soon. I can only ask you not to slam me personally while i am gone.

"it's against human nature" is one of the WEAKEST arguments possible.
there is no such thing as human nature, babies are born with only basic instincts, expose a child only toset of belifes, and he/she will follow them. Expose the child to the most belifes possible, he will follow the one that he likes.

And if communism is against human nature, then why was the idea ever accepted by anyone?

When people say it's against human nature, they are not saying it is necessarily against humans deepest instincts, but generally against how humanity works as a whole. So to answer your question, no, humanity has never successfully accepted communism, nor has it ever been successfully implemented.

"it's against human nature" is one of the WEAKEST arguments possible.
there is no such thing as human nature, babies are born with only basic instincts, expose a child only toset of belifes, and he/she will follow them. Expose the child to the most belifes possible, he will follow the one that he likes.

And if communism is against human nature, then why was the idea ever accepted by anyone?

One last thing. To answer your question True communism is impossible the sovet union and others are just dictatorships where the citizens have no choice.

And who organises are economies? That's right, humans.

well yeah, the few humans who own the means of production.

Well if it is society then it has been most throughout civilized history. Thats quite a coinsidence. Anyway, are you suporting communism or just debating philosophy?

I'm not really a communist, but not a big fan of capitalism either. If you attack communism it would be nice if you had some arguments based on more than "it's against human nature"

There was no concept of private property, and by and large, much of the redistribution of the group's resources was based on need. That's communism.

Indeed. And, I might add, we aren't talking only in the past tense. Inati is still the guiding principle of the Tokelauan lifestyle today, for example. They know about capitalism and private property and so on; they're simply not interested. The same is true of other societies in the Pacific.


All you have to do is look at the world for my source. How many conflicts are started by selfishness? I want MORE power MORE things MORE land.

Another counter-example here would be traditional Australian Aboriginal societies. No concept of power. No concept of private property. No concept of taking someone else's land. "Human nature", you were saying?

Only someone who is extremely ignorant of non-Western societies could ever say that modern Western neoliberal selfishness is "human nature". It is profoundly culture-specific.

communism can't work because it is against economic theory, meaning people are greedy. They want to be better than someone else. I believe more in socialism. The government should take care of people. I think it is also stupid that protestant christans in america claim that capitalism is biblical, cause it is what jesus warned against. "Money is the root of all evil" and "A sheep will pass through the eye of a needle before a rich man goes to Heaven". True Christans i would believe to be socialist.

One last thing. To answer your question True communism is impossible the sovet union and others are just dictatorships where the citizens have no choice.

another stupid argument, there are almost no modern communists supporting the soviet union or PR of China or north-Korea etc.

nor has it ever been successfully implemented

During the Spanish civil war there were some pretty successful attempts iirc.

I'm not really a communist, but not a big fan of capitalism either. If you attack communism it would be nice if you had some arguments based on more than "it's against human nature"

What are you then? A royalist? Don't say democratic socialist, since that is only watered down capitalism, and entirely dependent on the capitalist element to be efficient.

Don't say democratic socialist, since that is only watered down capitalism

Real democratic socialism isn't... just the "social democracy" that sometimes passes for it these days.

You can support public ownership of the major means of production (socialism) while being open to large inequalities in distribution.

Indeed. And, I might add, we aren't talking only in the past tense. Inati is still the guiding principle of the Tokelauan lifestyle today, for example. They know about capitalism and private property and so on; they're simply not interested. The same is true of other societies in the Pacific.


But the population is absolutely tiny, so it's absolutely ludicrous to try and use it as a counter example anyway. In that culture, property isn't seen as that important to them. This does not mean they are communist, it just means that they work for other things rather then property. It's being rewarded for work which is the central thing, not what the reward is.


Another counter-example here would be traditional Australian Aboriginal societies. No concept of power.

Very debatable.


No concept of private property. No concept of taking someone else's land. "Human nature", you were saying?

Their religion/culture makes them suppress their instinctive desires, but they are still work for things like honour and other mystical rewards.

another stupid argument, there are almost no modern communists supporting the soviet union or PR of China or north-Korea etc.

It really, deeply pains me to say this. But the fact is, many people in North Korea, while not "supporting" in the traditional sense of the word (they have no choice and are lead to belive that everyone else is absolutley atrocious), do "love" Kim Jong Il

Real democratic socialism isn't... just the "social democracy" that sometimes passes for it these days.


Yeah I know, but the term is used so much these days it may as well have that meaning as well.


You can support public ownership of the major means of production (socialism) while being open to large inequalities in distribution.

But your still supporting capitalism, albeit a more limited version.

What are you then? A royalist? Don't say democratic socialist, since that is only watered down capitalism, and entirely dependent on the capitalist element to be efficient.

good question, I don't really know.

Communism was formed to make everyone equal and get rid of what they call western rule. It was deemed that communism wont work on the United States, but it sure as hell worked on Russia and many other developed countries. Look at Canada there socialist and look how well there doing. you can call me a commie bastard or what ever you want but i firmly believe that Democracy is the road to socialism. Just give communism a chance. :cool:

But your still supporting capitalism

Inequality in income is not capitalist. Private ownership of the means of production is capitalist.

It really, deeply pains me to say this. But the fact is, many people in North Korea, while not "supporting" in the traditional sense of the word (they have no choice and are lead to belive that everyone else is absolutley atrocious), do "love" Kim Jong Il

So what, they're brainwashed and forced to "love" their great leader? How is this in any way good?

Inequality in income is not capitalist. Private ownership of the means of production is capitalist.

Oh, I misunderstood what you meant. So this sounds like some sort of inefficient statist economy, not really what I would describe as socialism, and more what I would call shitty.

I would agree with that.

It's not so much that property couldn't exist, it's that no one had created it yet. Contemporary research seems to suggest that the concept of private property arose most often after the rise of primitive states, whose leaders defined the concept to distribute tribute and often the resources of other tribes that had been subjugated.

No, those both arose at the development of agriculture and sedentary lifestyle. Hunter gatherers could neither store resources or specialize their labor in order to build wealth. Before then there was only subsistence.

It can work and is completely compatible and is founded in human nature. Modern society has corrupted human nature.

It can work and is completely compatible and is founded in human nature. Modern society has corrupted human nature.

Are people natural born communists? (http://www.reason.com/news/show/119760.html)


Robin Hood took from the rich and gave to the poor. A recent study by a team of researchers headed up by University of California-San Diego political scientist James Fowler suggests that we may all have Robin Hood tendencies.

No, those both arose at the development of agriculture and sedentary lifestyle. Hunter gatherers could neither store resources or specialize their labor in order to build wealth. Before then there was only subsistence.

Certainly those paved the way for changes in social organization, but there are plenty of cases of horticultural societies that still lived as egalitarian units and worked the land communally.

The largest example would be the Aztecs. The agricultural and craft bases of the empire were still communal in nature, organized by kindship clans. Yet here there is a totalitarian state superimposed on this classless society (at least in the Marxian sense. We could argue until we're blue in the face if state bureaucrats are actually a "class"). It exacts tribute from the clans, but it doesn't have the ability to completely eradicate them.

Before the fall of the Aztec Empire, there was a constant internal struggle between the capulli and the State. The concept of private ownership of land was alien. State bureaucrats managed the land and labor of conquered tribes, but they didn't own the land themselves. Had the Spaniards not put the kibosh on the whole thing first, it is likely the slow pressure of the Aztec state would have created institutions of a manorial economy and private ownership to reduce the power of the clans.

So what, they're brainwashed and forced to "love" their great leader? How is this in any way good?

I didn't say it was "good." I said that theyd fight and die for him to the bitter end, even if faced with alternative choices, because that is what their lives were founded on at their core, obedience. Even if he was killed, and we sent aid, theyd probably kill the aid workers, so great is their fear of "capitalizt, imperializt, Amerikkka" (as one of them so kindly described to me regarding not only America, but pretty much everybody but them and China).

The fact that the entire country would (upon "dear leaders" death) either a)go bezerk or b) implode upon itself is one of the main reasons why I am not shocked at the fact that Kim Jong Il is still alive.

But seriously, to take down North Korea you don't need a nuke. You need a bullet.

WHAT "human nature"? Do you know anything at all about non-Western societies? If human nature is against free and complete sharing of all ressources, against compassion and mutual help, then explain, for example, the inati system of Tokelau, or the traditional sharing principles at work in much of the Pacific.

A dual effect of small-scale scarcity and small-scale abundance, working in concert, requires societal cooperation so as to permit the continued survival of the Tokelauan people. You'll find that Island societies are under entirely different stresses and pressures from continental societies, and as a result, they are forced to utilize specific societal adaptations.

It's all parts of utilitarian equations, considerations of the proper allocation of resources, and long-term societal sustenance.

If you want my direct opinion, go to the last paragraph.

If not, please read this. It may be informative.

Communism is the best thing that can happen for the human race. Ponder this...A world where equality exist. A world that is about each other and not about self. Life is not supposed to be about who makes the most money, or who has the finest material possessions. However, life should be about the well-being for each other for the good of the world.

Let me ask you all this: Do you think that it is right to pay doctors to spare your life? Do you think it is right that a buissness man passes someone on the street who is without food, money, a home and future? On top of that, not even give them a penny? Do you think it is right that most of these leaders of congregations i.e. churches ride in Benz's while a faithful servant of God and mother of 3 drive in a Ford Escort? Do you think it is right that our so-called "enemies of America" are getting "filthy" rich off of us Americans who have to break our necks working everyday and to go to out on a whim paying for gas?

I know people say communism doesn't work. Why? Here's why. Because most people are too much into themselves thinking about "me, me, me" all the time. Most people always want to live the so-called "good life". Most people are spiteful of their comrades and are too quick put the blame others rather than looking at themselves in the mirror first. Most people think that life is about money. Finally, the most important reason why people feel that communism doesn't work is that non-believing, money-grubbing political bastards want to hold most of us down and lie to us saying that communism is unethical and sinful so they can have the big piece of the while we have not even the crumbs.

Here is my difference of communism and capitalism.

-Capitalism is the hardest and most harsh system to establish and should have been an impossible to come to be as it is today. The only reason why it still is alive is, mainly, common people like us all chose for it to exist, make it happen, and be enslaved by it.
-Communism, however, is the most simple of all and should have been the ideal lifestyle to live by. The only reason why it is "dying" is, mainly, common people like us all are choosing for it die, we, apparently dont want to make it work, and apparently, we dont want to be free.

How are we going to say that we are a free country when we are taxed on every damn thing we buy and divided into this pyramid scam called "class". You know. I am not going to go any further off the subject. I may get even more pissed about capitalism.

Here is my belief: Communism works, but it is up to us to eliminate this enslaving machine we call capitalism. All men were and are still created equal, therefore we should live, eat, sleep, breathe and die equal. If a person doesn't want to be about one another...well...they dont deserve to be called human or have the priviledge to even live. Brash words, but this is how I feel. Sorry if I offended anyone, but that is what happens when freedom of speech exists.

A dual effect of small-scale scarcity and small-scale abundance, working in concert, requires societal cooperation so as to permit the continued survival of the Tokelauan people. You'll find that Island societies are under entirely different stresses and pressures from continental societies, and as a result, they are forced to utilize specific societal adaptations.
Plus, if you're being lazy and let others do the work, they'll get angry and hit you repeatedly with traditional sticks.

So the fact that everyone's got an obligation implies that everyone's got a right not to be the sucker who works so that everyone else can have the good life. So one's time and effort is connected to one's person, not simply communal property.

Which in turn implies a certain right to one's product and labour as opposed to a right of others to do with it as they please.

As far as the OP is concerned: big-scale communism in any foreseeable future requires central planning acting against the workings of a free market, ergo it will fail.

Small-scale communes can work, but only if:
- the standard of living is such that specialisation is limited; or
- there is trade with an outside world in which specialisation and innovation is possible, ie a non-communist world; and
- everyone is willing to take part and free to leave if they aren't...and if the second point is the case, this might well hurt the commune quite a bit (eg the Kibbutzim kids who wanted to live on the outside rather than in their supposed utopia).

Communism is okay as long as nobody is forced to participate in the socialization of property that doesn't want to. Even in an anarcho-capitalist world, there could be pockets of communist societies throughout the world without any confict, as long as interaction between people and property remained free.

Ponder this...A world where equality exist. A world that is about each other and not about self.

Force would be required to make the entire world "equal". It would be a gross infringement on the freedom required for man to thrive.

Ponder this...A world where equality exist. A world that is about each other and not about self.
http://www.libertarian.to/NewsDta/templates/news1.php?art=art432

Have a read.

To work -- with no chance of an extra ration, till the Cambodians have been fed and the Patagonians have been sent to college. To work -- on a blank check held by every creature born, by men whom you'll never see, whose needs you will never know, whose ability or laziness or sloppiness or fraud you have no way to learn and no right to question -- just to work and work and work -- and leave it up to the Ivys and the Geralds of the world to decide whose stomach will consume the effort, the dreams and days of your life.

And this is the moral law to accept? This -- a moral ideal?

No, those both arose at the development of agriculture and sedentary lifestyle. Hunter gatherers could neither store resources or specialize their labor in order to build wealth. Before then there was only subsistence.

Which is why there was no such thing as the commons in feudal England. . .

Not that I'm agreeing with the communists on the board, but development of private property came WAY after development of agriculture. For a very long portion of time, a lot of people historically speaking seem very content to make do with a little so that a few people can have a lot. Why this is can be and has been debated extensively, but it doesn't seem to be because they were proto-capitalists.

There's more than one. There is only one Marxist-Leninist (I'm sure that's what you mean by "communist"), but there are plenty of libertarian communists and anarcho-communists.

"Anarcho-Communist." That's funny, since Anarchy and Communism are on two sides of the political spectrum.
It's also funny how anarchy could be seen as radical conservatism, while modern day conservatives seem like the last sort of people that would advocate it.
:confused:

"Anarcho-Communist." That's funny, since Anarchy and Communism are on two sides of the political spectrum.
It's also funny how anarchy could be seen as radical conservatism, while modern day conservatives seem like the last sort of people that would advocate it.
:confused:

Look at the political compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org).

Politics is best thought about in two dimensions of economics and social order.

One can be a libertarian or anarchist communist, or an authoritarian communist, just like one can be an authoritarian or libertarian capitalist.

"Anarcho-Communist." That's funny, since Anarchy and Communism are on two sides of the political spectrum.
It's also funny how anarchy could be seen as radical conservatism, while modern day conservatives seem like the last sort of people that would advocate it.
:confused:

Politics is the art of determining who gets what. The whole point of the revolution is to make sure that who gets what isn't an issue anymore: everyone gets what they need, everyone gives what they can. As such, politics after the revolution is supposed to be obsolete and the state is supposed to wither away. As such, anarchy would be the best possible descriptor of government in such a system, since there really isn't one.

Politics is the art of determining who gets what.
It's like what Harold Lasswell said: "Who Gets What, When, How."

If communism did take over the u.s I would try to join the party to get the benefits. I would also hope there would be no purges. If I couldnt join the party i would just not work and let the idealist morons give me wellfare out of their labor.

If communism did take over the u.s I would try to join the party to get the benefits. I would also hope there would be no purges. If I couldnt join the party i would just not work and let the idealist morons give me wellfare out of their labor.

I salute your abiding love of the Constitution. . .

While I have some respect for Marx as a thinker and count a number of communists as my friend, if it ever came to war, I'm a citizen first. As such, I would be obliged to defend against the forcible overthrow of the Constitution. Simple as that.

I salute your abiding love of the Constitution. . .

While I have some respect for Marx as a thinker and count a number of communists as my friend, if it ever came to war, I'm a citizen first. As such, I would be obliged to defend against the forcible overthrow of the Constitution. Simple as that.

I meant home grown revolution. If it was a foren nation i would fight for my country if they did outlaw guns that is. If it got as bad a a homegrown revolution then we could do much but buckle down could we?

I salute your abiding love of the Constitution. . .

While I have some respect for Marx as a thinker and count a number of communists as my friend, if it ever came to war, I'm a citizen first. As such, I would be obliged to defend against the forcible overthrow of the Constitution. Simple as that.

I meant home grown revolution. If it was a foren nation i would fight for my country if they did outlaw guns that is. If it got as bad a a homegrown revolution then we could do much but buckle down could we?

I salute your abiding love of the Constitution. . .

While I have some respect for Marx as a thinker and count a number of communists as my friend, if it ever came to war, I'm a citizen first. As such, I would be obliged to defend against the forcible overthrow of the Constitution. Simple as that.

I meant home grown revolution. If it was a foren nation I would fight for my country if they didnt outlaw guns that is. If it got as bad a a homegrown revolution then we couldnt do much but buckle down could we?

I salute your abiding love of the Constitution. . .

While I have some respect for Marx as a thinker and count a number of communists as my friend, if it ever came to war, I'm a citizen first. As such, I would be obliged to defend against the forcible overthrow of the Constitution. Simple as that.

If revolution every comes to America, it will most likely be a response to a fascist take over of the government. I'm a peaceful revolutionary, and not ashamed to say that I'm working for a peaceful dissolution of the state and capitalism, but that's not likely to happen.

When the forces of reaction decide to put the kibosh on democracy (they probably will), then the gloves come off. I hope you are as principled as you claim, because in that case your principles should dictate revolution against the government.

