NationStates Jolt Archive

So in the few days that i've been here i've noticed a distinct left wing bias, not that it's a problem of course everyone is entitled to their views. As the name suggests i'm am not a fan of any left wing ideology least of all communism, i was wondering if anyone could produce a firm defence of communism for me so i could see what the argument are and at least attempt to debate them.

p.s i'd rather not be called an evil nazi by any of you communists in the same way that i'd prefer if communists wern't referred to as evil commies.:D

There's no working model in defence of communism - it's not really worked. However, communism is a fantastic ideology - putting every person on equal footing, sharing resources, helping each other - a working communist society would be lovely! But it can't be expected to happen - ever!

There's no working model in defence of communism - it's not really worked. However, communism is a fantastic ideology - putting every person on equal footing, sharing resources, helping each other - a working communist society would be lovely! But it can't be expected to happen - ever!

agreed that it has never really worked, however i dissagree with it's basic principle. Not everyone deserves equal footing or an equal share of resources, i for one fail to see why someone who doesn't work at all (out of choice mind you not out of circumstances) deserves to be treated the same as someone who works incredibly hard.

agreed that it has never really worked, however i dissagree with it's basic principle. Not everyone deserves equal footing or an equal share of resources, i for one fail to see why someone who doesn't work at all (out of choice mind you not out of circumstances) deserves to be treated the same as someone who works incredibly hard.

Maybe not thesame but they deserve to live anyway, treating everybody the same doesn't work, if you work for 10 hours you should get more money then someone who works for 5 hours, however everybody should have enough money to get food and proper housing (the ones who refuse to work should get the very least required to survive), even if they can't work for whatever reason.

Maybe not thesame but they deserve to live anyway, treating everybody the same doesn't work, if you work for 10 hours you should get more money then someone who works for 5 hours, however everybody should have enough money to get food and proper housing (the ones who refuse to work should get the very least required to survive), even if they can't work for whatever reason.

yes i absolutely agree with that, they are still people and deserve a decent quality of life, just not as good as those who work hard for it and deserve it.

agreed that it has never really worked, however i dissagree with it's basic principle. Not everyone deserves equal footing or an equal share of resources, i for one fail to see why someone who doesn't work at all (out of choice mind you not out of circumstances) deserves to be treated the same as someone who works incredibly hard.


He who does not work is detained from receiving certain luxuries, or life sustaining goods.

Anyone can have any job they want. You have a choice between jobs so if you like to relax and maybe do some mental work or if you like to work with your hands etc. you'll find the right job for you. Of course that's in a real communist society.

He who does not work is detained from receiving certain luxuries, or life sustaining goods.

Anyone can have any job they want. You have a choice between jobs so if you like to relax and maybe do some mental work or if you like to work with your hands etc. you'll find the right job for you. Of course that's in a real communist society.

but thats not going to work you'll have to have a limit on how many police or bankers you need for example, everyone is not going to be able to choose a job they wish, as such there will still be those who don't work and my point about them still stands.

I'd like to see money abolished - and instead, to survive and live as a population, we trade goods and services for other goods and services

I'd like to see money abolished - and instead, to survive and live as a population, we trade goods and services for other goods and services

eventually people would need a way to place value on their goods and services, money is part of the evolution of society

The problem with capitalism is that efficiency becomes the only value and, as the world becomes more efficient, the barrier for gaining entry into the system grows higher and higher - either we work harder and faster to remain competitive or we drop out of the system.

I also feel there's a large amount of remaining inefficiency in capitalism so I doubt it's going to go away anytime soon. There's still an enormous amount of productivity going to waste in this world in terms of uneducated, non-industrial/service countries, as well as potential for efficiency in new technologies, which are therefore inefficient.

We then come to the barrier of finite resources, can the world sustain full productivity.

So, given where we're heading, we might have to think about the structure of our societies and, most importantly, our values.

That might be when communism becomes attractive, when our values are changed so that its goals are desirable.

Hence, it's an ideal.

Whether we destroy the world first, or destroy each other, before our values change is a matter of debate.

yes i absolutely agree with that, they are still people and deserve a decent quality of life, just not as good as those who work hard for it and deserve it.

then you, my friend, aren't really right wing, decent quality of life includes a proper housing, food, school and healthcare (in my opinion), in the USA poor people don't get healthcare and also no post elementary school education.

So in the few days that i've been here i've noticed a distinct left wing bias, not that it's a problem of course everyone is entitled to their views. As the name suggests i'm am not a fan of any left wing ideology least of all communism, i was wondering if anyone could produce a firm defence of communism for me so i could see what the argument are and at least attempt to debate them.

p.s i'd rather not be called an evil nazi by any of you communists in the same way that i'd prefer if communists wern't referred to as evil commies.:D

You'll find that few of us will actually defend communism. Most of us are left wing mainly along the social level, and somewhat along the economic level, but not anywhere close to real communism.

Of course in the limited spectrum of the United States many of us appear to be outright loonies, but that's beside the point, since we're not.

then you, my friend, aren't really right wing, decent quality of life includes a proper housing, food, school and healthcare (in my opinion), in the USA poor people don't get healthcare and also no post elementary school education.

ever heard of social security? and my definition of decent quality of life is different from yours, my definition includes being able to live relatively free of pain, that doesnt include a free house or education, and would only include essential healthcare.

O and by the way, right wing tends to be rather different in the UK than in the USA.

eventually people would need a way to place value on their goods and services, money is part of the evolution of society

Not really - the goods or services traded for other goods or services must just be in proportion to whatever is received

ever heard of social security? and my definition of decent quality of life is different from yours, my definition includes being able to live relatively free of pain, that doesnt include a free house or education, and would only include essential healthcare.

O and by the way, right wing tends to be rather different in the UK than in the USA.

Free education is necessary, everybody should have (relatively) the same chance of getting to their potential, lets say Robert Oppenheimer was born in a poor family and didn't get education, he's potential would be wasted, and how you can have a "decent" life without a roof over your head is beyond me? people living on the street doesn't have a "decent" life.

I'm sure the OP would agree with that, should they be placed in the situation of homelessness...

Free education is necessary, everybody should have (relatively) the same chance of getting to their potential, lets say Robert Oppenheimer was born in a poor family and didn't get education, he's potential would be wasted, and how you can have a "decent" life without a roof over your head is beyond me? people living on the street doesn't have a "decent" life.

indeed education is necessary for equality of oppourtunity i wasn't discussing those who have never had the chance to learn i was discussing those who had the chance and passed it by. And you don't have to have your own house to have a roof over your head, people who make the decision not to work do not deserve a house of their own.

indeed education is necessary for equality of oppourtunity i wasn't discussing those who have never had the chance to learn i was discussing those who had the chance and passed it by. And you don't have to have your own house to have a roof over your head, people who make the decision not to work do not deserve a house of their own.