If revolution every comes to America, it will most likely be a response to a fascist take over of the government. I'm a peaceful revolutionary, and not ashamed to say that I'm working for a peaceful dissolution of the state and capitalism, but that's not likely to happen.

When the forces of reaction decide to put the kibosh on democracy (they probably will), then the gloves come off. I hope you are as principled as you claim, because in that case your principles should dictate revolution against the government.

Would you kill all the people who would be dissatisfied with communism? For the good of the people of course.

Also if communism is so wonderfull why did they have the berlin wall?

Would you kill all the people who would be dissatisfied with communism? For the good of the people of course.

The only way I'd ever kill anyone is in self defense. I'm not in the business of harming other people. But if you try to oppress, harm, or rule me in anyway, don't expect me to be civil.

I have no quarrel with people who are dissatisfied with communism. But, if they raise up arms against us, we will be fighting back.

And as i said if that even happend i would not work. I would let you give me wellfare. Or your government would kill me and prove how communism couldnt work.

shut up already!:headbang:
if you don't understand it dont post and although it seems you do, people who don't and haters soon spam up these topics.

And as i said if that even happend i would not work. I would let you give me wellfare. Or your government would kill me and prove how communism couldnt work.

How many times to I have to say it: Anarchist! We're not down with government and people ruling others.

How many times to I have to say it: Anarchist! We're not down with government and people ruling others.

How would things get done then? If you can show me an example of a real live modern communist govenment that works I may become a little more Open minded about this glorified dictatorship.

shut up already!:headbang:
if you don't understand it dont post and although it seems you do, people who don't and haters soon spam up these topics.

Who are you then? Why are you any better than me? You seem to be a hater yourself with that comment there. You also seem not to understand it because you have not backed up your personal insults aimed at me.

There is more then one for I am a Trotskyist.

There is more then one for I am a Marxist-Leninist.

What are you trying to say? I don't understand.

How would things get done then? If you can show me an example of a real live modern communist govenment that works I may become a little more Open minded about this glorified dictatorship.

Look at the Spanish Revolution. The anarcho-syndicalists of the CNT rose up in response to Franco's fascist coup. Three million workers and peasants particpated, collectivizing the economy of much of Spain, and sucessfully running the agriculture and industry while trying to fight off Franco's fascists.

And then the Stalinists of the loyalist government turned on the anarchists they had formerly called allies. The anarchist militias couldn't hope to fight off both the fascists and the Stalinists, and were slowly crushed.

Anarchists today get stuff done all the time. We fight globalization, and get our asses kicked by police for doing so. We fight to organize labor unions in places like McDonalds, Walmart, or Starbucks, places with notorious anti-union policies. Just because we aren't very large in number now doesn't mean that we can't have a big impact. And slowly, the number of our comrades are growing.

I'm so blown away that no one has talked about the alienation of labor.

When you are doing something that you enjoy, is it fulfilling? How many times have we heard from wiser people than ourselves that you should get a job that you love over a job that pays well? This is because non-alienating labor is humanly fulfilling.

When the piss jobs that the proletariat must do for the capitalist class are reduced to what is necessary (as opposed to rapid growth and massive consumption), and shared equally between everyone, labor can be directed towards something that makes people happy.

Furthermore, talking about Human Nature will get you absolutely no where. You think that you have some insight that some other great philosopher hasn't? Isn't that a tad arrogant? This debate has been done since written word and it is still going on today with no clear answer. Using some contrived notion of human nature in place of hard empirical evidence is unfortunately all too commonplace in popular dialogue about communism/socialism. If anything it speaks to a very successful propaganda campaign for the last 80+ years. Go on, regurgitate what those talking heads and pundits put there for you.

I'm so blown away that no one has talked about the alienation of labor.

When you are doing something that you enjoy, is it fulfilling? How many times have we heard from wiser people than ourselves that you should get a job that you love over a job that pays well? This is because non-alienating labor is humanly fulfilling.

When the piss jobs that the proletariat must do for the capitalist class are reduced to what is necessary (as opposed to rapid growth and massive consumption), and shared equally between everyone, labor can be directed towards something that makes people happy.

Furthermore, talking about Human Nature will get you absolutely no where. You think that you have some insight that some other great philosopher hasn't? Isn't that a tad arrogant? This debate has been done since written word and it is still going on today with no clear answer. Using some contrived notion of human nature in place of hard empirical evidence is unfortunately all too commonplace in popular dialogue.

Great first post. :cool:

You get the Crazy Leftist Seal of Approval from me. Welcome to NSG.

I'm so blown away that no one has talked about the alienation of labor.

When you are doing something that you enjoy, is it fulfilling? How many times have we heard from wiser people than ourselves that you should get a job that you love over a job that pays well? This is because non-alienating labor is humanly fulfilling.

When the piss jobs that the proletariat must do for the capitalist class are reduced to what is necessary (as opposed to rapid growth and massive consumption), and shared equally between everyone, labor can be directed towards something that makes people happy.

Furthermore, talking about Human Nature will get you absolutely no where. You think that you have some insight that some other great philosopher hasn't? Isn't that a tad arrogant? This debate has been done since written word and it is still going on today with no clear answer. Using some contrived notion of human nature in place of hard empirical evidence is unfortunately all too commonplace in popular dialogue about communism/socialism. If anything it speaks to a very successful propaganda campaign for the last 80+ years. Go on, regurgitate what those talking heads and pundits put there for you.

Is what you are saying new? Every thing dealing with communism has been done to death i know. However the nice thing about freedom is I CAN post my views just like you are doing. Even if they are not original. Sure there are piss jobs but there are people out there who will do them even some who want to do them. Because of the incentive of $$$. Why would people do those jobs if there was no insentive aka communism.

In communism, work is not rewarded, dustbin men and doctors will get the same treatment.

No time to read the whole thread, but forgive me if I'm much mistaken in assuming that, as usual, this single etherial contention forms the straw-like backbone of its anti-Communism.

It would be nice for the anti-Communist if this argument held water, or indeed any relevance to a Communism worthy of the name, but, since it doesn't, I'm once again going to have to ask that everyone please refrain from restating it.

Communism based on leveling-down is extremely primitive and has for generations been widely rejected by most even half-serious proponents of Communism in any form. The idea that, in a Communist society, a, 'refuse technician' and a heart surgeon would necessarily receive the same compensation is little more than an anti-Communist's wet-dream, an easy way to dismiss the whole idea. As a Communist I can say that it doesn't remotely interest me. Try again, a little harder this time, perhaps you'll get the reward you're chasing (though I doubt it).

I do wish that Communists would stop dreaming about shaping human nature. That's what the Capitalists want you to do, muddle around on some philospohical goose chase instead of actually doing something concrete. The only people who think that human nature must be altered in order to bring about Communism are already anti-Communists who have something to lose in a revolution, be it capital or delusion.

Now i admit limiteded "tribal" communism can work. For example the early christians shared goods to the needy and helped each other out. But there were still leaders. It would be VERY dificult if not impossible to effect Limiteded communism that I just described on a whole civilization.

No time to read the whole thread, but forgive me if I'm much mistaken in assuming that, as usual, this single etherial contention forms the straw-like backbone of its anti-Communism.

It would be nice for the anti-Communist if this argument held water, or indeed any relevance to a Communism worthy of the name, but, since it doesn't, I'm once again going to have to ask that everyone please refrain from restating it.

Communism based on leveling-down is extremely primitive and has for generations been widely rejected by most even half-serious proponents of Communism in any form. The idea that, in a Communist society, a, 'refuse technician' and a heart surgeon would necessarily receive the same compensation is little more than an anti-Communist's wet-dream, an easy way to dismiss the whole idea. As a Communist I can say that it doesn't remotely interest me. Try again, a little harder this time, perhaps you'll get the reward you're chasing (though I doubt it).

I do wish that Communists would stop dreaming about shaping human nature. That's what the Capitalists want you to do, muddle around on some philospohical goose chase instead of actually doing something concrete. The only people who think that human nature must be altered in order to bring about Communism are already anti-Communists who have something to lose in a revolution, be it capital or delusion.

Some one would need to take charge after a revolution. I wonder would your morals remain after you had power? Remember the old saying: POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTLY. If you say oh no we would all be equal, how would that work hmm? HOW.

Also if communism is so wonderfull why did they have the berlin wall?

No one answered me.... Sorry for psoting so much but not many people are on this late and I wanted to get my ideas across anyway.

It's like what Harold Lasswell said: "Who Gets What, When, How."
Hence my annoyance with people who think that politics should be considered superior to economics. Economics is the science of who gets what, when and how, politics the practice. Laws of economics are to a great extent laws of politics, like the laws of physics are to a great extent the laws of driving. No amount of force or reconditioning is going to change that.

Some one would need to take charge after a revolution. I wonder would your morals remain after you had power? Remember the old saying: POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTLY. If you say oh no we would all be equal, how would that work hmm? HOW.

If I had power, as in I somehow above others, we wouldn't have had a Communist revolution, would we? We would have had a coup with me at its head. I suppose then we'd have a Socialistic economy as I directed the repatriation of capital to the state and then delivered it into worker-control, but we'd lack Communistic democracy in the political sphere.

This isn't terribly interesting to me, as a Communist.

How? Well, first off, the workers, as they have in parts of Argentina and elsewhere, would retake their own workplaces: stop asking, start taking! That, probably, is how the revolution would have been carried-out. Bosses would have been shut out and Soviets raised to democratically manage day to day business and organise profit-sharing on whatever scales -possibly considering seniority of position, complexity of task, et cetera- were decided in each given enterprise. The courts would legislate against the workers, the police and eventually the military would be sent under arms to retake property from the majority who work it and return it to the minority who do not, but, since we're assuming a revolutionary victory, the masses rally around the recouperated businesses and declare they shall not pass!

Ultimately the governmental agents of capital are rendered powerless and a Soviet Commune established to co-ordinate relations between communities grown-up around Soviet enterprises. Local direct democracy prevails, and, at regional and state level -for the idea that Communism must entail the withering of the state is Marxian-derived twaddle- representative democracy is retained and furnished with immediate accountability of officers and their legislations. The Commune, once enacted, gives little thought to ridiculous Leninist central-planning and sets to the complicated task of simulating a market, setting and revising prices, not objectives, as workers controlling state-owned capital for the price of a fixed value-tax co-operate within their Soviets and said Soviets compete freely within their democratic economy.

The Commune's officers are elected and recalled as often as public petition-enabled referenda require it, and their legislations are likewise scrutinised and enforced or erased in the first real democracy seen in a modern society. Capitalist market economies are immediately exposed as counter-democratic, and statist command economies finally lose their last dillusional supporters amongst the Left.

In short, then, all power to the Soviets!

In short, then, all power to the Soviets!
Or rather, the prettiest and best public speakers within them. Because we all know how well democracy selects exactly what people want on the large scale, and adding love, friendship, hatred, sex and any other social interaction to it would only make it better.

Let's face it, it would still be the same competition for who gets what. Except now, you get something at the expense of someone else, through force and by virtue of entirely non-productive actions and traits, while under capitalism you get things through mutually beneficial trade. Under capitalism, your wages are determined by you and your boss, the wages of others are, strictly speaking, irrelevant. Under your worker's commune, wages are determined in a democratic vote, and are necessarily a function of what others are getting. Good for those who suck at their job, bad for those who don't.

Work hard and the Soviet's profits are up, thus your share is worth more, and you earn more money. Help your collegue to do a better job and the Soviet's profits are up, thus your share is worth more, and you earn more money. Same applies for said collegue. Work hard and/or help others to do a better job and you've a good case for an increased share.

Still, if people want, on a small Soviet scale, to consistently vote for what comrade bigboobs and comrade boomingvoice suggest then that is their own look-out, at least they've always the capacity to change their minds and their conditions should they realise that they've been mislead.

In these relations it certainly won't hurt that, being as this is Communism, a sense of community is naturally restored, and that educational standards have risen fit to see our revolutionary state's standard IQ skew the global average.

(It's really quite tempting to venture back into the whole hUman-NAturE!!1! issue and suggest that, given inate tendancies to altruism, you'd do pretty darn well out of that. But I shouldn't do that, because I don't think it's really an issue.)

Work hard and the Soviet's profits are up, thus your share is worth more, and you earn more money.
Not if someone else is being lazy.

Help your collegue to do a better job and the Soviet's profits are up, thus your share is worth more, and you earn more money.
Not if Comrade Manykids has another mouth to feed and can claim a need better than you.

Still, if people want, on a small Soviet scale, to consistently vote for what comrade bigboobs and comrade boomingvoice suggest then that is their own look-out, at least they've always the capacity to change their minds and their conditions should they realise that they've been mislead.
Which is the same under capitalism, where you have the capacity to change your job if you think you've been mistreated.

In these relations it certainly won't hurt that, being as this is Communism, a sense of community is naturally restored, and that educational standards have risen fit to see our revolutionary state's standard IQ skew the global average.
I wouldn't want to base an argument that my system works on the condition that my system works. Seems sorta circular.

Work hard and the Soviet's profits are up, thus your share is worth more, and you earn more money. Help your collegue to do a better job and the Soviet's profits are up, thus your share is worth more, and you earn more money. Same applies for said collegue. Work hard and/or help others to do a better job and you've a good case for an increased share.

Still, if people want, on a small Soviet scale, to consistently vote for what comrade bigboobs and comrade boomingvoice suggest then that is their own look-out, at least they've always the capacity to change their minds and their conditions should they realise that they've been mislead.

In these relations it certainly won't hurt that, being as this is Communism, a sense of community is naturally restored, and that educational standards have risen fit to see our revolutionary state's standard IQ skew the global average.

(It's really quite tempting to venture back into the whole hUman-NAturE!!1! issue and suggest that, given inate tendancies to altruism, you'd do pretty darn well out of that. But I shouldn't do that, because I don't think it's really an issue.)

That sounds an awfull lot like stockholding if you ask me. Very capitalist of you.

That sounds an awfull lot like stockholding if you ask me. Very capitalist of you.

except that the majority of stockholders don't really work for the profit they gain from those stocks.

Yea some of them are trustfund babys but the thing about a free market is that people can work for ther riches. If I were to invest say 5,000 in a upstart company and that company tured into a real powerfull big one(like microsoft). I would not have been born into wealth i would have worked for my cash and I would have gotten lucky. Taken a risk and suceded.

Yea some of them are trustfund babys but the thing about a free market is that people can work for ther riches. If I were to invest say 5,000 in a upstart company and that company tured into a real powerfull big one(like microsoft). I would not have been born into wealth i would have worked for my cash and I would have gotten lucky. Taken a risk and suceded.

so you admit that your personal wealth would be based on luck and the work of others while the communal wealth described in badggelert's post would be based on their own work?

Yea some of them are trustfund babys but the thing about a free market is that people can work for ther riches. If I were to invest say 5,000 in a upstart company and that company tured into a real powerfull big one(like microsoft). I would not have been born into wealth i would have worked for my cash and I would have gotten lucky. Taken a risk and suceded.

The issue has never been about success or failure, but rather about the very real hierarchical domination created by the structure of the capitalist firm, and the alienation created by the commodification of everything in life, where work for most is dull and uninspiring, not to mention yielding barely more than subsistence.

Ok let's lay that however unlikly it is you create a communist state in some 3'd world contry where it could actually happen. Wait I take it back it could happen in europe or south america. If you managed to do it with popular suport and DIDNT have a few people take command like in the soviet union or china. How long would it be before some of the more prominent workers want more? If they charismatic the people would suport them and walla You have got a dictator or a corparation just like capitalsim. The only way to stop that would be with armed forces. If you use armed forces why would you stop there? It would become a habbit to use them every time they were "needed" for the good of the workers. How would people follow this charismatc person you ask? Well people lie. People are also gulible. How do you thing Hitler got to power.

The USSR wasn't really communist, it was more Authoritarian Socialist.

Centrally directed, everything handed out.

I fall in a similar position to Trotskylvlania. The basic idea is that we all work together because that's the best method of getting where we need to. Instead of having to take orders, or losing out if we can't afford something we need, we all pitch in to help. "From each according to his means, to each according to his need" and all that.

And I challenge you to prove how this is evil or wrong.

Edit: Just to comment on your previous post, consider some of the Argentinian workers collectives.

We have a bunch of people who, for instance, work at a tile factory. They don't have any bosses, and each guy pitches in what he can. They all split the profits.

I recognise you have capitalism over this - the market they as a whole trade with. But if we quickly consider what happens if all the other factories and farms were owned in the same way, money wouldn't be needed. Instead, we think "We are good at making bread (our ability) which you need (your need), so we'll give you some" and you think the same, but for something else. Gift based economy, everyone giving what they can and getting what they need.

Anarcho-communism in practice.

The USSR wasn't really communist, it was more Authoritarian Socialist.

Centrally directed, everything handed out.

I fall in a similar position to Trotskylvlania. The basic idea is that we all work together because that's the best method of getting where we need to. Instead of having to take orders, or losing out if we can't afford something we need, we all pitch in to help. "From each according to his means, to each according to his need" and all that.

And I challenge you to prove how this is evil or wrong.

I never said the consept was evil or wrong. But I have yet to se it work in real life sucessfully and the last thing we need is another ussr.

The USSR wasn't really communist, it was more Authoritarian Socialist.

Centrally directed, everything handed out.

I fall in a similar position to Trotskylvlania. The basic idea is that we all work together because that's the best method of getting where we need to. Instead of having to take orders, or losing out if we can't afford something we need, we all pitch in to help. "From each according to his means, to each according to his need" and all that.

And I challenge you to prove how this is evil or wrong.

Edit: Just to comment on your previous post, consider some of the Argentinian workers collectives.

We have a bunch of people who, for instance, work at a tile factory. They don't have any bosses, and each guy pitches in what he can. They all split the profits.

I recognise you have capitalism over this - the market they as a whole trade with. But if we quickly consider what happens if all the other factories and farms were owned in the same way, money wouldn't be needed. Instead, we think "We are good at making bread (our ability) which you need (your need), so we'll give you some" and you think the same, but for something else. Gift based economy, everyone giving what they can and getting what they need.

Anarcho-communism in practice.

That is still not communism Capitalism doesnt have to be money it can be in trade to. You give us bread we will give you milk. Trade. Not communism.

That is still not communism Capitalism doesnt have to be money it can be in trade to. You give us bread we will give you milk. Trade. Not communism.

Then define communism. It seems to me to be the idea that we each give what we can, and take what we need. Notice how none of what I said up there implied in any way direct requirements to trade.

Capitalism: I have two cows, you need a cow. Give me something else, you can have a cow.

Communism: I have two cows, you need a cow. Here, have a cow.

Edit:

Alternate Communism: I have two cows, you need a cow. I give both of my cows to the village, from which anyone who needs them can take them, as long as they give it back when they're done. (This is basically the GPL)

Then define communism. It seems to me to be the idea that we each give what we can, and take what we need. Notice how none of what I said up there implied in any way direct requirements to trade.

Capitalism: I have two cows, you need a cow. Give me something else, you can have a cow.

Communism: I have two cows, you need a cow. Here, have a cow.

Edit:

Alternate Communism: I have two cows, you need a cow. I give both of my cows to the village, from which anyone who needs them can take them, as long as they give it back when they're done. (This is basically the GPL)Why don't you join china then or north korea where the government takes from you and give it to the "more needy" that is what communism. when people do it personally that is charity. I have nothing against charity. I have somthing against the goverment or others taking from me to give to others. If you hold those ideas so high find some bums and give them what they need A job.

Quit editing say what you have to say in a REPLY.

For the Motherland! *Communist Since Birth* ~<3

Why don't you join china then or north korea where the government takes from you and give it to the "more needy" that is what communism. when people do it personally that is charity. I have nothing against charity. I have somthing against the goverment or others taking from me to give to others. If you hold those ideas so high find some bums and give them what they need A job.

Translation: I have no argument, so I'm going to resort to strawmen.

And maybe you still haven't followed what I was saying. I never said anything about the government or others taking, only myself giving. I do this when I can, but one person doesn't make much of a difference in a capitalist society.

Edit: No. Editing, when clearly marked as such, is far superior to multi-posting. Instead of sending 5 messages that make it hard to follow the thread, I send on. In case you hadn't noticed, I never modify previous text, only add to it.

For the Motherland! *Communist Since Birth* ~<3

For freedom and democracy! Capitalist since birth!

For the Motherland! *Communist Since Birth* ~<3

Translation: I have no argument, so I'm going to resort to strawmen.

And maybe you still haven't followed what I was saying. I never said anything about the government or others taking, only myself giving. I do this when I can, but one person doesn't make much of a difference in a capitalist society.

Edit: No. Editing, when clearly marked as such, is far superior to multi-posting. Instead of sending 5 messages that make it hard to follow the thread, I send on. In case you hadn't noticed, I never modify previous text, only add to it.

When you edit like that my rebuttle covers only part of your argument refusing to stops means that you are desperate. Strawmen? have you been paying attention at all? I have out lined and given clear reasons why communism could not work i guess name calling is your last resort. I have no problems with your personal life. If you want to give, fine give that nice of you. You are talking of revolution however forcibly changing my lifstyle and millions of others. Trust me when i say the VAST majority like this system. If the vast majority disliked the current system that would be a different story.

1. Of course all the capitalist 'reasoning' about "human nature" is just nonsense. Speaking about the "nature" of a subject, from which the behaviour of that subject is to be deduced was indeed fashionable in 17th century scientific discourse, but since then has been phased out in favour of other conceptual schemes. Postulating that Marx must have assumed a certain 'human nature' to infer from that nature the succession of the forms of society, indicates massive philosophical illiteracy on behalf of the apologists of capitalism.

2. Some apologists of capitalism think about socialism in terms of a quaint sort of an essentially capitalist regime (i. e., there is still exchange, commodity-production, property and value) in which differences of wealth would be flattened out by some kind of communal social structure or a redistributive mechanism, or some primitivist utopian scheme. But Marxian socialism is not like that. The straw man most libertarians attack is precisely 'utopian socialism', already superseded by Marxian theory 150 years ago.

3. Socialism does not aim simply at "equality of wealth" or "communal ownership of wealth" or other such social-democratic/utopian crap. Socialism plans to abolish the entire structure which generates the problems (inequality, exploitation etc.) of capitalism. This means, for example, a scientific control of the economy unhampered by fictitious concepts of "property" and "money". To see a relatively detailed example, read Technocratic literature. (I don't say that the Technocratic movement was communist, but the Technocrats succeeded in creating a relatively detailed blueprint of a non-capitalist economy in which there is no money, no inequality, no property, no unemployment, no exploitation etc.)

I was of cource talking of the vast majority of AMERICANS I could not say so of other countrys. I certainly hope they dont suport it.

Dear ladies and gentlemen,
firsti off all I apologize for mistakes,I am not a native speaking English,I am from Greece and I am a Marxist-Leninist,communist,Trotskyist.

I will pose my opinion by questions and answers.

Is communism the regime of USSR or China?
No,communism is the next level of social organisation after socialism.Socialism,as communism,means
1)public ownership of the means of production and planned economy
2)equal salary for everyone,every one being a burrocrat for a while,so that there are not any permenant burrocrates like in the USSR
3)No permanant police or army,replaced by peoples police
4)full democracy,all parties are respected,councils from the bussiness and the towns have the political control.

Is this possible?
Yes,it has been done several times throughout history.

When do we have communism?
Communism is the excellent form of socialism,full democracy,suberb economy,technology and cultural level.

It can be done in some years?
It depends on the situation,more develloped countries can achieve socialism and communism more easily and they should help less develloped.

Do you agree with the "socialist" regima of the USSR?
No.That was a party dictatorship,where everything was controlled by some burrocrats which had nothing to do with full democracy and socialism.

Thank you,Spyros.

When you edit like that my rebuttle covers only part of your argument refusing to stops means that you are desperate. Strawmen? have you been paying attention at all? I have out lined and given clear reasons why communism could not work i guess name calling is your last resort. I have no problems with your personal life. If you want to give, fine give that nice of you. You are talking of revolution however forcibly changing my lifstyle and millions of others. Trust me when i say the VAST majority like this system. If the vast majority disliked the current system that would be a different story.

You know, I don't know why I bother, because you've admitted to be trolling.

And no, what I quoted there was not a rebuttal. You were ignoring and misrepresenting what I had actually said, and instead arguing against your own idea of my position. That makes things easier, I suppose.

Let's have a revolution then. Once we have, let's give people as many rights as possible. So you can find communist 'companies' and capitalist companies, trading. The reason for communism then? Because you aren't being forced into working - you do what you can for the group, and take what you need from the group. If the group like having you sit around all day and sing songs, you can do that - contribute what you can, get what you need.

As for this refusing to stop business. I'm not the guy who's happily posting five messages in a row, none of them properly spelled. I'm sending a few, well crafted comments, and adding to them if I think of something else before you respond. Name one edit I've made after your responses.

I'm intending to go to something known as Burning Man in a couple years time. The way this works is on giving. Everyone gives what they can to others - art, time, food, labour, music. Nothing more needed. No central arbiting, no centralised force taking what's mine and giving it to you.

Communism does not require authoritarianism. I've outlined, and provided examples, for how it could work without that. If you wanted to run a country on it, that's also fairly simple. Form your communes. Each of these is unlikely to be self sufficient, but is also likely to have surpluses of various things. So I give what I can to the groups who need it, and we all work on that. Crucially, no central authority.

I saw something

capitalism=I have 2 cows and you have nothing.I give you one for money
communism=I have 2 cows and I give you the one.

No,both are wrong

capitalism=I have two cows and you don't.You come and work for me,you product 10kilos of milk but I pay you only for 3,the others come to me.

communism=the 2 cows belongs to us and we both work with on them and we share the milk.

I saw something

capitalism=I have 2 cows and you have nothing.I give you one for money
communism=I have 2 cows and I give you the one.

No,both are wrong

capitalism=I have two cows and you don't.You come and work for me,you product 10kilos of milk but I pay you only for 3,the others come to me.

communism=the 2 cows belongs to us and we both work with on them and we share the milk.

I've already written an extended version, which says (consults terminal):

Capitalism: I have two cows, you need a cow. Give me something else, you can have a cow.

Alternate Capitalism: I have two cows, you need a cow. Work on my fields for the next month, and you can have a cow.

Communism: I have two cows, you need a cow. Here, have a cow.

Alternate Communism: I have two cows, you need a cow. I give both of my cows to the village, from which anyone who needs them can take them, as long as they give it back when they're done.

Remember that the capitalism one must cover both trade and employment, and the communism one both gifting and shared work.

Certainly those paved the way for changes in social organization, but there are plenty of cases of horticultural societies that still lived as egalitarian units and worked the land communally.

The largest example would be the Aztecs. The agricultural and craft bases of the empire were still communal in nature, organized by kindship clans. Yet here there is a totalitarian state superimposed on this classless society (at least in the Marxian sense. We could argue until we're blue in the face if state bureaucrats are actually a "class"). It exacts tribute from the clans, but it doesn't have the ability to completely eradicate them.

Before the fall of the Aztec Empire, there was a constant internal struggle between the capulli and the State. The concept of private ownership of land was alien. State bureaucrats managed the land and labor of conquered tribes, but they didn't own the land themselves. Had the Spaniards not put the kibosh on the whole thing first, it is likely the slow pressure of the Aztec state would have created institutions of a manorial economy and private ownership to reduce the power of the clans.

The Aztecs had a thriving commercial economy with a system of money and markets.

Which is why there was no such thing as the commons in feudal England. . .

I don't follow.

Capitalism: I have two cows, you need a cow. Give me something else, you can have a cow.

Alternate Capitalism: I have two cows, you need a cow. Work on my fields for the next month, and you can have a cow.


= Normal, competent farmer.


Communism: I have two cows, you need a cow. Here, have a cow.

Alternate Communism: I have two cows, you need a cow. I give both of my cows to the village, from which anyone who needs them can take them, as long as they give it back when they're done.


= Naive farmer.

When the piss jobs that the proletariat must do for the capitalist class are reduced to what is necessary (as opposed to rapid growth and massive consumption), and shared equally between everyone, labor can be directed towards something that makes people happy.

"Piss jobs" will not be shared equally between everyone, and labor cannot be "directed towards something that makes people happy" without very authoritarian government.

= Normal, competent farmer.

Normal, capitalist, quid pro quo, etc. I won't do anything for you unless you do something for me.

= Naive farmer.

Well, it works for code. This is a completely different idea, in case you hadn't noticed, and it basically says:

I'll extend help to you when you need it, without asking for reward, and you do the same. Therefore, we both do better, and we don't feel afraid of each other. This is, quite simply, fundamentally different. And better, in my opinion.

I'll extend help to you when you need it, without asking for reward, and you do the same. Therefore, we both do better, and we don't feel afraid of each other. This is, quite simply, fundamentally different. And better, in my opinion.

This is the flaw, in today's market, you rarely know personally who you are supplying too, and there is no reason to assume that the person will do the same to you unconditionally, and there will often be a time when a person is incapable of providing something of similar worth in absence of currency.

This is the flaw, in today's market, you rarely know personally who you are supplying too, and there is no reason to assume that the person will do the same to you unconditionally, and there will often be a time when a person is incapable of providing something of similar worth in absence of currency.

And this is the point you're missing. Where did I ever say similar worth? You can never run something if you're going to assume that all trades must be of similar worth.

What I've been busy advocating is based on gifting. Not "We exchange things of equal value" but "I give you this, because I can and you need it". I have seen this happen over the world, through the internet, on some of my more anarchist hangouts. Person B needs/wants something, and Person A goes "Here, I've got a spare one/can buy one. Want it?". Not charge them for it, just give it.

And this is the point you're missing. Where did I ever say similar worth? You can never run something if you're going to assume that all trades must be of similar worth.


Even so, it is still flawed in assuming anyone will return the favour unconditionally anyway.


What I've been busy advocating is based on gifting. Not "We exchange things of equal value" but "I give you this, because I can and you need it". I have seen this happen over the world, through the internet, on some of my more anarchist hangouts. Person B needs/wants something, and Person A goes "Here, I've got a spare one/can buy one. Want it?". Not charge them for it, just give it.

Totally non applicable to a large population, there will absolutely be no business, thus the economy will be destroyed. There will be no motivation for labourers to work their ass all day for nothing, leading to resources not being distributed to people around the country, causing famine and disease.

In the example cows are the means of production.

If I have the means to product wealth,but I am not efficient to create it,I will call for employment.You will produce 10kilos of milk but I will pay you 3 of them.Why?Because you have the need and I have the power.

In socialism/communism YOU TAKE the means of production,the cows,and say to me: allright,you got wealthy from my work,now this is going to stop.We will work together,no competition,that means that we are going to share knowledge and work together.We will then product more milk that you on your own and we will have a better life.

Offcourse the example is very simple.

As for the question about Berlin,the revolutions of 1989 started against the burrocracy,an authoritian goverment that have taken control of the USSR in 1920's by Stalin.This kind of regime had nothing to do with socialism/communism.Socialism is the implement of democracy and equality in the economy.It has nothing to do with authoritarian states,party dictatorships and methods near Gestapo's methods.This kind of states are caracterised as "Stalinist".

As for the American friends,I am communist,Marxist-Leninist,Trotskyist.I don't know how is the internal situation in US,but in Greece where I live,the last 5 years,the inequality in wealth has risen a lot and all the young workers work 10 hours a day for 600 eyros per month and we have almost the prices of Germany.
The consequance is a major turn to the left of the majority of people.

Even so, it is still flawed in assuming anyone will return the favour unconditionally anyway.

I'm sure you meant everyone there, right? I know that there are plenty of people who would.

Totally non applicable to a large population, there will absolutely be no business, thus the economy will be destroyed. There will be no motivation for labourers to work their ass all day for nothing, leading to resources not being distributed to people around the country, causing famine and disease.

Sure, so let's run it on a local level (well, run it is the wrong phrase).

Form your commune, or company if you prefer. We can trade if it's necessary, otherwise my commune can share with the commune down the valley.

Anarchist, remember?

this is what turned me onto Communism, not the philosophy but the music

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFPw5NTi1NQ

The Aztecs had a thriving commercial economy with a system of money and markets.

Which were primarily owned by the clans. Clans competed, not individual owners.

You know, I don't know why I bother, because you've admitted to be trolling.

And no, what I quoted there was not a rebuttal. You were ignoring and misrepresenting what I had actually said, and instead arguing against your own idea of my position. That makes things easier, I suppose.

Let's have a revolution then. Once we have, let's give people as many rights as possible. So you can find communist 'companies' and capitalist companies, trading. The reason for communism then? Because you aren't being forced into working - you do what you can for the group, and take what you need from the group. If the group like having you sit around all day and sing songs, you can do that - contribute what you can, get what you need.

As for this refusing to stop business. I'm not the guy who's happily posting five messages in a row, none of them properly spelled. I'm sending a few, well crafted comments, and adding to them if I think of something else before you respond. Name one edit I've made after your responses.

I'm intending to go to something known as Burning Man in a couple years time. The way this works is on giving. Everyone gives what they can to others - art, time, food, labour, music. Nothing more needed. No central arbiting, no centralised force taking what's mine and giving it to you.

Communism does not require authoritarianism. I've outlined, and provided examples, for how it could work without that. If you wanted to run a country on it, that's also fairly simple. Form your communes. Each of these is unlikely to be self sufficient, but is also likely to have surpluses of various things. So I give what I can to the groups who need it, and we all work on that. Crucially, no central authority.

Again with your personal attacks on me. When did i have 5 posts in a row? I would hardly call one word forgotten and a few uncapitalised words " none of them properly spelled". As I was on my way out I may have missed a few in that one and for that I give my apology. I will also provide you with an attempt of communism gone bad again! Plymouth colony.

If communism is so wonderfull and perfect why do you need a revolution? Could it be that most people wouldnt fall for it and no one would vote you into power? You need a revolution because without you could never get your way. A quick bloodbath to crush dissent just like the USSR. One last thing, go to your burning man and if it works for you great! In fact for all I care you and your fellow communist can make your own commune and see how that works out for you. But don't push your lifestyle on me.