Newer said a house on their own, I am talking about a roof over your head, and well, if you turned education down its your chaise, but you said that "decent quality of life" didn't include a free education?

Newer said a house on their own, I am talking about a roof over your head, and well, if you turned education down its your chaise, but you said that "decent quality of life" didn't include a free education?

I need to make this very clear i am absolutely not talking about restricting oppourtunity, when i was discussing decent quality of life i was referring to those who had already made the decisions not to learn or not to work, i of course believe in equality of oppourtunity

I need to make this very clear i am absolutely not talking about restricting oppourtunity, when i was discussing decent quality of life i was referring to those who had already made the decisions not to learn or not to work, i of course believe in equality of oppourtunity

so if you turned down education when you was 16, then you shouldn't have the chance to begin later in your life?

so if you turned down education when you was 16, then you shouldn't have the chance to begin later in your life?

Essentially yes, if you refuse to take advantage of the ample opourtunities you're given in most modern society's then the consequences of that decision are entirely your own fault.

Essentially yes, if you refuse to take advantage of the ample opourtunities you're given in most modern society's then the consequences of that decision are entirely your own fault.

people should have a chance to correct their mistakes, and it's restricting chances if rich people can pay for there education later, but poor people can't.

I have to say, it was really insightful of the thread creator to brand all left-wingers as communists. :rolleyes:
Things like social welfare and public services don't entail the destruction of trade and democracy. They also don't mean allowing minorities to bend society to their own whims. If I were like you, I would say that all right-wingers are morons for blaming all of the world's problems on left-wingers, left-wing ideas, and left-wing systems. How would you like that, Right Wing Politics?

people should have a chance to correct their mistakes, and it's restricting chances if rich people can pay for there education later, but poor people can't.

I hate to say it but the chances of the rich people turning down education is slim, i'm not generalising here, those on higher incomes are far less likely to leave school early...

There are some mistakes that can't be corrected, that just being realistic people need to accept that. I fail to see why i as a tax payer should pay for someone to do something that they should have done the first time.

I hate to say it but the chances of the rich people turning down education is slim, i'm not generalising here, those on higher incomes are far less likely to leave school early...

There are some mistakes that can't be corrected, that just being realistic people need to accept that. I fail to see why i as a tax payer should pay for someone to do something that they should have done the first time.

well it doesn't cost more for the tax payers if someone choose to educate them self when thy are 20 or when they are 30.

p.s i'd rather not be called an evil nazi by any of you communists in the same way that i'd prefer if communists wern't referred to as evil commies.:D
No, you'd just be an evil capitalist. Nazis are fascists.
Just like this thread is about socialists and not real communists.

Ofcourse there are real communists, anarcho-communists, fascist-socialists, who say it does work, and I'm sure it would if you could start from scratch.

well it doesn't cost more for the tax payers if someone choose to educate them self when thy are 20 or when they are 30.

i'm talking basic compulsary education here, those who don't have it almost certainly have been through it already, ergo i am in some way paying for them to do it twice. If you're talking about higher education then thats a different issue entirely and one that i suspect we'll also disagree about:)

i'm talking basic compulsary education here, those who don't have it almost certainly have been through it already, ergo i am in some way paying for them to do it twice. If you're talking about higher education then thats a different issue entirely and one that i suspect we'll also disagree about:)

well, basic education is compulsory? I'm talking about higher education. If you choose to don't behave in school you should have a chance to get a complete grading so you can go to some higher educations, but you shouldn't be able to read up on higher then passed grade, mainly because of the cost, but you shouldn't have the chase to do so if you can pay for it yourself ether.

well, basic education is compulsory? I'm talking about higher education. If you choose to don't behave in school you should have a chance to get a complete grading so you can go to some higher educations, but you shouldn't be able to read up on higher then passed grade, mainly because of the cost, but you shouldn't have the chase to do so if you can pay for it yourself ether.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, i think it's very clear that we have very different points of view that niether of us are likely to change.

I simply do not think it's right that people who take the chances given to them should be forced to pay for those who turned them down.

People don't agree to disagree here. They fight to the death in Thunderdome. I'll begin making preparations...

People don't agree to disagree here. They fight to the death in Thunderdome. I'll begin making preparations...

Haha, fine i'll go prepare my dueling gear then...

People don't agree to disagree here. They fight to the death in Thunderdome. I'll begin making preparations...
Can you spare that much mud for the pigs, LG?

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, i think it's very clear that we have very different points of view that niether of us are likely to change.

I simply do not think it's right that people who take the chances given to them should be forced to pay for those who turned them down.

choices you make when you are 10 shouldn't follow you your entire life, but if someone went on higher education when they are maybe 25 and screwed up on purpose, they shouldn't get another chance, however if they really tried and still failed, they should have another chance, however it's really unlikely that this will happen.

agreed that it has never really worked, however i dissagree with it's basic principle. Not everyone deserves equal footing or an equal share of resources, i for one fail to see why someone who doesn't work at all (out of choice mind you not out of circumstances) deserves to be treated the same as someone who works incredibly hard.

In my vision of Socialism, everyone is equal, but only if they deserve to be. Now I know that sounds Rightist, but hear me out. Why should those who can't be bothered to work consume the fruits of the Workers' labour? This is basic Socialist principle; leeches are as bad as exploitative capitalists.

Can you spare that much mud for the pigs, LG?

An excellent question. Let me check my stockpile...

In my vision of Socialism, everyone is equal, but only if they deserve to be. Now I know that sounds Rightist, but hear me out. Why should those who can't be bothered to work consume the fruits of the Workers' labour? This is basic Socialist principle; leeches are as bad as exploitative capitalists.

it's difficult to define deserving equality, does someone who works far harder than someone who barely deserves it get the same amount? that to me seems hopelessly unfair.

it's difficult to define deserving equality, does someone who works far harder than someone who barely deserves it get the same amount? that to me seems hopelessly unfair.


This is where you and I agree yet again, the Conservative and the Hruševskyjist. Where we will, I am sure, disagree, is the definition of hard work.

Who do you think works harder than someone else? This is not rhetorical, I would really like to know.

Had I been living in Marx's time I may well have agreed with him. Back then the bourgeois were making life very miserable by exploiting the workers by paying them very little in exchange for very long, hard work. It seemed to be the case that naturally the plight of the proletariat will be eventually overcome and the resources will be shared out equally. Today however I don't believe Marx' ideas are as applicable.

This is where you and I agree yet again, the Conservative and the Hruševskyjist. Where we will, I am sure, disagree, is the definition of hard work.

Who do you think works harder than someone else? This is not rhetorical, I would really like to know.

That is indeed very difficult to define, does the manual labourer work physically harder than the politician? probably, but does the labourer contribute more to society? probably not. I am inclined to say that he/she who contributes most to society deserves to get the most back from it, however people so rarely get what they deserve and im loath to allow a government to try to solve this as that would in my opinion be morally wrong.