Again with your personal attacks on me. When did i have 5 posts in a row? I would hardly call one word forgotten and a few uncapitalised words " none of them properly spelled". As I was on my way out I may have missed a few in that one and for that I give my apology. I will also provide you with an attempt of communism gone bad again! Plymouth colony.

If communism is so wonderfull and perfect why do you need a revolution? Could it be that most people wouldnt fall for it and no one would vote you into power? You need a revolution because without you could never get your way. A quick bloodbath to crush dissent just like the USSR. One last thing, go to your burning man and if it works for you great! In fact for all I care you and your fellow communist can make your own commune and see how that works out for you. But don't push your lifestyle on me.

He never said violent revolution.

Kapitalist = Dragon
Communist = Leprechaun

I think it is fairly obvious which political view I prefer.

Which were primarily owned by the clans. Clans competed, not individual owners.

Individuals competed amongst the clans, the clans owned the goods, and parents could sell children. I stand by my statement despite the fact that the Aztecs had primitive guilds based on family relation.

Individuals competed amongst the clans, the clans owned the goods, and parents could sell children. I stand by my statement despite the fact that the Aztecs had primitive guilds based on family relation.

Then I guess there is no substantial clash on this issue between us.

Then I guess there is no substantial clash on this issue between us.

I should have stated that the changes brought about by agriculture did not eliminate collective ownership, it just allowed for individuals and groups to make claims to property and hold the goods for a sustained amount of time.

I should have stated that the changes brought about by agriculture did not eliminate collective ownership, it just allowed for individuals and groups to make claims to property and hold the goods for a sustained amount of time.

I was reading through your debate with Jello B in another thread, and all I can say is that I wish right-wing libertarians would talk to people like you more often.

I was reading through your debate with Jello B in another thread, and all I can say is that I wish right-wing libertarians would talk to people like you more often.

While there are a bunch of self-professed right-wing libertarians out there that make discussion very difficult between market anarchists and traditional anarchists, most libertarians who follow the theory are similar in outlook to me.

EDIT: Give me a bit and I will try and put my thoughts on what separates right and left wing into words.

I should have stated that the changes brought about by agriculture did not eliminate collective ownership, it just allowed for individuals and groups to make claims to property and hold the goods for a sustained amount of time.

You mean as a form of stewardship?

Kapitalist = Dragon
Communist = Leprechaun

I think it is fairly obvious which political view I prefer.

Kapitalist? Its capitalist you numbskull. Also what do you mean by the dragon/leprechaun thing? I have no idea what you are talking about! Go back to russia comrade idiot.

You mean as a form of stewardship?

I suppose at its most basic.


First off, hunter-gatherers were limited to what they could carry on their person. With the advent of agriculture, people could be sedentary, and could store resources and goods.

Related to this, agriculture could sustain a much higher population density because of increased efficiency of food production and because of the storage ability I mentioned. This allowed members of society to begin trades not related to food production by creating items of value and trading.

With these two effects of the advent of agriculture came a system of property and trade. I do not think it was coercion that led people away from egalitarian societies, but the realization that when one can store and trade goods, one can specialize one's labor, and this specialization brings about greater individual wealth than collective exertion of labor.

Now this does eliminate an economy where everyone produces as they desire and takes as they desire, as this eliminates the bonus of labor specialization (except for in matters of prestige and perceived moral duty). But it doesn't eliminate an economy made up of trade unions and guilds with collective ownership or of usufruct property rights or stewardship as you say.

At this point, the manner of social construction would depend on the environment and prevailing moral values of the society (which in turn is likely shaped by the environment surrounding previous generations), and not on any human proclivity towards individualism or tribalism.

While there are a bunch of self-professed right-wing libertarians out there that make discussion very difficult between market anarchists and traditional anarchists, most libertarians who follow the theory are similar in outlook to me.

EDIT: Give me a bit and I will try and put my thoughts on what separates right and left wing into words.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem like a Proudhonian mutualist...

I can respect some of the communists on here. MOST of them are polite and generally know what they are talking about. But people like the Kapitalism, dragon guy are just idiots. I cannot stand them, same goes for the people like that on my side. Although so far nobody like that HAS showed up on my side.

Kapitalist? Its capitalist you numbskull. Also what do you mean by the dragon/leprechaun thing? I have no idea what you are talking about! Go back to russia comrade idiot.
but people like the Kapitalism, dragon guy are just idiots.

oooh, I am so sorry for misspelling Capitalist, it being spelled with a k in my native language and all </sarcasm>

And comparing a gold hoarding dragon to a Kapitalist seems about right to me...Figure out the Leprechaun yourself...

BTW, i´m not from Russia, which can be found out quite easily from my location..
If one takes the time to read...

Lastly, I only said that I would prefer communism before Kapitalism...
I would prefer...my view..
I was not bashing yours..

EDIT:added the last 2 lines..

oooh, I am so sorry for misspelling Capitalist, it being spelled with a k in my native language and all </sarcasm>

And comparing a gold hoarding dragon to a Kapitalist seems about right to me...Figure out the Leprechaun yourself...

BTW, i´m not from Russia, which can be found out quite easily from my location..
If one takes the time to read...

Lastly, I only said that I would prefer communism before Kapitalism...
I would prefer...my view..
I was not bashing yours..

EDIT:added the last 2 lines..

Native language huh? Seems to me that the proper thing to do when going on a forum that is in another language is to at least know how to spell correctly in that language. I see nothing wrong with "hoarding gold". If the money is yours you can hoard it to your hearts content. BTW I dont care if you are russian or not, that was sarcasm. It was *SO* kind of you to explain what dragon meant, but you *SO* kindly left out what the the little fairy man meant so it still makes no sence. Last of all WHY would you prefer communism. I have stated why I like CCCCapitalism you however, have not provided any reasoning behind your support of "Kommunism".

well, the dragon-leprachan metaphor doesnt make any sense to me either.... and yes, sense is spelled "sense" not "sence." so before you accuse someone who has taken the time to learn one of the most difficult languages on the planet of not knowing phonetical differences between K and C, why dont you learn the languge yourself.

ANYways, there are plenty of plus sides for communism, but i dont think you have to mental capacity to accept them.

i actually do prefer capitalism, but i respect communism as an ideal.

well, the dragon-leprachan metaphor doesnt make any sense to me either.... and yes, sense is spelled "sense" not "sence." so before you accuse someone who has taken the time to learn one of the most difficult languages on the planet of not knowing phonetical differences between K and C, why dont you learn the LANGUGE yourself.

ANYways, there are plenty of plus sides for communism, but i dont think you have to mental capacity to accept them.

i actually do prefer capitalism, but i respect communism as an ideal.

HMM think before you speak. I did make a mistake spelling I am aware, but so did you. Also before you post READ MY FIRST COMMENT. He was also aware of the difference if you bothered to read. If he simply was not aware I would not have pounded him so much. What plus sides to communism? You have just attacked me without any proof as well as making a fool of yourself. Unless you prove to me you deserve respect I will give your opinion none.

Not if someone else is being lazy.

Patently untrue. If you go from not working hard to working hard, more is getting done.

If someone else is still being lazy, it still helps that you're doing more.

Now, if someone is clearly being lazy, their collegues will be best placed to observe this, and to resolve action against them, perhaps a reduced share of profits. I don't know why everyone assumes that Communism means being given a free ride.

Not if Comrade Manykids has another mouth to feed and can claim a need better than you.

Again, that's clearly not right. If the company is making more money, there's still more to go around. How much money the company makes has little to do with whether or not somebody gets pregnant.


Which is the same under capitalism, where you have the capacity to change your job if you think you've been mistreated.

You have that capacity in this Communist system, at least as much as you have in the capitalist one, only you may not have to throw yourself on the scant mercies of the job market, since you have the capacity to directly influence your current workplace to the better instead of leaving it to fester within the body of the national economy.

I wouldn't want to base an argument that my system works on the condition that my system works. Seems sorta circular.

There can be no reasonable contention on the effectiveness of this part of the system. Communal education was effective and profitable in even the otherwise failed experiments of colonial America, and genuinely improved funding to state education necessarily carries at least some improvement to standards.

fist off, im not attacking you. im defending him for the fact that he spelled capitalism wrong. second, im on your side, dude. i know that communism wouldnt work, but thats because ive seen the plus sides of it, As Well as the faults. there are more faults, however. lastly, i dont proclaim myself as a good speller, especially when im typing.....

plus sides of communism:
the government looks after everyone, there are no economic hardships or lack of necesities.

there is no social order, and equality is universal

each citizen can live a life without having to worry about having enough money to raise a family, buy a house, or find a job.

lastly, the communistic government is self-sufficient. the people, as a whole provide for the gov't, and vice versa

Native language huh? Seems to me that the proper thing to do when going on a forum that is in another language is to at least know how to spell correctly in that language. I see nothing wrong with "hoarding gold". If the money is yours you can hoard it to your hearts content. BTW I dont care if you are russian or not, that was sarcasm. It was *SO* kind of you to explain what dragon meant, but you *SO* kindly left out what the the little fairy man meant so it still makes no sence. Last of all WHY would you prefer communism. I have stated why I like CCCCapitalism you however, have not provided any reasoning behind your support of "Kommunism".

I have no problems with the English language thank you.
It was a slip up. It happens..Get over it..

I am sorry though, for not directly explaining what I meant.
By the dragon/leprechaun euphemism I was trying to imply the sense that Capitalism is like a dragon hording gold, keeping it and taking it from others.
And by the leprechaun the quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"...But that one might have failed somewhat..

The reason I would prefer communism is because it would give everyone an equal starting ground.
It would let people work with what they love (equal salary´s ), instead of taking on any job, (because of lack of money)
No one would be poor, by todays standard.
No one would be rich, monetarily that is. But would still enjoy all that life can bring.
And more...

And to further explain my position,
I concur with the statement that Communism would (sadly) not work today.
I think it is largely due to the existence of money, and Humankind´s innate greed.
It would have to undergo some tweaking before being a viable option.
As have most political ideas.

ah, the lazy problem.....
if someone is being lazy, and you cut their share of the funds, then you create two kinds of people: the lazy people without as much profits, as well as the other profitable people.

with this separation, It Isnt True Communism! you cant descriminate between who has more profits, because then you take a step toward capitalism.

communism is equal shares for everyone, including those who arent doing their work.

well, the dragon-leprachan metaphor doesnt make any sense to me either.... and yes, sense is spelled "sense" not "sence." so before you accuse someone who has taken the time to learn one of the most difficult languages on the planet of not knowing phonetical differences between K and C, why dont you learn the languge yourself.

ANYways, there are plenty of plus sides for communism, but i dont think you have to mental capacity to accept them.

i actually do prefer capitalism, but i respect communism as an ideal.

I have no problems with the English language thank you.
It was a slip up. It happens..Get over it..

I am sorry though, for not directly explaining what I meant.
By the dragon/leprechaun euphemism I was trying to imply the sense that Capitalism is like a dragon hording gold, keeping it and taking it from others.
And by the leprechaun the quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"...But that one might have failed somewhat..

The reason I would prefer communism is because it would give everyone an equal starting ground.
It would let people work with what they love (equal salary´s ), instead of taking on any job, (because of lack of money)
No one would be poor, by todays standard.
No one would be rich, monetarily that is. But would still enjoy all that life can bring.
And more...

And to further explain my position,
I concur with the statement that Communism would (sadly) not work today.
I think it is largely due to the existence of money, and Humankind´s innate greed.
It would have to undergo some tweaking before being a viable option.
As have most political ideas.

I have to agree with the last part of your statement( take out the sadly). Sorry I did not mean to have that first quote in there.

yes, i agree.

communism would help the problems of poverty, and seems like a good idea on paper. the only problems are not only greed and lazyness, but i think that there is another factor.

the main reason that I'm opposed to communism is that it doesn't allow for any economical advancement. meaning, you cannot move up in life. i think that it is a neccesary component for a human being to have a drive, a reason to try harder.

Now, if someone is clearly being lazy, their collegues will be best placed to observe this, and to resolve action against them, perhaps a reduced share of profits. I don't know why everyone assumes that Communism means being given a free ride.
Because there is no more clear connection between how much value you provide and how much work you do. None of the workers has the time or oversight to know precisely how much you contribute, none of the workers has the means to accurately gauge just how much of your potential you're actually using.

So the goal becomes working as little as you can get away with. And if you can make an argument that you need a bigger percentage, then that's where you spend your effort, rather than trying to increase the overall size of the pie.

Again, that's clearly not right. If the company is making more money, there's still more to go around. How much money the company makes has little to do with whether or not somebody gets pregnant.
Say the company earns $1000. There are ten workers, and everyone is initially judged to have equal needs, so gets 10% of the net profits. $250 needs to go into maintenance and so on. So they all get $75 each.

Now you work a little harder, and the company makes $1100. Everyone now gets $85. Yay! (Note the fact that for $100 worth of value you provided, you get $10, while everyone else gets $10 for $0 worth of value they provided.)

But now suppose Comrade Manykids forgot to use a condom in the meantime, and has another few mouths to feed. So it is judged that he will need 25% of the profits. Afterall, the Soviet can't allow children to starve to death.

There are $850 to go around, Manykids gets $212.50. Everyone else gets $70.83. Bugger.

Note how Manykids didn't have to work more or be responsible with his use of contraceptives. Someone else covered the cost of his accident. Well...the second time it would probably start to look a bit silly to call it an "accident".

By the way, I did plug those numbers out of thin air to make a point. Address that, and not the numbers.

You have that capacity in this Communist system, at least as much as you have in the capitalist one, only you may not have to throw yourself on the scant mercies of the job market, since you have the capacity to directly influence your current workplace to the better instead of leaving it to fester within the body of the national economy.
But you don't have that capacity. What if you're that nerdy loner always sitting in the corner? You might be a brilliant engineer who makes everyone else's work possible, but stand up and argue for change (or for a bigger share of the profits)? You're not gonna be able to do that.

In the capitalist workplace, your ability is what is being valued. Your objective capacity to provide value.

Whatever ends up being valued in your democratic workplace, ability ain't it.

There can be no reasonable contention on the effectiveness of this part of the system. Communal education was effective and profitable in even the otherwise failed experiments of colonial America, and genuinely improved funding to state education necessarily carries at least some improvement to standards.
Yeah, in failed states with no private alternative and civil war going on, crude measures of education (like literacy rates) may improve.

It seems however that these failed states with their nationalised universities didn't do nearly as well in higher education. Indeed, non-nationalised education has been quite capable of keeping up with nationalised systems even in primary school, and has definitely yielded better results the more advanced the students get.

And don't forget that literacy figures from North Korea or Zimbabwe are not necessarily worth the paper they're printed on. I just can't believe that there are no kids with learning disabilities in those countries.

yes, i agree.

communism would help the problems of poverty, and seems like a good idea on paper. the only problems are not only greed and lazyness, but i think that there is another factor.

the main reason that I'm opposed to communism is that it doesn't allow for any economical advancement. meaning, you cannot move up in life. i think that it is a neccesary component for a human being to have a drive, a reason to try harder.

I believe it would actually help people move forwards in life, instead of "upwards".
Since they have no money/survival aspects to think of, they would automatically pursue that which really drives them..
Their interests, the joys in their life.
We would probably see a lot more effort go into research and other (space) exploration areas. (I hope ;))

yes, i agree.

communism would help the problems of poverty, and seems like a good idea on paper. the only problems are not only greed and lazyness, but i think that there is another factor.

the main reason that I'm opposed to communism is that it doesn't allow for any economical advancement. meaning, you cannot move up in life. i think that it is a neccesary component for a human being to have a drive, a reason to try harder.

Communism doesn't mean equal shares for everyone. A true communist society recognizes that people have different capabilities and different needs, and compensates accordingly. You contribute what you can, and in return, you get what you need. If you cannot contribute, then you're not left to hang. But if you can and refuse to contribute, don't expect anything more than the bare minimum of food, shelter and health care necessary to survive healthily.

Furthermore, no one is suggesting that we move to a communist society overnight. The transition will be long, perhaps several generations. The prior step is socialism, in which productive resources are controlled cooperatively, and people are renumerated based on their labor in early stages, and effort in more advanced stages.

The idea here is to 1) correct the alienation and domination present in the capitalist system and 2) build the requisite level of interpersonal solidarity to allow a communist system to work. Basically, we solve the problem of equity first, and then we move on to creating the truly humane society.

Communism, particularly in its eco-anarchist form, deemphasizes consumeristic accumulation. The idea is to create institutions that allow people to live a fulfilling life, not an empty life made bearable by consumerist diversions. Not only is this ecologically necessary for long term human survival, but is also quite desirable.

that is a good example situation using money,
but i dont think that any form of currency would exist in a communisic government.

currency is used to buy things, things that would be provided for you by the gov't. currency is also used to move up in the world, wich is something you cannot do in a communistic society. currency is useless to a communist, because s/he already has evrything he needs, as provided by the gov't. if he bought things that others didnt have, then he would be a capitalist.

the person deemed more in need of supplies would simply be given the supplies to feed those extra mouths. like more food, or a bigger house. not money to purchase such things.

[QUOTE=Trotskylvania;13163036]Communism doesn't mean equal shares for everyone. A true communist society recognizes that people have different capabilities and different needs, and compensates accordingly. You contribute what you can, and in return, you get what you need. If you cannot contribute, then you're not left to hang. But if you can and refuse to contribute, don't expect anything more than the bare minimum of food, shelter and health care necessary to survive healthily.
QUOTE]

human beings do have different abilities, but we all have about the same needs. we all need around the same ammount of food/shelter, and we all have our luxuries that can be distributed as well as food and shelter.

the concept of giving less to those whom refuse to work or more to those who need more undermines perfect communism. first, define what it would take to become a person with more needs.

i dont think that having a larger family would constitute being more in need. the children would recive the same beneifits of other children, and the adult in care of them wouldnt have the goods for him/herself. they would be usable by the children, who have just as many needs as others.(exept very small changes in nutritional needs based on age)

aside from being handicapped, i dont see how needs are lesser or greater between humans. although, Trotskylvania may be referring to a kind of need that i havnt adressed. if so, please explain.

I believe it would actually help people move forwards in life, instead of "upwards".
Since they have no money/survival aspects to think of, they would automatically pursue that which really drives them..
Their interests, the joys in their life.
We would probably see a lot more effort go into research and other (space) exploration areas. (I hope ;))

yes, the onwards advancement of society as a whole would definately occur. it would be nice to see how that would come to fruition.

although intrests and joys in life can drive people, i think that for some, there is a somewhat selfish/greedy need to become more socially/economically advanced than others. Or possibly, the greater aspects of life would be enough, i like to think that they would...

Because there is no more clear connection between how much value you provide and how much work you do. None of the workers has the time or oversight to know precisely how much you contribute, none of the workers has the means to accurately gauge just how much of your potential you're actually using.

Well of course there's not a to-the-cent precise way of working it out, but then there isn't now, generally you just plug along getting a fixed wage by doing the least you can do without being fired. At least in this Communist structure the guy next to you can take issue with your lack of productivity if the company's struggling to make enough to give everyone a healthy share.

Of course, chances are that you can all get away with doing less, and, in fact, that most of you do have time to consider how much work is getting done. In many of the examples of recouperated businesses in Argentina there are workplaces producing a fraction of what they did before while paying workers significantly higher wages. It's amazing how few upper-managers, absentee shareholders, and other such wastrels need be removed in order to free-up sufficient revenue to double the wages of everyone else in the company, or halve their hours.

So the goal becomes working as little as you can get away with. And if you can make an argument that you need a bigger percentage, then that's where you spend your effort, rather than trying to increase the overall size of the pie.

That goal sounds oh so different from the aim of the average wage-labourer, eh? If you can argue for a bigger percentage then you've obviously made a good case. Fair enough, eh. How much effort is it going to take to make an argument (I'm doing it for the sheer heck of it, while applying for a visa, chatting on another forum, and catching-up with friends on three continents, and I'm hungover) at a regular Soviet meeting that you can't manage to work properly for the rest of the week? You must be one passionate speaker, mate!


Say the company earns $1000. There are ten workers, and everyone is initially judged to have equal needs, so gets 10% of the net profits. $250 needs to go into maintenance and so on. So they all get $75 each.

Maybe this only has a so-so impact on the mechanics of the argument, but I'm not arguing for pay scales based soley on need but also on such things as complexity and harshness of task, workload, and of seniority et cetera.

I think, by the by, that instead of factoring in costs in the middle of the equation you would have done better to work from the start with profits in a nice round ammount like that $1,000.

Now you work a little harder, and the company makes $1100. Everyone now gets $85. Yay! (Note the fact that for $100 worth of value you provided, you get $10, while everyone else gets $10 for $0 worth of value they provided.)

That's the extra $100 you provided, I assume, or else you previously contributed $0 and so everyone else was already averaging more than $100 and, frankly, it was about time you pulled your figner out, anyway!

The intent is that someone working that much harder will be rewarded with a higher percentage share, because, as I say, need is not the sole deciding factor. I'm not a Marxist.

Again, it is not absolutely perfect. I only wish that perfection were possible in any system. You may not get exactly the right ammount, but the mechanism exists to recognise directly and almost immediately your extra contributions. You can't say that it's any better -even as good- under capitalistic wage-labour, where you get the same as the guy next to you until you make such a great difference that you're promoted if there's even any scope for that in your workplace, possibly given a bonus decided by somebody else without the input of you and the other profit-generating workers.

In your particular scenario, chances are that if you singly made such a huge difference it would be recognised by enough of your colleagues for an increase in your percentage share to be approved. Everyone else would make more money, too, unless it was somehow worked out so precisely that your percentage boost covered all of the extra revenue, but you would make the greater share of it.

You'd at last be forced to recognise that, no matter how hard you worked, you wouldn't have made a damn cent were it not for your comrades, for the society in which you live, and that the money wouldn't be worth anything without that anyway. A major fundamental point to realise here would be that Thatcher couldn't possibly have been more wrong when she said that there is no such thing as society. Possibly the most ridiculous thing ever seriously declared in all of human history.

I'm afraid that I'm totally out of time, here, but I'll likely be back tomorrow. This is costing me too much money, as it happens!

ah, the lazy problem.....
if someone is being lazy, and you cut their share of the funds, then you create two kinds of people: the lazy people without as much profits, as well as the other profitable people.

with this separation, It Isnt True Communism! you cant descriminate between who has more profits, because then you take a step toward capitalism.

communism is equal shares for everyone, including those who arent doing their work.It could be argued that unequal shares for everyone would lead to separate classes developing, but unequal shares for everyone is not in and of itself classist.

But now suppose Comrade Manykids forgot to use a condom in the meantime, and has another few mouths to feed. So it is judged that he will need 25% of the profits. Afterall, the Soviet can't allow children to starve to death.

There are $850 to go around, Manykids gets $212.50. Everyone else gets $70.83. Bugger.

Note how Manykids didn't have to work more or be responsible with his use of contraceptives. Someone else covered the cost of his accident. Well...the second time it would probably start to look a bit silly to call it an "accident".Why would Comrade Manykids not have to work more?

human beings do have different abilities, but we all have about the same needs. we all need around the same ammount of food/shelter, and we all have our luxuries that can be distributed as well as food and shelter.

the concept of giving less to those whom refuse to work or more to those who need more undermines perfect communism. first, define what it would take to become a person with more needs.

A practical communism, even with a high level of solidarity among participants, needs some way to motivate people to work. If you contribute, then you're okay, and you'll get what you need. But if you refuse while you are able to, then all you are getting is the irreducible minimum. You'll live heathily, but you won't have any luxuries.

Plenty of people have more needs. Students require all the books and services related to education. We make need our standard of renumeration because we don't want people like students to have to eat less if they are making the personal sacrifice of more education.

The sick and the elder also have more needs than the average person. We don't renumerate a flat amount to everyone, but rather we keep everything tied to need. An old man who has spent years working in the commune will be provided with everything he needs to live the rest of his days comfortably.

You see what I'm getting at?

Again with your personal attacks on me. When did i have 5 posts in a row? I would hardly call one word forgotten and a few uncapitalised words " none of them properly spelled". As I was on my way out I may have missed a few in that one and for that I give my apology. I will also provide you with an attempt of communism gone bad again! Plymouth colony.

If communism is so wonderfull and perfect why do you need a revolution? Could it be that most people wouldnt fall for it and no one would vote you into power? You need a revolution because without you could never get your way. A quick bloodbath to crush dissent just like the USSR. One last thing, go to your burning man and if it works for you great! In fact for all I care you and your fellow communist can make your own commune and see how that works out for you. But don't push your lifestyle on me.

Excuse me. Those were not personal attacks, not by a long shot. Considering that you've mentioned things like 'numbskull' and 'comrade idiot', I don't think your in much of a place to throw about such accusations anyway. As for five posts misspelled, that was a slight exaggeration. Posts 90-92 are all yours, and contain at least one spelling or grammar error. The quoted post, spelling and grammar. Many others, also spelling and/or grammar.

Now back on topic.

You still persist in thinking that the only way of making people do things is to force them - control. I think that the other way to make people do things is entice them - reward. I am not authoritarian, do not support the USSR, etc. For the record, my personal politics are

According to the Political Compass, I'm -7.25, -7.64**; which puts me as strongly anarcho-communist/syndicalist.

I'm anti authoritarian, pro communist. I don't say "The government forces it", I say "The people choose it". I'm not quite anarchist enough to demand no laws, and I know that things would probably go wrong, so let's have a look at the sort of society I am actually recommending.

First, take a country. Remove the central government, and instead allow control of the country to pass to the people. The rules are as follows: Don't deprive others of their rights, the fundamental rights being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (I like some parts of the US system, as you can see).

People who wish to stay, may stay. Those who don't, may go. If you want to stay or join, sign on to agree to that.

Now, a single person in this sort of society will likely not do very well. So you'll need to form some sort of community. What it is, doesn't really matter - you can form a capitalist corporation and elect a leader if you wish, but he won't have any authority over those who don't join you.

So presume a group of people form a commune. The basic rules are likely to be - do what you can for the group, get what you need from the group. If you don't do what you can, go away. Your commune is likely to be able to produce most of what it needs, but there will probably be things which you can't make or grow.

For these, you now have two options. You can engage in a form of trade - we'll give you twenty sacks of potatoes, we want five of those tin roofs. This would work better for dealing with capitalist groups. However, if you happen to trust another commune enough, you can instead say "Here, have these potates, we don't need them. By the way, do you have any tin roofs spare?". The important thing about this is that there is no contract, no 'we do x so you do y'. It's 'here, have x, we don't need it, and if you could spare some of y, we'd appreciate it'.

You could, I suppose, elect officers to some sort of communications division, tasked with posting want and have across the nation.

This isn't really a proper suggestion yet, just an idea, so you know roughly what I mean. Now stop assuming that I support authoritarians or mass murder.

* http://b.armory.com/~xyzzy/politics.html was the page, while my site itself is http://b.armory.com/~xyzzy

**In comparison, Stalin was about -9.5, 9.5 - authoritarian communist.

fist off, im not attacking you. im defending him for the fact that he spelled capitalism wrong. second, im on your side, dude. i know that communism wouldnt work, but thats because ive seen the plus sides of it, As Well as the faults. there are more faults, however. lastly, i dont proclaim myself as a good speller, especially when im typing.....

plus sides of communism:
the government looks after everyone, there are no economic hardships or lack of necesities.

there is no social order, and equality is universal

each citizen can live a life without having to worry about having enough money to raise a family, buy a house, or find a job.

lastly, the communistic government is self-sufficient. the people, as a whole provide for the gov't, and vice versa

I fail to see how the government looking out for every one is a good thing. Sounds kinda like 1984 if you know what I mean. No social order? That would be chaos! There NEEDS to be some kind of social order in the world! Yea because the government takes care of that for you. What if they decide you can share your house with 5 other families or that you don't REALLY need all that food. How is it self sufficient? I just do not understand what you mean by your last statement please explain.

I fail to see how the government looking out for every one is a good thing. Sounds kinda like 1984 if you know what I mean. No social order? That would be chaos! There NEEDS to be some kind of social order in the world! Yea because the government takes care of that for you. What if they decide you can share your house with 5 other families or that you don't REALLY need all that food. How is it self sufficient? I just do not understand what you mean by your last statement please explain.

Have you not even read my last post? Where have I ever said that the government (what government?) would force anything to happen?

Edit: Changed the first question mark from a full stop.

Have you not even read my last post? Where have I ever said that the government (what government?) would force anything to happen?

Edit: Changed the first question mark from a full stop.

I was not responding to YOU. It was to someone else.

I was not responding to YOU. It was to someone else.

Okay, show me where that person said it. Hell, show me where any person advocating communism said it.

The thing I find funny about this "it looks great on paper, but it doesn't work out in the real world" argument is that neither does capitalism. Read through Wealth of Nations and tell me if that resembles the current capitalist economic system. It is rife with contradictions and problems that make it turn out to be something quite different. Yet again, another typical knee-jerk response to communism. Go read a book.

At least communism is striving towards a more ethical goal.

shut up already!:headbang:
if you don't understand it dont post and although it seems you do, people who don't and haters soon spam up these topics.

Who are you then? Why are you any better than me? You seem to be a hater yourself with that comment there. You also seem not to understand it because you have not backed up your personal insults aimed at me.

no i meant that i am sick of these topics when people who don't even know what there arguing against stick thier head in and dig their heels in. theirs been enough of these topics.

i didn't aim any personal attack at you i said "it seems you understand it"
who was i hating:confused:

Well of course there's not a to-the-cent precise way of working it out, but then there isn't now, generally you just plug along getting a fixed wage by doing the least you can do without being fired.
If you were an unskilled factory worker. You'll find that significant numbers of people aren't - and their wages may not be quite the same. In fact, the more skilled the person, the more my view becomes true - and the more that person has to lose by making his livelihood subject to majority approval.

At least in this Communist structure the guy next to you can take issue with your lack of productivity if the company's struggling to make enough to give everyone a healthy share.
What's he gonna do? It's his speech against my speech. And if it's that nerdy engineer, he ain't got nothing on Comrade Bigboobs.

In many of the examples of recouperated businesses in Argentina there are workplaces producing a fraction of what they did before while paying workers significantly higher wages. It's amazing how few upper-managers, absentee shareholders, and other such wastrels need be removed in order to free-up sufficient revenue to double the wages of everyone else in the company, or halve their hours.
Well, let's just say that these wastrels serve their purpose too. It's not as immediately obvious to those who never graduated from high school (who are of course the ones this revolution of yours is designed for), but it will in a few years time.

You must be one passionate speaker, mate!
Or just a thorough debater. You don't go there just saying "I want more cash" - you have to prove that you work hard, that you have the need for it, that others are not working as hard etc etc. That requires taping them being bad workers, trashing your house so it looks like you're really poor, having another child or two (or maybe get grandma to come live with you) and so on and so forth.

The intent is that someone working that much harder will be rewarded with a higher percentage share, because, as I say, need is not the sole deciding factor. I'm not a Marxist.
And who measures it? All the Soviet knows is that you earned $1000 one year and $1100 the next. The rest is a matter for debate and vote.

Remember, you'd need accountants, managers, investors etc etc to really keep track of why a company is successful. And the last thing you want to do is give those types the last say in your Soviet meeting, right?

You'd at last be forced to recognise that, no matter how hard you worked, you wouldn't have made a damn cent were it not for your comrades, for the society in which you live, and that the money wouldn't be worth anything without that anyway.
And that is the real evil here. No matter what you do, nevermind that whatever you did only happened because you did it, your life is subject to majority approval. You take any objective standard of production, and therefore of existence, and you make it meaningless.

Whether or not you invented a new machine that makes everybody's day easier is decided in a vote. And if you're the nerdy engineer, you won't get squat.

Whether or not you made 5000 widgets and the other guy made 500 - it's decided in a vote. And if the other guy is Comrade Manykids or Comrade Bigboobs, you won't get squat.

Whether or not you will, at the end of your career, be able to fulfill your dream and live in the Bahamas, it's decided in a vote. And if you can't offer them anything since you're about to retire, you won't get squat.

Your system relies on everyone being objective in their judgements, and acting accordingly. It relies on people granting each other fair consideration. They don't - or rather: they can't. Your system punishes the honest guy, and rewards the non-producer. No one can stay nice in this world for too long, human nature or not.

A major fundamental point to realise here would be that Thatcher couldn't possibly have been more wrong when she said that there is no such thing as society. Possibly the most ridiculous thing ever seriously declared in all of human history.
I happen to agree with her. "Society" as a word is a thinking aid that prevents us from having to spell out a million names. No more, no less.

It's the people that make up society that count. They exist, materially. They have wishes, wants and dreams. Maggie's real point was that people tend to use "in the name of society" as an excuse to hurt others. If I earn a million bucks, and someone decides to take half of that in taxes, and I ask why they'll say "it's for society, mate". They won't say "it's for John Smith from Cronulla, who has difficulty finding a job where they don't have an issue with his alcoholism, and Dave Johnson from Ipswich who quit school after year 9 and quit his apprenticeship and now needs expensive surgery, and your high school bully who uses the money to pay alimony to three different women, and Mr. Jackson from Company X because they successfully lobbied the government for some subsidies".

Because then you would really ask: "Why?"

Why would Comrade Manykids not have to work more?
Well, firstly because you're not trying to make people work hard just for having greater needs. Where'd be the positive freedom then?

And secondly, because now he can say he needs to spend more time with his kids. And I don't think you guys start a whole revolution just to have people still working away in sweatshops and missing their kids growing up.

And that is the real evil here. No matter what you do, nevermind that whatever you did only happened because you did it, your life is subject to majority approval. And this is worse than your life being subject to minority approval how?

Well, firstly because you're not trying to make people work hard just for having greater needs. Where'd be the positive freedom then?If you have the freedom to create additional needs for yourself (having children), then you should have the freedom to meet those needs for yourself as well. At least until the kids are in school, at which point they would be working (yes, getting an education is, or should be, work).

And secondly, because now he can say he needs to spend more time with his kids. And I don't think you guys start a whole revolution just to have people still working away in sweatshops and missing their kids growing up.I'd imagine he'd have ample time to spend with his kids, given that everyone's number of work hours are lower than they are in current systems.

no i meant that i am sick of these topics when people who don't even know what there arguing against stick thier head in and dig their heels in. theirs been enough of these topics.

i didn't aim any personal attack at you i said "it seems you understand it"
who was i hating:confused:

I apparently missunderstood you. Please accept my apology. Also to universe my previous statement was not aimed at someone who supproted communism. However he did mention several positive aspects of it, of which i disagree.