Had I been living in Marx's time I may well have agreed with him. Back then the bourgeois were making life very miserable by exploiting the workers by paying them very little in exchange for very long, hard work. It seemed to be the case that naturally the plight of the proletariat will be eventually overcome and the resources will be shared out equally. Today however I don't believe Marx' ideas are as applicable.

Do you mean that the bourgeois have put an end to the exploitation of the workers? :confused:
This is far from the truth.The battle has changed yes. But there is still a battle. In France the government has become even more right wing, and demonstrations are more numerous as a consequence. In England the labour party is far from being typically left wing, and some have said that this years demonstrations are the biggest since decades ago! In the US you just have to look at the ghettos! And lets not talk about the sweatshops of maquilladoras. You can no longer explain one countries evolution just by looking at the particular country because these capitalistic countries intervene all over the globe, and i'm not just talking about the military.

That is indeed very difficult to define, does the manual labourer work physically harder than the politician? probably, but does the labourer contribute more to society? probably not. I am inclined to say that he/she who contributes most to society deserves to get the most back from it, however people so rarely get what they deserve and im loath to allow a government to try to solve this as that would in my opinion be morally wrong.

I think politicians should not be paid at all, as they are directly serving the People for the Peoples' sake, not their own (in theory, at least). They need only basic expenses covered, and anything else deemed absolutely necessary, and of course a small salary for the luxuries (e.g. computers, TVs, holidays) which every working person deserves.

Regarding manual labour, let's take Britain's "National Health Service" (NHS) as an example organisation. Nurses and cleaners don't get paid that much, despite the fact that they do an incredibly important job, whereas the over-filled "Management" is full of people with totally pointless jobs. They have regular meetings to discuss "How we can entice people not to be fat", which of course never amounts to anything more than another meeting with yet more PDF.s and more Powerpoint presentations. And as if this isn't a drain enough on the NHS, these people are often earning around £100,000.

This is embarassing; they don't even deserve a quarter of that money, whereas the frontline staff deserve at least triple what they currently get. This is one of the big problems in our society: unfair pay.

Of course, doctors and surgeons and psychiatrists should earn more than the frontline staff; they have been in university for four to eight years, and their jobs directly affect life and death. They should be on at least £100,000 a year, that being an absolute minimum.

I think politicians should not be paid at all, as they are directly serving the People for the Peoples' sake, not their own (in theory, at least). They need only basic expenses covered, and anything else deemed absolutely necessary, and of course a small salary for the luxuries (e.g. computers, TVs, holidays) which every working person deserves.

Regarding manual labour, let's take Britain's "National Health Service" (NHS) as an example organisation. Nurses and cleaners don't get paid that much, despite the fact that they do an incredibly important job, whereas the over-filled "Management" is full of people with totally pointless jobs. They have regular meetings to discuss "How we can entice people not to be fat", which of course never amounts to anything more than another meeting with yet more PDF.s and more Powerpoint presentations. And as if this isn't a drain enough on the NHS, these people are often earning around £100,000.

This is embarassing; they don't even deserve a quarter of that money, whereas the frontline staff deserve at least triple what they currently get. This is one of the big problems in our society: unfair pay.

Of course, doctors and surgeons and psychiatrists should earn more than the frontline staff; they have been in university for four to eight years, and their jobs directly affect life and death. They should be on at least £100,000 a year, that being an absolute minimum.


Ok a doctor has done lots of studies, but hey he already comes from a privileged background. He has not had a hard life. He has worked hard ok. But
think of a builder who has done little studies, and who has no choice but to go into the family business. How can he afford anything else? And the farmer's boy, who's parents could not afford to pay for him to study any longer? Do you really believe that the doctor "deserves" to be paid more? They play with life and death yes. So do the builder and farmer. They build the doctor's house and feed him.

As much as i dislike management without them the society cannot support itself, so i say fair pay for all.:)

agreed that it has never really worked, however i dissagree with it's basic principle. Not everyone deserves equal footing or an equal share of resources, i for one fail to see why someone who doesn't work at all (out of choice mind you not out of circumstances) deserves to be treated the same as someone who works incredibly hard.

Communism fails exactly because of this: People are lazy, selfish, greedy, bigoted and occassionally psychotic. As such, system that relies on everybody sharing everything - that includes work too - fails due human nature.

So in the few days that i've been here i've noticed a distinct left wing bias, not that it's a problem of course everyone is entitled to their views. As the name suggests i'm am not a fan of any left wing ideology least of all communism, i was wondering if anyone could produce a firm defence of communism for me so i could see what the argument are and at least attempt to debate them.

p.s i'd rather not be called an evil nazi by any of you communists in the same way that i'd prefer if communists wern't referred to as evil commies.:D

There is only one communist on this board: Andaras.

Those with "left-wing bias" tend to be social-democrats, with left-wing economical views combined with socially liberal views - thus in the completely wrong quadrant to be communists.

I've never heard of a dumber ideology. Especially the Marxist variants. If you're suicidal, give it a go. Leave me out of it.

Essentially yes, if you refuse to take advantage of the ample opourtunities you're given in most modern society's then the consequences of that decision are entirely your own fault.

and where is the downside to letting people who have realized they made mistake easily correct it? hell, is there even any benefit at all to not allowing that?

There is only one communist on this board: Andaras.

Those with "left-wing bias" tend to be social-democrats, with left-wing economical views combined with socially liberal views - thus in the completely wrong quadrant to be communists.

every poll ever done here always has a solid showing of anarchists. very very few stallies, yeah. but plenty of communists.

Are people really still making these threads? I thought this horse got beaten to death years ago (oh wait, it did...). I don't think I've ever met a Communist above 17 or 18 years of age. I think most of the rest of us long ago realized that the lyrics to "Holiday in Cambodia" weren't based on fiction. People try to sugar coat it and argue from policy because they have to ignore humanity's attempts at Communism to be taken seriously, but in reality (and this goes for politics as much as science) if the theory doesn't work when applied to reality, then something is wrong with it.

People try to sugar coat it and argue from policy because they have to ignore humanity's attempts at Communism to be taken seriously, but in reality (and this goes for politics as much as science) if the theory doesn't work when applied to reality, then something is wrong with it.

now suppose that the single method that has been repeatedly tried out was declared by communists to not be workable or desirable decades before anyone actually used it...

People don't agree to disagree here. They fight to the death in Thunderdome. I'll begin making preparations...

Summon AP! This will be an epic battle of ideologies.:D

So in the few days that i've been here i've noticed a distinct left wing bias

Untrue - this forum is not really "left wing".
However, it is indeed far less "right wing" than the USA.

then you, my friend, aren't really right wing, decent quality of life includes a proper housing, food, school and healthcare (in my opinion), in the USA poor people don't get healthcare and also no post elementary school education.