And this is worse than your life being subject to minority approval how?
I have the chance to go somewhere else and find someone whose ideas are more in-tune with mine. Plus, since both sides are directly involved with the outcome of the relationship, there is no opportunity to say "someone else will make it all work out".

If you have the freedom to create additional needs for yourself (having children), then you should have the freedom to meet those needs for yourself as well. At least until the kids are in school, at which point they would be working (yes, getting an education is, or should be, work).
Hmm, do you notice that you're moving out into shaky territory here?

I'd imagine he'd have ample time to spend with his kids, given that everyone's number of work hours are lower than they are in current systems.
Or so goes the marketing slogan. But maybe, if we call it a Subbotnik or something, we can reduce the number of work hours without actually doing so. Now there's progress for you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem like a Proudhonian mutualist...

I believe capital can be natural and just, so no. But I am close.

What's he gonna do? It's his speech against my speech. And if it's that nerdy engineer, he ain't got nothing on Comrade Bigboobs.

I don't think that you're being entirely realistic. In most working environments this isn't going to be so simplistic. It's not going to be one worker spotting genuine incompetence or lack of contribution and the whole place being duped by the offender's silver tongue.

Well, let's just say that these wastrels serve their purpose too. It's not as immediately obvious to those who never graduated from high school (who are of course the ones this revolution of yours is designed for), but it will in a few years time.

Well done, you lose this particular bout of social intercourse.

Or just a thorough debater. You don't go there just saying "I want more cash" - you have to prove that you work hard, that you have the need for it, that others are not working as hard etc etc. That requires taping them being bad workers, trashing your house so it looks like you're really poor, having another child or two (or maybe get grandma to come live with you) and so on and so forth.

Hahah! That genuinely made me chuckle. When actually living in this postulated society instead of just imagining bits of it from without things would look very different. Crucially, others would be living in it too, and would better understand your claimed needs and their vailidity.

And who measures it? All the Soviet knows is that you earned $1000 one year and $1100 the next. The rest is a matter for debate and vote.

Measures what? There doesn't seem to be a problem from which to form a question, here. People work, profits are generated, shares are apportioned and revised.

[size=Neu Leonstein]Remember, you'd need accountants, managers, investors etc etc to really keep track of why a company is successful. And the last thing you want to do is give those types the last say in your Soviet meeting, right?[/quote]

Wait, what? Investors? Managers? I thought that I'd conveyed at least a vague overview of my conception of Communism, and that was what we were discussing. Seems we're talking about your conception of a form that couldn't work and can be easily torn down... as if it were an opponent made of some manner of dried plant stalk or something.

I'll add that I'm unmoved on the society question. John Smith wouldn't have made a million without society, his million wouldn't be worth anything without society, what it IS worth is determined -consciously or unconsciously- by society, he wouldn't get anything from it without society.

I don't think that you're being entirely realistic. In most working environments this isn't going to be so simplistic. It's not going to be one worker spotting genuine incompetence or lack of contribution and the whole place being duped by the offender's silver tongue.
Hey, people elected George Bush, right? Twice!

Never underestimate the carelessness with which people regard their vote in a democratic process.

Seriously though, do you see the point I'm making? What you earn is not determined by a boss who has an interest in getting the best out of you, it is determined by a Soviet. This Soviet acts according to group dynamics, not objective truth. Furthermore, even the objective criteria that it uses are much more broad than the capitalist ones. Not just how much money you make matters, but also your need (even if it is not complete). You just cannot get around the fact that Comrade Manykids' children will starve to death unless the Soviet approves his pay increase. So every member has two ways of getting more money: increase the overall profits (and hope that the shares remain equal) or the easier way, try and get a bigger paycheck secured at the next Soviet meeting. The bigger the factory, the less secure the first method - and the more effective the second.

Well done, you lose this particular bout of social intercourse.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with your point that the money earned by shareholders, bondholders, various levels of management and so on could also be allocated to the workers.

I'm just saying that if you do so, you'll have a company without these people, and they are sorta important. The company will in fact fail within a fairly short time without them, and then no one earns any money.

Hahah! That genuinely made me chuckle. When actually living in this postulated society instead of just imagining bits of it from without things would look very different. Crucially, others would be living in it too, and would better understand your claimed needs and their vailidity.
Well, if we're not going to try and model some sort of scenario, then what can we actually say about your system? You explain to me how things work, and I'll be posing as the lazy rat out to do what he can to have a good time.

Measures what? There doesn't seem to be a problem from which to form a question, here. People work, profits are generated, shares are apportioned and revised.
Sure there is. You said shares would be apportioned according to (among other things) those who work hard.

But there's gotta be some measurement of that. You need some standard to figure out what a person's abilities are, and the degree to which he or she is exhausting them.

But there's no data available on that. You get some financial figures (very simple ones, unless you have an accountancy department), and the rest is basically the entirely subjective opinion of the voting members of the Soviet.

Wait, what? Investors? Managers? I thought that I'd conveyed at least a vague overview of my conception of Communism, and that was what we were discussing.
I was thinking along the lines of that documentary movie "The Take".

Anyways, I was thinking that all you really know is that your cooperative (or, as I like to call them: "workers competitive") is successful. In a capitalist company, you have managers, accountants and investors working out why that is and trying to improve things further.

Someone will have to perform the same function in your company, no matter what. That is even moreso the case if you want to assign wages based on the company's success and want to take some account of the fact that some people might have been working particularly hard and particularly well to cause that improvement.

So you have these guys (who will have to be specialised to some degree) presenting data that the entire Soviet will have to use to come to a decision. So aren't the workers once again at the mercy, this time not of the property title holders, but of the information holders?

I'll add that I'm unmoved on the society question. John Smith wouldn't have made a million without society, his million wouldn't be worth anything without society, what it IS worth is determined -consciously or unconsciously- by society, he wouldn't get anything from it without society.
And you would be correct, to the degree to which we're talking in terms of our fiat money. You're also correct to some extent because people build on previous achievements.

However, none of these takes anything away from the achievement of John Smith, which his fellow men and women considered worth a million dollars. If he hadn't done it, that million dollar's worth of value would not have been produced. It's not due to society that it was, it's due to his actions.

But whatever the case may be in that respect, surely you will agree that no person can actually completely act in society's interests. By definition, society's interests must be some sort of aggregate (with lots of opposing forces in there), and therefore are pretty much guaranteed not to be the same as any individual's. So a government tax collector claiming that he is acting in the interest of society is lying, as is a politician, as is anyone else who ever claims that they are. They're working for the interests of some subgroup within society (which may just be a group of one), and one would be deluding oneself thinking any differently.

Again with your personal attacks on me. When did i have 5 posts in a row? I would hardly call one word forgotten and a few uncapitalised words " none of them properly spelled". As I was on my way out I may have missed a few in that one and for that I give my apology. I will also provide you with an attempt of communism gone bad again! Plymouth colony.

If communism is so wonderfull and perfect why do you need a revolution? Could it be that most people wouldnt fall for it and no one would vote you into power? You need a revolution because without you could never get your way. A quick bloodbath to crush dissent just like the USSR. One last thing, go to your burning man and if it works for you great! In fact for all I care you and your fellow communist can make your own commune and see how that works out for you. But don't push your lifestyle on me.

I am sorry but you are totally wrong.In Russian Revolution,(Soviet Union was founded in 1922) only 20 people were killed out of a revolution of millions.That's much away from the myth of "bloody revolutions".Read "10 days who shocked the world" by John Read.The 20 dead people were not opposing people but the students of the Military School who died in order to save the Char from captivity.
The massacre began in 1918 when 14 armies of the West invaded to Russia in order to crash the revolution.

Why revolution and not taking part in the elections?

Revolution without having the majority of people is a lost revolution.So we speak only for a revolution of the majority.What is a revolution?Revolution means taking control of the bussiness,the police departments,the goverments buildings.Not killing people.
Revolution is needed because you have to crash as fast as you can the capitalists.You must take them immediately their fortress,the economy.If you leave them the bussiness and nationalise them in progresse you leave them time to attack you.See what happened when socialists where elected and they didn't attack to capitalists immediately.Salvador Alliente,Italy 1945,Hugo Chavez,Moralles,Santinistas.

Spyros

ah, the lazy problem.....
if someone is being lazy, and you cut their share of the funds, then you create two kinds of people: the lazy people without as much profits, as well as the other profitable people.

with this separation, It Isnt True Communism! you cant descriminate between who has more profits, because then you take a step toward capitalism.

communism is equal shares for everyone, including those who arent doing their work.


That's wrong too."He who doesn't work,shouldn't eat" said Lenin.That means tha if you don't work you might get fired and not get paid by others people work.This is a descrimination,yes.But if you have people that live by others people work you have unjustice.If you don't work you will get fired.And then you will understand that you will have to work and that you cannot live on the back of the others.

Off course this does not imply to unemployed who can't a find a work,or people unable to work due to health or mental problems or to pensioners.Those should be helped by the state to live a decent life until they find a job or heal.If the damage is permanant they should supported to a decent level of life.

I have the chance to go somewhere else and find someone whose ideas are more in-tune with mine.And likewise you would have the chance to find a different cooperative to work for, or a different community to live in.

Plus, since both sides are directly involved with the outcome of the relationship, there is no opportunity to say "someone else will make it all work out".Well, large businesses typically have people who are hired to make it all work out. There's no reason the cooperative couldn't do the same.

Hmm, do you notice that you're moving out into shaky territory here?How so?

Or so goes the marketing slogan. But maybe, if we call it a Subbotnik or something, we can reduce the number of work hours without actually doing so. Now there's progress for you.Why would people want to reduce the number of work hours without doing so? Wouldn't people want to work less and have more free time?

I think alot of this debate and criticism of communism goes awry because of general misconceptions of it. People think of communism as big government, which is certainly correct when you think of Sovietism or other statisms, I tend to look on this debate in a completely different way. I take the view that socialism is not centralization, but in fact decentralization of society in a very radical way. Common ownership of the means of production means exactly that, common ownership - that every worker controls and has equal ownership of the productive capacity of his labor, and when you bring it down to this individual level socialism is more about localism that statism. The state is an intermediary, a conduit between power and the people, but imho it is this massive divide between government and the masses which creates the massive wealth disparity.

The state itself, even when in the interests of the masses, when separated from the people, will develop and protect it's own interests of holding power and privilege, and keeping the people from it, so political concentration becomes economic concentration. When Marx spoke about the economic class, he wasn't just condemning aristocracy or private wealth, it was a broad attack on concentrated economic (and therefore political) power. Democracy can have no other alternative than towards socialism, this is inevitable, giving people half of the cake as I like to say (that is political equality but not economic) will only fuel the inevitability of true democracy.

Concentration takes many forms, educational concentration ensures the economic class only has the right technical acumen or educational needs for controlling the 'command heights' of the economy, and indeed the educational political standards to be accepted into the political elite. Separation of these two opposing camps, the forces of capital and labor, and direct exploitation of the minority over the majority, especially in Latin America and across the world, brings the reality of dialectical materialism into stark view.

Personally I support a minimal central government, very minimal, whose tasks would basically be macro organization of the military (of which would be made up of local community militias which are only community police units chosen by the community), ensuring stuff like wage inflation didn't get out of control, foreign policy and a loose overall economic coordination in trade. I think the basic organizational model of society should be based on trade-union democracy of local cooperatives and communes. So I support the application of democracy in all its forms (including voting systems, debates, democratic structuring, due process, adversarial process, systems of appeal, and so on) to the workplace, maybe each union would send a rep to the central govt.

In short comrades, power comes from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!

Absolutely spot on. Well put.

Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! :p

You cant expect to wield supreme executive power just cuz some watery tart threw a sword at you!

Love Python!

And likewise you would have the chance to find a different cooperative to work for, or a different community to live in.
But there comes statistics and asks questions: if you take lots of samples and find the means of those, the variation of those means will be smaller than the variation of the single observations to start with.

Meaning that the various compets will be much more likely to be pulling in the same direction, unlike individuals which can have all sorts of ideas. There's just no reason to suspect any compet to be significantly skewed.

Well, large businesses typically have people who are hired to make it all work out. There's no reason the cooperative couldn't do the same.
Yeah, but those people need authority, their decisions have a huge impact and their skills are likely to be somewhat rare. How will you find and integrate such people if they're not going to take managerial positions and demand pay according to their market position?

How so?
Because you start to sound a lot like a heartless capitalist. You're saying that if someone creates a need without creating the capability to fulfill it, that's their problem.

So if someone quit school early, and doesn't have the earning capacity to fulfill even basic needs (eg health insurance), then that's their problem too.

Or if someone buys a heater for their home because they are sick of almost freezing to death every night, but then finds that he or she can't pay the gas and electricity bills, it's their problem. The same for internet access.

Why would people want to reduce the number of work hours without doing so? Wouldn't people want to work less and have more free time?
I'm sure they would want to. In fact, that's why I'm calling it a compet and not a co-op: because they'll try to either raise their pay or reduce their workload by taking from their co-workers. It's the path of least resistance.

The thing is that if the company starts to seriously struggle for lack of management talent or reinvestment, the only way that might save it is less pay and more work. Just like the Soviet government was struggling and called Subbotniks as a means of saving costs.

Oh, and I've come up with two more problems with this Soviet-managed factory model. But I might wait for Beddgelert's next post before I go into them.

Common ownership of the means of production means exactly that, common ownership - that every worker controls and has equal ownership of the productive capacity of his labor, and when you bring it down to this individual level socialism is more about localism that statism.
When everybody controls something, no one does.

But there comes statistics and asks questions: if you take lots of samples and find the means of those, the variation of those means will be smaller than the variation of the single observations to start with.

Meaning that the various compets will be much more likely to be pulling in the same direction, unlike individuals which can have all sorts of ideas. There's just no reason to suspect any compet to be significantly skewed.I see no reason why various cooperatives can run themselves as differently from each other as current businesses do.

Yeah, but those people need authority, their decisions have a huge impact and their skills are likely to be somewhat rare. How will you find and integrate such people if they're not going to take managerial positions and demand pay according to their market position?Why must that type of person be paid more? Perhaps someone would prefer to be manager than a grunt worker because they hate manual labor?

Because you start to sound a lot like a heartless capitalist. You're saying that if someone creates a need without creating the capability to fulfill it, that's their problem.

So if someone quit school early, and doesn't have the earning capacity to fulfill even basic needs (eg health insurance), then that's their problem too.

Or if someone buys a heater for their home because they are sick of almost freezing to death every night, but then finds that he or she can't pay the gas and electricity bills, it's their problem. The same for internet access.If someone in a capitalist system makes a mistake, say quitting school, their capacity to rectify said mistake is limited. If someone realizes that quitting school was a mistake and they're not at the predetermined age where education is free, then they're SOL. Furthermore, that type of decision pretty much always happens as a result of something else, so their freedom to not make said decision is minimized.
In short, people in capitalist systems have neither the freedom to make decisions nor the freedom to rectify them.

I'm sure they would want to. In fact, that's why I'm calling it a compet and not a co-op: because they'll try to either raise their pay or reduce their workload by taking from their co-workers. It's the path of least resistance.Not if it's an all-or-nothing proposition. Either everyone's wages are raised and hours decreased, or nobody's are.

The thing is that if the company starts to seriously struggle for lack of management talent or reinvestment, the only way that might save it is less pay and more work. Just like the Soviet government was struggling and called Subbotniks as a means of saving costs.There are times that this might be the case, however I see no reason why a cooperative would fail more often than other types of businesses. In fact, the data seems to indicate that they fail less often.

When everybody controls something, no one does.
Wow, do you practise being vague? That sounds like a combination of a jerry rigged Hayek quote, a meaningless buzzword anti-socialist motto and a defense of oligarchy. When property is under individual tenure, as in under a person/s name rather than collective trustee, it becomes (as I explained in my bigger post) a concentration of wealth. You also don't seem to understand that cooperative or communal enterprise and unionized democratic workplaces exist in the world to great success.
Here are some examples:
http://www.calverts.coop/index.php
http://www.suma.coop/
http://www.co-opandcommunityfinance.coop/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperatives

Wow, do you practise being vague?
I prefer to call it "mysterious". :p

That sounds like a combination of a jerry rigged Hayek quote, a meaningless buzzword anti-socialist motto and a defense of oligarchy.
If Hayek said something to the effect, kudos to him but I didn't mean to quote him. I'm not quite sure we see eye to eye on too many issues.

It certainly was anti-socialist, as most things I contribute to economic or political topics are these days.

As for oligarchy, you'll find that I do in fact defend it, but that it means something different to you than it does to me.

When property is under individual tenure, as in under a person/s name rather than collective trustee, it becomes (as I explained in my bigger post) a concentration of wealth.
What I meant to say was that this "decentralisation" amounts to making everyone's right to the wealth conditional on the approval of others. Therefore, no one actually has any sort of ownership at all, since a conditional right is no right.

Think about it: if you own something, you can use it as you want, you can give it to or withhold it from people as you please, you can sell it on or destroy it. You can't do any of these things in collective "ownership". In what sense you can say that you own anything at all, I'm not entirely sure.

You also don't seem to understand that cooperative or communal enterprise and unionized democratic workplaces exist in the world to great success.
Oh, I certainly do, and good on them. If that's where they want to spend their life and energy, I'm not gonna be the guy to tell them not to.

I'm just not at all sure we can extrapolate anything significant from that. It's a bit of a jump from a hotel or a health food store being a co-op to a car manufacturing plant employing thousands and thousands of workers, producing hundreds of thousands of cars.

Though I do have to direct you to that finance co-op's story. They are in effect a government-created and government-sustained business.

It certainly was anti-socialist, as most things I contribute to economic or political topics are these days.

As for oligarchy, you'll find that I do in fact defend it, but that it means something different to you than it does to me.
Well then I won't argue it further seeing as we are both in unmovable positions on this issue. Albeit to say that I am an altruistic and you I assume an utilitarian, so agreement will never happen.


What I meant to say was that this "decentralisation" amounts to making everyone's right to the wealth conditional on the approval of others. Therefore, no one actually has any sort of ownership at all, since a conditional right is no right.

Think about it: if you own something, you can use it as you want, you can give it to or withhold it from people as you please, you can sell it on or destroy it. You can't do any of these things in collective "ownership". In what sense you can say that you own anything at all, I'm not entirely sure.
Well if you lean (as I presume you do) to the furtherest libertarian perspective, then indeed a conditional right is no right at all, but I simply put forward from a socialist perspective that we have a social obligation as trustee of property. So the property, while it can be individually used and even profitted upon, ultimately exists for a common rather than individual objective. Thus, rather than being “owners” of such property, its members are held to be trustees of it and its assets for future generations.

Common ownership is a way of “neutralising” capital, and vesting control of an enterprise by virtue of participation in it, rather than by the injection of capital. For a socialist democracy is the highest goal because of a profoundly ethical position on equality, while the calculating utility of the 'free' market inevitably breaks all social cohesion until we truly have nothing in common.

Oh, I certainly do, and good on them. If that's where they want to spend their life and energy, I'm not gonna be the guy to tell them not to.

I'm just not at all sure we can extrapolate anything significant from that. It's a bit of a jump from a hotel or a health food store being a co-op to a car manufacturing plant employing thousands and thousands of workers, producing hundreds of thousands of cars.

Though I do have to direct you to that finance co-op's story. They are in effect a government-created and government-sustained business.
That is why future and continuing development of cooperative enterprises must be ensured for a more ethical society imho. For a Marxist economic growth, no matter how massive, is irrelevant because it is concentrated and not distributed. Capitalists seek accumulations for the purpose of accumulation, while Marxists seek equality in light of ethical altruism. For example in my country of Australia we have received massive economic growth, yet the richest 20 percent own nearly 67 percent of all wealth, while according to the Reserve Bank, the poorest 20 percent own just 0.2 percent. How is wealth meaningful unless materially it benefits everyone?

For example in my country of Australia we have received massive economic growth, yet the richest 20 percent own nearly 67 percent of all wealth, while according to the Reserve Bank, the poorest 20 percent own just 0.2 percent. How is wealth meaningful unless materially it benefits everyone?
Well, I lived in Brisbane for 6 years now, and I can say that even though there are still issues that gnaw away at people, on the whole they seem rather better off now than they were when I came here. In fact, people who would have been bogans ten years ago are now suburbans with SUVs and the money to send kids to private schools (and gigantic mortgages) - simply becaust the wages for tradies have exploded.

And I deliver pizzas in both wealthier (Pullenvale) and poorer (Karana Downs) suburbs, so I see all sorts. I'm also finishing an economics degree, so I am aware of the data of what's been going on.

Wealth ownerships is skewed, definitely. But that's not a measure of welfare, and no one should claim it to be so. Nor should people use these figures to suggest that all we needed to do was redistribute this wealth and then things would be better. Unfortunately, it's just not that simple.

I believe you are mistaking 'well-being' and 'welfare' for general economic power, it's no longer the Industrial Revolution or the Depression so our conceptions of economic power are much different (at least in the West), it doesn't take much to keep someone in relatively good conditions these days, in Australia you certainly don't need a really good job just to live comfortably, the 'basic necessities' and beyond aren't so elusive. Marxism is after all analysis of conditions based on social stratification, and Marx himself would turn in his grave if we didn't re-analysis his own work these days. You seem to be laboring under the conception that if you have a car, house and decent standard of living then that is the threshold and you don't have to progress further. What Marxists must be about is an equal distribution of economic power.

You seem to be laboring under the conception that if you have a car, house and decent standard of living then that is the threshold and you don't have to progress further.
Oh no, I'm certainly not. In fact, I am *this* close to considering saying "that's enough" to be morally wrong.

What Marxists must be about is an equal distribution of economic power.
Economic power is a rather strange concept, to be honest. In a market economy, the use of force is not allowed. So no one has the means to compel anyone to do anything that makes that person worse off. Every trade (except if government is involved) is mutually beneficial and leads to both parties being happier afterwards than they would have been before and/or without the trade.

So what is economic "power"? You can't make anyone do anything against their will, you can't take advantage of them without them taking advantage of you. It's a lousy sort of power, really.

But "equal distribution of economic power" does sound a lot better than "let's take from those with the capacity to produce and give to those without it", I give you that.

Standards of living are a lot more concrete and a lot more real to people. Offer them to double their economic power and they'll stare at you blankly. offer them to double their standard of living, and you'll get a hug. I don't mind a socialist arguing that standards of living should be increased, I'm just not so sure about those who choose different (rather more philosophical) goals entirely. Because honestly, the philosophy of socialism is even more shaky than that of capitalism (in fact, I can't recall a single attempt to build a philosophical argument for socialism on NSG, with the exception of a very smart utilitarian years ago - the default stance is always that might makes right, so it's up to the capitalist to justify why they should keep their produce). And marxism is probably the shakiest of them all.

Because honestly, the philosophy of socialism is even more shaky than that of capitalism (in fact, I can't recall a single attempt to build a philosophical argument for socialism on NSG, with the exception of a very smart utilitarian years ago - the default stance is always that might makes right, so it's up to the capitalist to justify why they should keep their produce). And marxism is probably the shakiest of them all.What would you consider a philosophical argument? Or more generally, what would you consider the form of a philosophical argument to be?

Oh no, I'm certainly not. In fact, I am *this* close to considering saying "that's enough" to be morally wrong.


Economic power is a rather strange concept, to be honest. In a market economy, the use of force is not allowed. So no one has the means to compel anyone to do anything that makes that person worse off. Every trade (except if government is involved) is mutually beneficial and leads to both parties being happier afterwards than they would have been before and/or without the trade.

So what is economic "power"? You can't make anyone do anything against their will, you can't take advantage of them without them taking advantage of you. It's a lousy sort of power, really.

But "equal distribution of economic power" does sound a lot better than "let's take from those with the capacity to produce and give to those without it", I give you that.

Standards of living are a lot more concrete and a lot more real to people. Offer them to double their economic power and they'll stare at you blankly. offer them to double their standard of living, and you'll get a hug. I don't mind a socialist arguing that standards of living should be increased, I'm just not so sure about those who choose different (rather more philosophical) goals entirely. Because honestly, the philosophy of socialism is even more shaky than that of capitalism (in fact, I can't recall a single attempt to build a philosophical argument for socialism on NSG, with the exception of a very smart utilitarian years ago - the default stance is always that might makes right, so it's up to the capitalist to justify why they should keep their produce). And marxism is probably the shakiest of them all.

Economic power is roughly the relationship of the worker to the means of production, a government giving national housing, welfare, healthcare or the like is not socialist, it's taxing the bourgeoisie on a charitable basis to help those who do not have the means of production to help themselves. Socialism is not about a government helping the poor, if that were true any of the conservative paternalistic governments of Australia's history would classify as socialist. Marx clearly defined between the old-school protectionist right and the emerging bourgeoisie which would inevitably supplant the old guild classes and itself become an homogeneous economic class of it's own, Marx put out that although in the past various types of classes or social stratifications existed, ultimately the polarization of the bourgeoisie and proletarians would cause class struggle. Class struggle is not about governments and other bourgeoisie political constructs, having Chavez or Morales in power does not mean we're winning the class war, it means they are using bourgeoisie constructs to further what is essentially welfare capitalism.

I am personally disgusted with the oppositional mentality of the modern 'Left', race, class and gender, plus post-colonial revenge against the West, anti-rationalism, anti-scientific and anti-technology hatred, multiculturalism, militant Gays, transsexual gender benders, radical feminism, Afrocentrism, anti-Americanism, "man-boy lovers," the cultural assault against the traditional family, anti-Zionism, militant atheism, and all the other rabble-rousing "isms" have become what we are about.

Many groups seem to have indeed lost the intellectual analysis of Marxism, that I why in my local branch I opposed the DSP contributing to elections through the Socialist Alliance, mainly because that group is full of environmentalists, feminists, gay-liberationists, nationalists and all many of reactionary liberal undesirables.

What would you consider a philosophical argument? Or more generally, what would you consider the form of a philosophical argument to be?
Just something that tells me why socialism/communism is morally right, from first basic epistemology onwards. Something like Ayn Rand did for capitalism. Believe it or not, but I've never seen it.

Economic power is roughly the relationship of the worker to the means of production...
So you want to make it so everyone has the same relationship to "the means of production".

That seems impossible at the current level of specialisation.

Furthermore, it ignores the fact that means of production are not a natural resource that just so happens to appear and exist. People create them, and they don't do so purely out of altruism. Plus, if you create something, your relationship to that thing is necessarily different to that of other people.

As for the various non-conformists you mention, we disagree. I support their right to express their opinions, maybe some of them have good points to make. But then, I was never the traditional kind anyways, and I do enjoy a good lesbian waterpipe-festival. :D

I am personally disgusted with the oppositional mentality of the modern 'Left', race, class and gender, plus post-colonial revenge against the West, anti-rationalism, anti-scientific and anti-technology hatred, multiculturalism, militant Gays, transsexual gender benders, radical feminism, Afrocentrism, anti-Americanism, "man-boy lovers," the cultural assault against the traditional family, anti-Zionism, militant atheism, and all the other rabble-rousing "isms" have become what we are about.

Many groups seem to have indeed lost the intellectual analysis of Marxism, that I why in my local branch I opposed the DSP contributing to elections through the Socialist Alliance, mainly because that group is full of environmentalists, feminists, gay-liberationists, nationalists and all many of reactionary liberal undesirables.You might as well declare yourself a fascist now and drop the communist pretenses.

Just something that tells me why socialism/communism is morally right, from first basic epistemology onwards. Something like Ayn Rand did for capitalism. Believe it or not, but I've never seen it.Okay, here goes:

1) People will do whatever they need to do to survive. This means, at its most basic level, they will secure natural resources for themselves.

2) Rights are social and/or legal constructs. A person living alone on a deserted island has no rights, they have abilities. Rights occur when an ability is identified, and people wish to protect that ability from encroachment by others, or they wish to create the ability for a person to do something. The creation and/or protection of abilities is what constitutes a right.

3) Since rights are social constructs, all natural resources fall under the jurisdiction of social groups, with the exception of those natural resources than an individual needs to take to survive.

4) Because the majority of people would benefit from an equalization of resources as opposed to having unequal amounts of resources, they would be more likely to choose equality of resources.

Is this the type of thing you meant?

Yes well maybe we disagree, but I don't want no long-haired ferals and bogans anywhere near my party, you mention Marx or anything complicated to them and it's "What?!?", I seriously have no time for for those who's teenage rebellion extended into adult life.

It's good you mention specialization though, you seem to be saying that I was saying that everyone should have an identical relation to production when what I was saying is equal relationship, which are completely different. Equality is not lack of difference, equality is not conformity, liberalism denies the social in the name of the individual; communism reasserts the rights of the social as expressing the real essence of the individual, that is the individual as a interdependent being that must specialize in certain areas of production - that must engage in social exchange. Society is built upon multiple individuals specializing in different areas to fulfill the multiple products needed for that one individual, I believe Plato's Republic puts this out quite well.

My argument for Marxism is not entirely altruistic though, I believe that social duties emerge as a natural progression of our innate interdependence. So while an individual may create a product not from altruism, but ultimately he does so because someone else requires that product.

You might as well declare yourself a fascist now and drop the communist pretenses.
Not at all, I just don't like people who wouldn't know what socialism is even about making our movement looking bad, at most they are anti-establishment radical liberals, they're oppositionism is reflexive and does not exist for any reason how than to 'oppose the system because it exists'.

Not at all, I just don't like people who wouldn't know what socialism is even about making our movement looking bad, at most they are anti-establishment radical liberals, they're oppositionism is reflexive and does not exist for any reason how than to 'oppose the system because it exists'.Really? So then transsexuals, for instance, are opposed to the system because they want to be contrarian, instead of being opposed to the system because it doesn't grant them equal rights?

Really? So then transsexuals, for instance, are opposed to the system because they want to be contrarian, instead of being opposed to the system because it doesn't grant them equal rights?

I am not saying that they're political cause isn't worthwhile or anything like that, just that lumping themselves in with other Marxist makes us intellectually based perspective or tendencies look superficial or silly pursuing issue-politics. We should be building a broad-based majoritarian revolutionary movement with a leading party, not pursuing petty minority issues which have no bearing with the concerns of the working class.

I am not saying that they're political cause isn't worthwhile or anything like that, just that lumping themselves in with other Marxist makes us intellectually based perspective or tendencies look superficial or silly pursuing issue-politics. We should be building a broad-based majoritarian revolutionary movement with a leading party, not pursuing petty minority issues which have no bearing with the concerns of the working class.People aren't going to throw all their weight behind something if that something isn't going to address all of their concerns. Of course we should be concerned with the issues of the working class, but the working class has other things to worry about aside from their employment.
Furthermore, there are other evils in the world, and we should be concerned with eradicating them all, and not just classism.

People aren't going to throw all their weight behind something if that something isn't going to address all of their concerns. Of course we should be concerned with the issues of the working class, but the working class has other things to worry about aside from their employment.
Furthermore, there are other evils in the world, and we should be concerned with eradicating them all, and not just classism.
Well if you're a Marxist then class struggle is what's it's about. I mean when I see long-haired ferals handing out copies of the Green Left Weekly at the mall I clench my teeth and take it because I know to normal working people how horrible that kind of alienating tactic is. Your dead right about the concerns of people, and that is my point exactly, I mean do you think the average working class person goes to bed at night angry because transsexuals, gays or other minorities don't have recognition, or that trees might be cut down? Of course not. People are thinking about feeding they're children, having enough super for retiring and to pay for their children's education, about they're living conditions, this is what Marxism is about, it's about analysis of the material reality and concerns of the proletariat, we need to focus on the real issue.

People will do whatever they need to do to survive. This means, at its most basic level, they will secure natural resources for themselves.
Not necessarily. Occasionally people choose not to survive because they prefer some alternative.

The creation and/or protection of abilities is what constitutes a right.
Proof?

A right implies a code of morality, according to which people require certain protected courses of action in order to be good, right? You haven't really provided one.

Since rights are social constructs, all natural resources fall under the jurisdiction of social groups...
That's a non sequitur.

Because the majority of people would benefit from an equalization of resources as opposed to having unequal amounts of resources, they would be more likely to choose equality of resources.
I don't think your presumption is correct. If I was allergic to apples, both of us having equal amounts of apples and oranges is not something I would likely choose. I would much rather have only oranges.

Is this the type of thing you meant?
Yeah, but that one might still be in its infancy. :p

You're meant to be telling me why socialism is morally right, why "not socialism" is bad. Why, if I had the choice between a socialism-orientated action and any other action, I ought to choose the former. Basically, put you guys in the hotseat for a change, instead of always us.

Well if you're a Marxist then class struggle is what's it's about. I mean when I see long-haired ferals handing out copies of the Green Left Weekly at the mall I clench my teeth and take it because I know to normal working people how horrible that kind of alienating tactic is. Your dead right about the concerns of people, and that is my point exactly, I mean do you think the average working class person goes to bed at night angry because transsexuals, gays or other minorities don't have recognition, or that trees might be cut down? Of course not. People are thinking about feeding they're children, having enough super for retiring and to pay for their children's education, about they're living conditions, this is what Marxism is about, it's about analysis of the material reality and concerns of the proletariat, we need to focus on the real issue.I'm not a Marxist, and I don't see people as only being concerned about one issue. There are other issues people might be concerned with, such as more efficient public transit so they can get to work, family issues, or other things.
Furthermore, that people aren't pissed off that transsexuals, gays, and other minorities don't receive recognition means that those groups need to increase their presence everywhere, including in Marxist coalitions.

It's good you mention specialization though, you seem to be saying that I was saying that everyone should have an identical relation to production when what I was saying is equal relationship, which are completely different.
Well, how do you measure these things? If they're meant to be equal but not identical, there has to be some standard according to which you can set things up that they are in fact equal. What is that standard?

Equality is not lack of difference, equality is not conformity, liberalism denies the social in the name of the individual...
Liberalism takes what we can see, feel and touch - namely our individuality and our seperateness from others, and starts from that. We interact with each other, but that doesn't diminish our individuality one bit.