I must be "true" right wing, then, because I differ in that I don't think someone who is able to work but refuses to should be entitled to anything. I believe that every person it entitled to what he or she earns, and little more. We have a free public education system, giving everyone the opportunity to be at least somewhat successful. If a person drops out of high school and doesn't feel like working at a crappy job (and it'd be said person's own damn fault that he/she didn't have any other options), then I don't think that person should be supported by the rest of society.

What I like about American capitalism is that there are moderate socialist elements, such as free public education and financial aid for college. If you fail to take advantage of even the public schooling, you have no right to complain. If you refuse to work and support yourself, you have no right to expect the government to do it for you. This is why I think that welfare should only go to those who are working, but don't make enough to support themselves and their families. If a man is determined to make himself fail, the government has no right to stop him from failing.

Communism, no

Socialism, yes yes yes.

Go look at the staggering GDP of Norway which is, like its Scandinavian neighbors, predominantly littered with obtusely socialist policy.

That said, Norway has an amazing standard of living as well as a braggable GDP.

Socialism works, and it shames me to no end the fact that Right-Wingers here in America are nonstop barraging us with the so-called "free-market proposals" and insisting that we follow their sharply Christian "moral majority" standard of "GRR NO ABORTIONS NO GAYS NO NO NO!"

The fact is, people often point to England as an example for why "global healthcare" does not work, yet they completely fail to notice the Scandinavian socialist success stories.

Untrue - this forum is not really "left wing".
However, it is indeed far less "right wing" than the USA.

Have you not see the political compass graphs of everyone on this forum? It was something like 90% of the people in the bottom left quadrant.

Have you not see the political compass graphs of everyone on this forum? It was something like 90% of the people in the bottom left quadrant.

And communism (general term applied to vanguard/Leninist communism) is in the top-left, thus lefties here tend to not be communists at all.

now suppose that the single method that has been repeatedly tried out was declared by communists to not be workable or desirable decades before anyone actually used it...

I do not judge people, events, or philosophies on their intentions, I judge them on their results.

If you had a lot of time on your hands and cared enough, you could probably find that just about any political doctrine hasn't been carried out "to the letter," excepting, possibly, National Socialism. Even if they had been at first, any government or society is very likely to deviate over time for one reason or another: for evidence of this we need look no further than the twisted monstrosity of Imperial America compared to its roots as a humble and (more or less) honest Republic. Even at the start we had "All Men are Created Equal" but promptly disqualified blacks from humanity and thought nothing of it. The fact that other ideologies have committed the same errors do not earn their larger theories any additional virtue.

Have you not see the political compass graphs of everyone on this forum? It was something like 90% of the people in the bottom left quadrant.

i am nearly positive that there is a definite leftward skewing involved in that, though i'm not entirely sure why

...other than the fact that being to the left is the correct position to be, so answering in the ways that shift one right requires answering like an asshole.

communism (general term applied to vanguard/Leninist communism)

Why are you using communism to refer to that?

I do not judge people, events, or philosophies on their intentions, I judge them on their results.

If you had a lot of time on your hands and cared enough, you could probably find that just about any political doctrine hasn't been carried out "to the letter," excepting, possibly, National Socialism. Even if they had been at first, any government or society is very likely to deviate over time for one reason or another: for evidence of this we need look no further than the twisted monstrosity of Imperial America compared to its roots as a humble and (more or less) honest Republic. Even at the start we had "All Men are Created Equal" but promptly disqualified blacks from humanity and thought nothing of it. The fact that other ideologies have committed the same errors do not earn their larger theories any additional virtue.

Shouldn't you know by now that reasonable arguments like this mean nothing here? :p

Well, I guess I'm communist, in that I would love to have the system in place, providing it would work (which, after capitalism, I don't think it will, sadly) and I'm very anti-capitalist. But because I don't think it could be ascertained, guess I'm stuck with plain old socialism...

Why are you using communism to refer to that?

Historically, "Communist" countries have been like that. And I was born in one of them :mad:

There's no working model in defence of communism - it's not really worked. However, communism is a fantastic ideology - putting every person on equal footing, sharing resources, helping each other - a working communist society would be lovely! But it can't be expected to happen - ever!

that is exactly why i love it's presence on NATIONSTATES.net. because this is an environment where we can set it up and it will work!!

agreed that it has never really worked, however i dissagree with it's basic principle. Not everyone deserves equal footing or an equal share of resources, i for one fail to see why someone who doesn't work at all (out of choice mind you not out of circumstances) deserves to be treated the same as someone who works incredibly hard.

one of the ideas is that people will work. there would be everything from expanding the infastructure to cleaning eachother's toilets that has to be done. that is why communism works and exists in small communities. everyone pitches in together because they all want to be there. that is also why it does not work on a larger scale.

I do not judge people, events, or philosophies on their intentions, I judge them on their results.

If you had a lot of time on your hands and cared enough, you could probably find that just about any political doctrine hasn't been carried out "to the letter," excepting, possibly, National Socialism. Even if they had been at first, any government or society is very likely to deviate over time for one reason or another: for evidence of this we need look no further than the twisted monstrosity of Imperial America compared to its roots as a humble and (more or less) honest Republic. Even at the start we had "All Men are Created Equal" but promptly disqualified blacks from humanity and thought nothing of it. The fact that other ideologies have committed the same errors do not earn their larger theories any additional virtue.

i am not asking you to judge intentions. i am asking you to take into account that there was and is a significant faction of communists that said that the proposed method - the only method to ever be used - would lead to disastrous and horrific results. therefore we cannot equate that one method with communism as a whole, just like we cannot equate democracy with slave holding. it was neither necessary nor uniformly approved of even at the time.

the fact of the matter is that we know there are tons of ways to not start up a given political/social/economic system. but the failure of one method says nothing at all about the general idea. nor does the the historically contingent order in which methods were tried.

Shouldn't you know by now that reasonable arguments like this mean nothing here? :p

They still have value, but ironically I don't really write for the value of my opponent so much as I do for the readers. In general, trying to change someone's political leanings is like pissing in the ocean. I'm not challenging my opponents ideas for their sake, I'm doing it for anyone else who would care enough to read :D

Historically, "Communist" countries have been like that. And I was born in one of them :mad:

But you don't define communism like that. Communism is an economic model and concept that preceded any country that called themselves communist.

check this out. this is a community in tenessee. it basically follows these ideals. and this type of situatuation is not uncommon.

http://www.thefarm.org (http://www.thefarm.org/)

This thread was created based on a judgmental conviction against supporting human equality.

One thing I will never understand about "right wing" arguments is the manner in which they judge people, or just the fact that they are judging people at all. How, on earth, can one judge the life of another?? Please tell me this.