...communism reasserts the rights of the social as expressing the real essence of the individual, that is the individual as a interdependent being that must specialize in certain areas of production - that must engage in social exchange.
Exchange implies value for value. Who measures value, if not the people themselves?

Society is built upon multiple individuals specializing in different areas to fulfill the multiple products needed for that one individual, I believe Plato's Republic puts this out quite well.
And economic theory does it even better.

So while an individual may create a product not from altruism, but ultimately he does so because someone else requires that product.
No, he does it because he chooses to do it. A vital part of that choice might be the wish to sell it, which does require someone to buy it.

But one can make something for many more reasons, for example just because one likes to look at it. Lots of artists do that.

Not necessarily. Occasionally people choose not to survive because they prefer some alternative.In the majority of those cases, those people are mentally ill. Nonetheless, they are the exception, not the rule.

Proof?Proof that the definition of a right is the definition of a right?

A right implies a code of morality, according to which people require certain protected courses of action in order to be good, right? You haven't really provided one.Rights generally have codes of morality, but it isn't necessary.
For instance, the reason that people would choose socialism is because it benefits them. Personal benefit isn't particularly moral.

That's a non sequitur.Not at all. People might have the ability to secure natural resources, but they don't have the right to unless there is some type of social construct created that grants it.

I don't think your presumption is correct. If I was allergic to apples, both of us having equal amounts of apples and oranges is not something I would likely choose. I would much rather have only oranges.I said an equalization of resources, not identical resources. In essence, this means that people would choose to be satisfied with their share of resources as everyone else, because the risk of being less satisfied (becoming poorer) is greater than the risk of being more satisfied (becoming richer).

You're meant to be telling me why socialism is morally right, why "not socialism" is bad. Why, if I had the choice between a socialism-orientated action and any other action, I ought to choose the former. Basically, put you guys in the hotseat for a change, instead of always us.I could argue that they would do so for altruistic purposes, but really, altruism isn't necessary for socialism. I am arguing that people will choose socialism because it is in their self-interest to do so.

I am arguing that people will choose socialism because it is in their self-interest to do so.
Well, then there are two things to settle:

You need to show why self-interest is moral, but why it is not when applied to some cases (like murdering someone to take their money).

You need to explain why most people are in fact not choosing socialism.

You started off straight away into a discussion of rights (not allowing for the fact that rights are "moral entitlements" and therefore, to be meaningful, do in fact require some sort of moral code to justify them). But that's not the first step - the first step is to discuss a bit of epistemology (and therefore establish whether or not people's choices do in fact matter at all), the second is to build a code of morality. And from there you extrapolate some rights. And from there you conclude that socialism is in fact the society that arises from these rights.

You need to show why self-interest is moral, but why it is not when applied to some cases (like murdering someone to take their money).People wouldn't choose to legalize murder because it raises the possibility that they themselves would be murdered.

You need to explain why most people are in fact not choosing socialism.Because the state tends to violently intervene whenever such movements make headway; in short, they don't especially have that choice to make.

You started off straight away into a discussion of rights (not allowing for the fact that rights are "moral entitlements" and therefore, to be meaningful, do in fact require some sort of moral code to justify them).Rights are moral entitlements? Since when?

But that's not the first step - the first step is to discuss a bit of epistemology (and therefore establish whether or not people's choices do in fact matter at all), the second is to build a code of morality. And from there you extrapolate some rights. And from there you conclude that socialism is in fact the society that arises from these rights.There tends to be a correlation between rights and morality, and rights tend to be created due to morality, but rights don't need to be created because of morality.

Well, how do you measure these things? If they're meant to be equal but not identical, there has to be some standard according to which you can set things up that they are in fact equal. What is that standard?
Difference goes not entail class or rank, difference is simply that - different, it's about people specializing in different modes of production to create differing needs of society, socialism does not deny individual preference or differing needs, it embraces human cooperation, equality is that everyone has an independent role to play in the means of production.


Liberalism takes what we can see, feel and touch - namely our individuality and our seperateness from others, and starts from that. We interact with each other, but that doesn't diminish our individuality one bit.
From what I have gathered from that, libertarianism needs to hide from the innate sociability of humanity. Simply question, can man survive individually?

Exchange implies value for value. Who measures value, if not the people themselves?
Value I think practically is best valued by time-served, without an immense system of bookkeeping for labor value, I think a symbolic monetary system could be used to a degree.


No, he does it because he chooses to do it. A vital part of that choice might be the wish to sell it, which does require someone to buy it.

But one can make something for many more reasons, for example just because one likes to look at it. Lots of artists do that.
Again, an artist or whatnot would be the exception, not the rule.

this is what Marxism is about, it's about analysis of the material reality and concerns of the proletariat, we need to focus on the real issue.

And that's why elements of Marxism have been discarded as worthless reactionary shit by the parts of the Left you disparage.

Those of us without a one-track mind recognized a long time ago that there are many kinds of oppression... and if we truly believe in freedom, justice, and equality, we cannot simply ignore some for the sake of others.

(Furthermore, the different kinds of oppression are interconnected: in the US, for instance, you cannot talk about poverty and class oppression without talking about race and, increasingly, gender.)

Difference goes not entail class or rank, difference is simply that - different, it's about people specializing in different modes of production to create differing needs of society, socialism does not deny individual preference or differing needs, it embraces human cooperation, equality is that everyone has an independent role to play in the means of production.
You're avoiding an answer. You are saying everyone's relations should be equal, though not identical. Equal must mean "equal in value", so there has to be some value. What is it?

From what I have gathered from that, libertarianism needs to hide from the innate sociability of humanity. Simply question, can man survive individually?
Libertarianism doesn't do anything of the sort. It freely acknowledges that people interact and build on each other, it just says that they should do so voluntarily, without some being sacrificed for others. You on the other hand sound like you're trying to treat interpersonal relations seperately from the elements they're made up of, which seems silly.

As for your question: some people probably could. But most couldn't, so they choose to live with (not for!) each other.

Value I think practically is best valued by time-served, without an immense system of bookkeeping for labor value, I think a symbolic monetary system could be used to a degree.
So how are you going to know how much time was spent on something without bookkeeping?

Even more importantly, if someone is incompetent and spends two weeks on making a plank of wood, would you honestly expect an economic system to last where the price of that plank is the same as the price of an electric generator also made in two weeks by some engineer?

Again, an artist or whatnot would be the exception, not the rule.
So you're acknowledging that people don't do things because others want them, but because they want them. And if others want them, they don't get them for no reason, but because they exchange them with some good or service of their own.

People wouldn't choose to legalize murder because it raises the possibility that they themselves would be murdered.
But that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about right and wrong. If in Nazi Germany protecting Jews raises the possibility of you getting murdered, then is protecting innocent people from harm good or bad?

Because the state tends to violently intervene whenever such movements make headway; in short, they don't especially have that choice to make.
So your argument that socialism is morally justified is based on a hypothetical person's likelihood of choosing it?

Rights are moral entitlements? Since when?
I could start quoting wiki or dictionary.com or any number of philosophical treatises, but I don't think I have to.

Think about it: a right is something that, if you violate it, makes you morally wrong. If we had a car crash, and you punched me as a result, that doesn't mean that your distaste for being crashed into and you willingness to punish those who do actually makes for a right not to get into a car crash.

A right means that if I interact with others, there is a right way to treat them, and a wrong way. These are judged according to some moral standard. Even if we know that holding one right to exist will produce superior material outcomes, we have to bridge the is-ought gap and explain why we in fact ought to care about these outcomes and enforce this right.

Rights imply a ranking of things you can do to one another. The standard is a moral code, otherwise a right isn't a right, but just an entitlement that you either have the power to enforce or not - and if I violated it and had the power to get off scot free, there'd be no problem.

The thing is, capitalists on this forum are constantly finding themselves in the position where they have to argue why people do in fact have a right (or should be granted a right) to own their produce, with everything that implies. Socialists are in the peachy position where they don't have to, for whatever reason. So really, you would have to make a positive argument for why people do in fact have the right to other people's produce. Socialism isn't the default stance of the world: the principle of the biggest gun is. The majority/"society" can be in favour of socialism all it wants, if the rich guy has Japanese battle robots who kill anyone trying to get his stuff, that would mean that your argument so far is absolutely meaningless. So you need to explain why it would in fact be wrong for the guy to send his battle robots after the poor if they even look at this wealth the wrong way.

But that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about right and wrong. If in Nazi Germany protecting Jews raises the possibility of you getting murdered, then is protecting innocent people from harm good or bad?Certainly protecting people from harm is good, however I believe that the moral issue is a side issue.

So your argument that socialism is morally justified is based on a hypothetical person's likelihood of choosing it?No, I'm just saying that a person is likely to choose it, for reasons independent of morality.

I could start quoting wiki or dictionary.com or any number of philosophical treatises, but I don't think I have to.Looking at either wiki or dictionary.com, you'll start to see things such as "rights are legal or moral entitlements". Notice the 'or' there. I'm speaking of rights in a purely legal sense.

Think about it: a right is something that, if you violate it, makes you morally wrong. If we had a car crash, and you punched me as a result, that doesn't mean that your distaste for being crashed into and you willingness to punish those who do actually makes for a right not to get into a car crash.Typically legal rights are also moral rights, but they don't have to be. There are plenty of legal rights, such as the right to charge interest on loans, that I find morally wrong.

A right means that if I interact with others, there is a right way to treat them, and a wrong way. These are judged according to some moral standard. Even if we know that holding one right to exist will produce superior material outcomes, we have to bridge the is-ought gap and explain why we in fact ought to care about these outcomes and enforce this right.

Rights imply a ranking of things you can do to one another. The standard is a moral code, otherwise a right isn't a right, but just an entitlement that you either have the power to enforce or not - and if I violated it and had the power to get off scot free, there'd be no problem.

The thing is, capitalists on this forum are constantly finding themselves in the position where they have to argue why people do in fact have a right (or should be granted a right) to own their produce, with everything that implies. Socialists are in the peachy position where they don't have to, for whatever reason. So really, you would have to make a positive argument for why people do in fact have the right to other people's produce. Socialism isn't the default stance of the world: the principle of the biggest gun is. The majority/"society" can be in favour of socialism all it wants, if the rich guy has Japanese battle robots who kill anyone trying to get his stuff, that would mean that your argument so far is absolutely meaningless. So you need to explain why it would in fact be wrong for the guy to send his battle robots after the poor if they even look at this wealth the wrong way.I'm being stubborn because I want to make the distinction between legal rights and moral rights. I do also believe that communism (socialism as a word works, but since it has so many definitions I think it can be confusing to use, so I use communism, which only has one definition) is morally right. So, for the sake of moving the argument forward, I will try to make a moral case for communism.

I believe that people have the right to many things (here I mean the moral right, there isn't necessarily a legal right to them). The fundamental right is the right to life. The right to life necessarily means the right to the necessities of life in addition to having freedom from murder. The necessities of life include, but aren't limited to: food, clothing, shelter, clean air, healthcare, and medicine. This means that until everybody has these things, nobody has the right to have more than these things.
Once the right to life is secured, there are other important rights. Free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought are a few of those things. Free speech, for instance, doesn't mean the power to voice one's opinions, but also means the ability to write them, broadcast, them, etc. If people are to have equal rights, then they must have equal capacity to exercise them. This means if one person produces their own newspaper or has their own radio station, then they have a greater freedom of speech than someone who doesn't.
I believe that it is morally wrong for some people to have more rights than others. Therefore, in order to have a system where people have equal rights, they must have equal ability to exercise those rights. This means communism.

Certainly protecting people from harm is good, however I believe that the moral issue is a side issue.
But in this case the side issue trumps the main issue, doesn't it? Where does that leave the main issue?

No, I'm just saying that a person is likely to choose it, for reasons independent of morality.
So why did people leave the Kibbutzim? Their parents didn't tell them to, the Israeli state didn't tell them to, their living standards weren't that poor, yet they still decided that they wanted to live in mainstream Israel.

So this likelihood must be based on something, something more than just plain material goods. If communism has as a goal to equalise people's relationship with productive capacity, and that reward is some major cause of material rewards, then it seems to me like half the planet's population would in fact lose out in a communist revolution, on purely material terms.

Looking at either wiki or dictionary.com, you'll start to see things such as "rights are legal or moral entitlements". Notice the 'or' there. I'm speaking of rights in a purely legal sense.
And where does a legal system come from? It's designed to achieve some goal, and that goal must be held to be something good.

Every law is based on some sort of moral value, sometimes more directly, sometimes less. But it always is.

Typically legal rights are also moral rights, but they don't have to be. There are plenty of legal rights, such as the right to charge interest on loans, that I find morally wrong.
But "society" apparently doesn't. Where does that leave your moral code?

I believe that people have the right to many things (here I mean the moral right, there isn't necessarily a legal right to them).
Why?

The right to life necessarily means the right to the necessities of life in addition to having freedom from murder.
So if there is a farmer and a bum, but the farmer can only produce enough food to keep one person alive but not the other, how do you choose who gets it? Which allocation of food would be morally wrong, and why?

The necessities of life include, but aren't limited to: food, clothing, shelter, clean air, healthcare, and medicine. This means that until everybody has these things, nobody has the right to have more than these things.
That's a non-sequitur. You haven't yet made any sort of jump from one person to the other, you haven't made an effort of demonstrating why a right to medicine of one person implies an obligation of the other to enforce it to their own detriment (and you were talking about self-interest earlier on, weren't you?).

Free speech, for instance, doesn't mean the power to voice one's opinions, but also means the ability to write them, broadcast, them, etc.
What if no broadcasting tower is available?

If people are to have equal rights, then they must have equal capacity to exercise them.
What if that is physically impossible? If everyone has a right to life, what if someone has a terminal illness? What does that imply for others, who apparently have an obligation to enforce the right to life for everyone?

This means if one person produces their own newspaper or has their own radio station, then they have a greater freedom of speech than someone who doesn't.
What if one has a blog, and the other doesn't? Blogs don't need significant investments of money or time, but the principle is exactly the same. Would you outlaw privately-owned blogs?

I believe that it is morally wrong for some people to have more rights than others. Therefore, in order to have a system where people have equal rights, they must have equal ability to exercise those rights. This means communism.
I think before you answered my "why" above, and covered why people have positive rights, so not just freedoms from something but entitlements from other people, I can't follow you to that conclusion.

So why did people leave the Kibbutzim? Their parents didn't tell them to, the Israeli state didn't tell them to, their living standards weren't that poor, yet they still decided that they wanted to live in mainstream Israel.I'm not sure. Perhaps they didn't want to be farmers?

So this likelihood must be based on something, something more than just plain material goods. If communism has as a goal to equalise people's relationship with productive capacity, and that reward is some major cause of material rewards, then it seems to me like half the planet's population would in fact lose out in a communist revolution, on purely material terms.No, because resources aren't distributed in a neat little pattern. I can't quote the exact statistics, but it's something like the richest 20% have 80% of the wealth.

And where does a legal system come from? It's designed to achieve some goal, and that goal must be held to be something good.The goal of facilitating human survival is seen as good, and this is typically different than a moral type of good.

Every law is based on some sort of moral value, sometimes more directly, sometimes less. But it always is.I would say simply that they're based on some sort of value.

But "society" apparently doesn't. Where does that leave your moral code?It leaves me to try to construct rational arguments for why such a thing is wrong and to try to convince people that this is the case.

Why?If people didn't have the right to secure the necessities of life, then people wouldn't have the right to use natural resources at all. Unless you can come up with some other reason why people have the right to use natural resources at all?

So if there is a farmer and a bum, but the farmer can only produce enough food to keep one person alive but not the other, how do you choose who gets it? Which allocation of food would be morally wrong, and why?There are typically other sources of food aside from those that are grown by humans. The bum could hunt, or eat naturally growing berries or mushrooms.
However, if the only food available was the food the farmer was growing, and that food was only enough to feed the farmer, then the farmer would get it because he is using it first.

That's a non-sequitur. You haven't yet made any sort of jump from one person to the other, you haven't made an effort of demonstrating why a right to medicine of one person implies an obligation of the other to enforce it to their own detriment (and you were talking about self-interest earlier on, weren't you?).Again, if people didn't have the right to secure the necessities of life for themselves, then nobody would have the right to touch natural resources.

What if no broadcasting tower is available?Then people would not have maximized their rights, but if nobody has access to a tower then possibly everyone has equal rights.

What if that is physically impossible? If everyone has a right to life, what if someone has a terminal illness? What does that imply for others, who apparently have an obligation to enforce the right to life for everyone?For the most part it would imply an obligation to devote some resources to curing that type of terminal illness.
It would not imply all resources or a punitive amount of resources because it is necessary to try to cure other illnesses and also to sustain life in genera;/

What if one has a blog, and the other doesn't? Blogs don't need significant investments of money or time, but the principle is exactly the same. Would you outlaw privately-owned blogs?As long as everyone has the ability to create a blog, if some people choose to not do so, that's fine. People are welcome to choose not to exercise the rights that they have.

I think before you answered my "why" above, and covered why people have positive rights, so not just freedoms from something but entitlements from other people, I can't follow you to that conclusion.Well, the definition of a legal right is itself an entitlement from another person; namely their agreement to help defend your right to something against incursions from others. In short, legal rights are inherently entitlements from others.