Nobody has the ability to determine if another "deserves" a happy and fulfilling life. We all deserve happiness, no matter what mistakes we've made.

Do we not all have faults of our own? It is in our nature to make mistakes. We are all human beings and should be united by our human-ness. I will reject the "us vs. them" views that so many people hold, whether they be bipartisan or class oriented.

"Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?"

So in the few days that i've been here i've noticed a distinct left wing bias, not that it's a problem of course everyone is entitled to their views.
Pfft!

Be more inflamatory! I do it all the time to stir up old debates which aren't going anywhere and so should you - here, I'll do it for you -

In the last few days, I've noticed a disgusting tendency of the average leftie forumite to support such Orwellian horrors as communism. Although any sane person would simply point and laugh at you cretins, my time on NSG has caused me to question why so many have fallen for the patent lies of Karl Marx, and in doing so selling yourself to an ideology which can never be successful so long as human nature exists.

In the opinion of an elite clique of more intellectually gifted members, of which I consider myself a part, the overall ruling impulse of the world is a "know you not, owe you not" kind of thinking, which benefits everyone by benefitting the markets.

Tell me why you disagree, you spineless pot-smoking pipe-dreamers!
As the name suggests i'm am not a fan of any left wing ideology least of all communism, i was wondering if anyone could produce a firm defence of communism for me so i could see what the argument are and at least attempt to debate them.
"Och but communism hasn't really happened yet, Stalin was a state capitalist, so communism is still cool"

There you go :p
p.s i'd rather not be called an evil nazi by any of you communists in the same way that i'd prefer if communists wern't referred to as evil commies.:D
Bloody fascist :p

every poll ever done here always has a solid showing of anarchists. very very few stallies, yeah. but plenty of communists.

Anarchism and communism seem to me to be at completely opposing ends of any political spectrum so this kind of confuses me. Granted, there are a myriad breed of anarchism, but generally it is by far closer to some kind of idealized libertarian utopia than, say, Soviet style communism.

But you don't define communism like that. Communism is an economic model and concept that preceded any country that called themselves communist.

I suppose... it's just that for me, the word has clear cut connotations and associations. I know pure communism excludes the need for a state, is apolitical, and all that jazz, and I think it is a fairly nice idea (I agree with some points, disagree with other - overall I think of myself as a free-market syndicalist democrat), but communism, in the historical context, and the one I always put it in, is the autocratic vanguard "dictatorship of the proletariat" bollocks from the ruins of which I had to grow up.

i am nearly positive that there is a definite leftward skewing involved in that, though i'm not entirely sure why
Jobless students etc. :p

Anarchism and communism seem to me to be at completely opposing ends of any political spectrum so this kind of confuses me. Granted, there are a myriad breed of anarchism, but generally it is by far closer to some kind of idealized libertarian utopia than, say, Soviet style communism.

Well - one of the ideas of communism is that people will be all they can be because they can - not because they are told/ordered. So that is somewhat anarchistic.

Well - one of the ideas of communism is that people will be all they can be because they can - not because they are told/ordered. So that is somewhat anarchistic.

Yes, which is why I admit that there are communist breeds of anarchism, but by and large anarchism falls closer to libertarianism than communism. I mean, I guess it just requires that you be a bit specific when bringing up anarchism because of its broad spectrum. It just always strikes me as funny, though, because right wingers rail against socialism and anarchism, though they tend to be much closer to the latter than the left wingers they despise so much.

Communism fails exactly because of this: People are lazy, selfish, greedy, bigoted and occassionally psychotic. As such, system that relies on everybody sharing everything - that includes work too - fails due human nature.

You couldn't be more wrong. It's true that some people are like what you said but it's not part of human nature. The reason that people are like this is down to captialist society. Capitalism breeds greed, power, selfishness, bigotry as well as revenge and jealousy.
People want more because they know that other people have more than they have, often a hell of a lot more which causes the problems outlined above. In a capitalist society, there is almost no emphasis on morals and equality. It is a fact that on the bottom line, everyone is equal. Of course, we have prejudices against people who are lazy or violent, drunk, etc. because of them being like this but a lot of the time it's because they don't have the opportunities that people from more stable families have.
The main reason that communism has failed is because it has been implemented incorrectly and falls very short of Marx's principles which were intended to bring everyone together on the same level and destroy the bourgeois/ proletariat divide.
This is still extremely prevalent in capitalism of course and thus, it can also be deemed as a failure.

Communism fails exactly because of this: People are lazy, selfish, greedy, bigoted and occassionally psychotic. As such, system that relies on everybody sharing everything - that includes work too - fails due human nature.
Indeed. Communism is perfect until you add Humanity :p.
You couldn't be more wrong. It's true that some people are like what you said but it's not part of human nature. The reason that people are like this is down to captialist society. Capitalism breeds greed, power, selfishness, bigotry as well as revenge and jealousy.
People want more because they know that other people have more than they have, often a hell of a lot more which causes the problems outlined above. In a capitalist society, there is almost no emphasis on morals and equality. It is a fact that on the bottom line, everyone is equal. Of course, we have prejudices against people who are lazy or violent, drunk, etc. because of them being like this but a lot of the time it's because they don't have the opportunities that people from more stable families have.
The main reason that communism has failed is because it has been implemented incorrectly and falls very short of Marx's principles which were intended to bring everyone together on the same level and destroy the bourgeois/ proletariat divide.
This is still extremely prevalent in capitalism of course and thus, it can also be deemed as a failure.
Study some history would ya? It has been proven throughout the ages that man is greedy, selfish, and a number of other things in ALL SOCIETIES! Capitalism does not create these, but rather "Capitalizes" on them.:D

Study some history would ya? It has been proven throughout the ages that man is greedy, selfish, and a number of other things in ALL SOCIETIES! Capitalism does not create these, but rather "Capitalizes" on them.:D

What I don't get is, the hardcore American libertarians acknowledge strongly the inherent greediness in people, yet put so much faith in the effectiveness of private charity instead of tax, if people were as greedy and un-altruistic as they say they are, then surely private charity would in fact be very ineffective.

This thread was created based on a judgmental conviction against supporting human equality.

One thing I will never understand about "right wing" arguments is the manner in which they judge people, or just the fact that they are judging people at all. How, on earth, can one judge the life of another?? Please tell me this.

Nobody has the ability to determine if another "deserves" a happy and fulfilling life. We all deserve happiness, no matter what mistakes we've made.

Do we not all have faults of our own? It is in our nature to make mistakes. We are all human beings and should be united by our human-ness. I will reject the "us vs. them" views that so many people hold, whether they be bipartisan or class oriented.


A very good post. Judging other people is a failure of people. It may indeed be true that some people go against the general rules of society, often due to their unstable background. They will be judged immediately by anyone who is better off than them. Fundamental error in humanity. What we need to do is try to get rid of these boundaries that surround social groups and instead of talking about how best to punish them or stop them before they strike is to try to integrate them more into the status quo and encourage them to see themselves as good and valid as anyone else.
"Tough on the causes of crime" You know that quote? What a disasterous concept. The causes of crime are capitalist ideologies - We look down on you in our expensive suits and spit in your eye because your family has no money and you turned to crime.

What I don't get is, the hardcore American libertarians acknowledge strongly the inherent greediness in people, yet put so much faith in the effectiveness of private charity instead of tax, if people were as greedy and un-altruistic as they say they are, then surely private charity would in fact be very ineffective.
Because it's a cop-out to people who complain that the poor will die at the expense of the greedy.

Also, has anyone else's font changed?

It's small an creepy:eek:

Also, has anyone else's font changed?

Just made a thread. :D

Because it's a cop-out to people who complain that the poor will die at the expense of the greedy.

Also, has anyone else's font changed?
Gah! The return of Melkor has irreversibly changed our fonts! Run! Run! :p.

Study some history would ya? It has been proven throughout the ages that man is greedy, selfish, and a number of other things in ALL SOCIETIES!
I'd suggest you take some of your own advice and study some history.

If you're claiming that humans are naturally greedy, selfish, etc., because these traits appear in all human societies, then you must concede that humans are naturally altruistic (in the genuine, non-evolutionary sense), sharing and co-operative, for these traits also appear in all human societies.

Point to a greedy act and I can point to a selfless act.

A picture of human nature based on only some human behaviour is just nonsensical. And it leads to silly statements like 'humans are all naturally bad' or 'humans are all naturally good'. Both Hobbes and Rousseau have got it wrong.

Study some history would ya? It has been proven throughout the ages that man is greedy, selfish, and a number of other things in ALL SOCIETIES! Capitalism does not create these, but rather "Capitalizes" on them.:D

So in your terms, people are unable to learn, become moral and love each other for who they are.
I think you'll find that there are ancient societies, for example in the Amazon rainforests, that want nothing more than to be able to live together in peace. There are even people in our societies that are like that and want nothing more than that. Did you know that?

What I don't get is, the hardcore American libertarians acknowledge strongly the inherent greediness in people, yet put so much faith in the effectiveness of private charity instead of tax, if people were as greedy and un-altruistic as they say they are, then surely private charity would in fact be very ineffective.
It's not that it's very effective, it's just that it's less intrusive then government work!

And a lot less mix-ups too. So what (Very little) money people give to private charities don't go to fund some worthless war of aggression in the middle east. See?

So in your terms, people are unable to learn, become moral and love each other for who they are.
I think you'll find that there are ancient societies, for example in the Amazon rainforests, that want nothing more than to be able to live together in peace. There are even people in our societies that are like that and want nothing more than that. Did you know that?
1. Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel." Then tell me about your peaceful tribal types.
2. If you can point me to a crimeless, argumentless society, please do!
3. I never said they were unable to, I merely said that the very nature of humanity is greed, although mixed in with several other traits.

Anarchism and communism seem to me to be at completely opposing ends of any political spectrum so this kind of confuses me. Granted, there are a myriad breed of anarchism, but generally it is by far closer to some kind of idealized libertarian utopia than, say, Soviet style communism.

mainline anarchism has always been largely communist, with a smattering of non-communist socialisms of one sort or another. a libertarian utopia more or less requires it.

It's not that it's very effective, it's just that it's less intrusive then government work!


Of course, but they go on to say that it will be just as effective as benefits in dealing with poverty, something hard to believe if you also hold that humans are naturally greedy.

I'd suggest you take some of your own advice and study some history.

If you're claiming that humans are naturally greedy, selfish, etc., because these traits appear in all human societies, then you must concede that humans are naturally altruistic (in the genuine, non-evolutionary sense), sharing and co-operative, for these traits also appear in all human societies.

Point to a greedy act and I can point to a selfless act.

A picture of human nature based on only some human behaviour is just nonsensical. And it leads to silly statements like 'humans are all naturally bad' or 'humans are all naturally good'. Both Hobbes and Rousseau have got it wrong.
Yes, but if you'll look through history, you'll notice that the greedy ALWAYS get control of the reigns. Also, since when is greed a bad thing? Greed doesn't mean walking around, beating children up for their pocket change. Well, in extreme excess I suppose... But greedy and charitable are not mutually exclusive.

1. Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel." Then tell me about your peaceful tribal types.
2. If you can point me to a crimeless, argumentless society, please do!
3. I never said they were unable to, I merely said that the very nature of humanity is greed, although mixed in with several other traits.

1. I don't know about that so no response.
2. I wasn't talking about a whole society if you read properly. I said there are some people within societies who are peaceful and selfless.
3. You're still wrong. We have the potential to become greedy of course, but it's all due to capitalist ideologies that exacerbate that.

Study some history would ya? It has been proven throughout the ages that man is greedy, selfish, and a number of other things in ALL SOCIETIES! Capitalism does not create these, but rather "Capitalizes" on them.:D

Incorrect. There have been quite a few societies where social status did not depend on how much you had, but on how much you gave away.

Of course, that does mean that the generous people where not doing it purely for noble, selfless reasons - but hey.

A very good post. Judging other people is a failure of people.
Judging people is extremely important. If you didn't, then everyone would be a grey, mediocre entity. That raises nobody's spirits.
It may indeed be true that some people go against the general rules of society, often due to their unstable background. They will be judged immediately by anyone who is better off than them.
I have richer friends than myself whose drug-taking makes me feel a combination of disgust and pity.
Fundamental error in humanity.
I don't see why. Having opinions and experience on issues makes you learn to exploit them to your advantage. And exploit is exactly the right term.
What we need to do is try to get rid of these boundaries that surround social groups and instead of talking about how best to punish them or stop them before they strike is to try to integrate them more into the status quo and encourage them to see themselves as good and valid as anyone else.
No thanks. The class system means that you get a constant stream of movement, all of which is essentially beneficial, up and down as peoples' fortunes and achievements rise and/or fall.
"Tough on the causes of crime" You know that quote? What a disasterous concept. The causes of crime are capitalist ideologies
No, the cause of crime is having very little money, and hence very little way to acquire the resources you need to live your life happily.

That can exist in any kind of society, unless you give people ration cards for their weekly shopping, but that's just depressing. People can be extremely poor with money. Others can be good with money. Many more are in between. People who are terrible with money will always be poor, just as people good with money will generally make themselves wealthier.
We look down on you in our expensive suits and spit in your eye because your family has no money and you turned to crime.
I have an extremely cheap suit, and would never spit in anyone's eye, but I still dislike those who commit crimes. Society has boundaries for a reason. Stealing peoples' hard-earned resources (and if you say that rich people have do no work, I would ask quite why they are rich) is not on.

1. Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel." Then tell me about your peaceful tribal types.
Yeah, there's a really interesting talk by Steven Pinker about the myth of the 'noble savage' here (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html).

I never said they were unable to, I merely said that the very nature of humanity is greed, although mixed in with several other traits.
But that's completely arbitrary. Why highlight greed instead of other traits, traits which you yourself admit are present in all human societies?

There's no good reason to say that humans are 'naturally greedy'.

Yes, but if you'll look through history, you'll notice that the greedy ALWAYS get control of the reigns.
Which proves what?

Certainly nothing about human nature.

But greedy and charitable are not mutually exclusive.
They're hard traits to go together.

They're hard traits to go together.
It's my belief that all humans hold all traits. Just in different measures. Even Al Capone was charitable at times, and even the best charity worker is greedy. Greed is just usually the overriding factor when it comes to doing something.

Judging people is extremely important. If you didn't, then everyone would be a grey, mediocre entity. That raises nobody's spirits.
What? That doesn't make any sense. How does it raise anyone's spirits to judge someone as bad because they are seen as coming from the working class, for example?

I have richer friends than myself whose drug-taking makes me feel a combination of disgust and pity.
Well, fair enough but that's a different issue.

I don't see why. Having opinions and experience on issues makes you learn to exploit them to your advantage. And exploit is exactly the right term.
I don't understand this, either. If people exploit things to their advantage and also to the disadvantage of others, is that right?

No thanks. The class system means that you get a constant stream of movement, all of which is essentially beneficial, up and down as peoples' fortunes and achievements rise and/or fall.
How can it be beneficial? So that someone from one class will view someone from another class as bad? Is that what we need in society? I don't think so.

No, the cause of crime is having very little money, and hence very little way to acquire the resources you need to live your life happily.
And why do (some) people have very little money? Because they have never been allowed opportunities and have been shunned into their perceived groups and permanently labelled as such.

Greed is just usually the overriding factor when it comes to doing something.
More to the point, greed is usually the overriding factor when it comes to doing some things.

In business, greed is pretty key.
In socialising, it isn't.

What I like is how people defend Capitalism as some kind of system which "rewards the hard-working" and "punishes the lazy."

Capitalism rewards the people who would sell their own kids down the river for a job promotion. It rewards Machiavellian sociopaths who have no concern for the state of society as a whole and only care about getting money.

Capitalism as it stands allows the rich to get richer and makes sure the poor stay that way. You can try and inject it with some humanity and say that "oh well the victims of circumstance shouldnt be punished, no, thats not what capitalism is!" Are you joking? That's exactly what capitalism is. I'll use a wonderful book, Christ in Concrete by Pietro di Donato (though I'm sure anyone who classifies themselves as as any kind of conservative wouldn't appreciate the level of humanity it brings to the table) as an example of how the cutthroat world of the supposed "free market" likes nothing more than to get cheap labor which they can exploit, and keep in submission.

Society as a concept generally includes redistribution of wealth. The "big difference" between capitalism and socialism is that capitalists want that wealth back in their hands because "Oh, we 'worked hard' to get that money" even though where they got that money is usually a fat inheritance from their parents. Socialism wants the wealth redistributed to the people who are living by a poor standard of living.

The myth that people are poor because they're lazy is a laughable one; almost up there with the myth that people who are rich got there through hard work, but I think the latter still wins in terms of ridiculousness. The big "path to success" is considered to be a college education, but as is the case for most of the "lower class," poverty becomes a cycle which is very difficult to break because of the fact that the children need to enter the workforce as soon as they can just to keep their heads above water (in this case being starvation, i suppose). They can't afford to go to college. Are there scholarships? Yes. The thing about scholarships, though, is that getting them becomes so mind-bogglingly competitive, and they're so few and far in between that less than a handful of the kids get them. So you have maybe three kids out of a graduating High School class in an impoverished area who get that shot to succeed. This does absolutely nothing to help raise the overall standard of living. Government issued funding from grants and financial aid, most will find to be quite lacking. So yes, you can break the cycle of poverty, but it's about 3-5/250 who get to move onto college, let's say, since that's what seems to be an average size for an urban-centered graduating class as well as the amount of kids who actually get scholarships that can fully cover getting them into college. Like I said, that still does nothing to help the standard of living of American society as a whole; it has nothing to do with "being lazy."

Capitalism is severely flawed, but since it does manage to actually sustain a certain portion of the population, and it is easy to pull off, it gets lionized by conservatives, when it does not deserve to be put on a pedestal.

If America has taught us another thing, it's that "trickle-down economics" is a joke. The upper class won't do anything to support the lower class if they aren't forced to. This is why there is a dire need for better social welfare systems; so the government can tax the people who are able (see: upper class) and redistribute enough of money (ideally wisely, although idealism doesn't mean a thing without action) down to the lower class, among other things, and raise the standard of living. Higher standard of living means more active economy, which is better for everyone. I know you Objectivists and Randroids abhor helping other people, but sadly doing so actually makes a society better.

More to the point, greed is usually the overriding factor when it comes to doing some things.

In business, greed is pretty key.
In socialising, it isn't.
Agreed.

What? That doesn't make any sense. How does it raise anyone's spirits to judge someone as bad because they are seen as coming from the working class, for example?
Aye, well moralising about being higher, or lower, class than other people isn't particularly useful. But you can judge people on their actions, and this is pretty handy.
I don't understand this, either. If people exploit things to their advantage and also to the disadvantage of others, is that right?
Depends what the outcome is, doesn't it?
How can it be beneficial? So that someone from one class will view someone from another class as bad? Is that what we need in society? I don't think so.
Because it forces people to work hard to get the best out of life. You can work up through the classes, my parents were once both lower class, and we're now pretty LMC. If they didn't work so well, our house wouldn't be so nice, we wouldn't own four computers and we wouldn't go on holiday abroad. THEY worked, and THEY got the benefits.
And why do (some) people have very little money? Because they have never been allowed opportunities and have been shunned into their perceived groups and permanently labelled as such.
That's a part of it. But there's also stuff like people spending their money gambling, especially in the lottery which is basically an Idiot Tax. You can pick yourself up. But it takes time and willpower, as well as a wee bit of luck to do so.

Because it forces people to work hard to get the best out of life. You can work up through the classes, my parents were once both lower class, and we're now pretty LMC. If they didn't work so well, our house wouldn't be so nice, we wouldn't own four computers and we wouldn't go on holiday abroad. THEY worked, and THEY got the benefits.
I see your point but it doesn't always work that nicely, does it? A huge amount of people don't feel forced to work harder and probably the majority of people remain at the same kind of income level all their lives.
I also come from a working class family and I worked myself up through university, etc. but I still hate the class system and would not like to put myself in any particular class. It's too prejudicial. I want to give everyone a chance but that can only be done by letting everyone know you accept them despite them earning less money or whatever.

That's a part of it. But there's also stuff like people spending their money gambling, especially in the lottery which is basically an Idiot Tax. You can pick yourself up. But it takes time and willpower, as well as a wee bit of luck to do so.
I agree. I would like to see gambling made illegal on a large scale. In my opinion, you don't deserve anything that you haven't worked for.

I agree. I would like to see gambling made illegal on a large scale. In my opinion, you don't deserve anything that you haven't worked for.
The only way you could completely outlaw gambling is by putting cameras in every place, public or private, and monitoring them 24/7.

I see your point but it doesn't always work that nicely, does it? A huge amount of people don't feel forced to work harder and probably the majority of people remain at the same kind of income level all their lives.
I daresay they feel like their lives aren't going anywhere and probably get depressed to the point of pills at 35. Which is sad, but that's kind of how things go.
I also come from a working class family and I worked myself up through university, etc. but I still hate the class system and would not like to put myself in any particular class. It's too prejudicial.
I'll do it for you, then - LMC with pangs of guilt because of it.
I want to give everyone a chance but that can only be done by letting everyone know you accept them despite them earning less money or whatever.
I don't think it's the giving people a chance issue that's the problem here. I think the issue is really how much of a chance one can reasonably give the entire population before they get addicted to the government teat.
I would like to see gambling made illegal on a large scale. In my opinion, you don't deserve anything that you haven't worked for.
And in my opinion, you get exactly what you deserve if you fritter your money away on gambling.

The only way you could completely outlaw gambling is by putting cameras in every place, public or private, and monitoring them 24/7.
And disabling the internet.

So in the few days that i've been here i've noticed a distinct left wing bias, not that it's a problem of course everyone is entitled to their views. As the name suggests i'm am not a fan of any left wing ideology least of all communism, i was wondering if anyone could produce a firm defence of communism for me so i could see what the argument are and at least attempt to debate them.

p.s i'd rather not be called an evil nazi by any of you communists in the same way that i'd prefer if communists wern't referred to as evil commies.:D

Like most people have already said on here, there hasn't ever been a communist society, but I do consider myself a communist, or at least a socialist. Basically what I subscribe to is that the vast majority of the world's wealth is in the hands of a very select few. I believe that money could be used to eliminate a great deal of suffering in the world, but that is just a basic theory of redistribution of wealth. For me, socialism doesn't have to mean that everyone is the same, or anything like that. I believe that it means that, as a member of a society, you already sacrifice many of your rights to the state in exchange for the security of the army, police, fire services, etc., but I believe that with an increase in taxes, more could be provided without drastically infringing on freedoms or choice. I believe the state should offer a guaranteed income for every citizen, at least enough to ensure that every citizen can have safe, clean living conditions, healthy food, and still be comfortable enough to enjoy life. I also believe that taxes should be lessened on those who make less money, and that those who are very comfortable have more they can spare, and also owe more to the state for the life they have achieved. That is how I feel, and I have no desire to try and push it on someone who doesn't agree. I do, however, love a good debate.

The only way you could completely outlaw gambling is by putting cameras in every place, public or private, and monitoring them 24/7.

*sighs* I said on a large scale. By which, I mean outlawing bookmakers, lotteries , casinos and all organised activities. You would need cameras in every place to stop murder, too, but it still happens.

They still have value, but ironically I don't really write for the value of my opponent so much as I do for the readers. In general, trying to change someone's political leanings is like pissing in the ocean. I'm not challenging my opponents ideas for their sake, I'm doing it for anyone else who would care enough to read :D

Pissing in the ocean: Even the fishes don't give a shit.

But yeah, I know exactly what you're talking about.

I'll do it for you, then - LMC with pangs of guilt because of it.
Oi! ;) I don't have guilt about it as I'm very unmaterialistic and I do a lot of work for charities.

And in my opinion, you get exactly what you deserve if you fritter your money away on gambling.
The problem there is that for those people it has become an addiction and I don't think that people deserve to lose everything like that.

Oi! ;)
BWAHAHA!

I hit a sore spot, ner-ner-ner-nerrrr-ner!
I don't have guilt about it as I'm very unmaterialistic and I do a lot of work for charities.
Nice one etc.
The problem there is that for those people it has become an addiction and I don't think that people deserve to lose everything like that.
They didn't have to start.

Because it forces people to work hard to get the best out of life. You can work up through the classes, my parents were once both lower class, and we're now pretty LMC. If they didn't work so well, our house wouldn't be so nice, we wouldn't own four computers and we wouldn't go on holiday abroad. THEY worked, and THEY got the benefits.

That more or less assumes that hard work WILL in general lead to a class change for the better. Reality shows us that that is not the case - with or without castes. I for instance doubt that your parents ever worked as hard as the average African single mother stereotype, or a bottom class citizen of India

That more or less assumes that hard work WILL in general lead to a class change for the better. Reality shows us that that is not the case - with or without castes. I for instance doubt that your parents ever worked as hard as the average African single mother stereotype, or a bottom class citizen of India
That's a very good point. Even poor people can work harder in western societies
and not end up with much, e.g. single mothers who have to take many cleaning jobs or something just to feed their families. People would still view her as being lower class or not worth much even if she dedicates her life to looking after her children. Is that a kind of reward? Is that how she should be seen?

They didn't have to start.
Ha! It's not exactly that straightforward! Do you think that anyone actually wants to become addicted to things that will undoubtedly do them harm in some way? If they didn't have the scope to be able to blow all their money, it wouldn't happen in the first place (yes, I know that it could still be done in an underground way but the authorities can only stop so much).

Ha! It's not exactly that straightforward! Do you think that anyone actually wants to become addicted to things that will undoubtedly do them harm in some way? If they didn't have the scope to be able to blow all their money, it wouldn't happen in the first place (yes, I know that it could still be done in an underground way but the authorities can only stop so much).
They didn't choose to be addicted, but they CHOSE to start! My grandparents have admitted this, time and time again about their smoking habit!

is this correct as far as i understand it? left wing is communist which is what i believe in and right wing is like nazi leader sort of thing and middle capitalist?

is this correct as far as i understand it? left wing is communist which is what i believe in and right wing is like nazi leader sort of thing and middle capitalist?

More or less. The scale is of course utterly nonsensical, but politicians like to use it.

is this correct as far as i understand it? left wing is communist which is what i believe in and right wing is like nazi leader sort of thing and middle capitalist?

In a naïve way, to be honest. This link (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/FreeTrade/Neoliberalism.asp) will give you a better picture of how it all relates. And you might be surprised by some of the charts.

Jobless students etc. :p

i mean with the test itself, rather than the results for here

They still have value, but ironically I don't really write for the value of my opponent so much as I do for the readers. In general, trying to change someone's political leanings is like pissing in the ocean. I'm not challenging my opponents ideas for their sake, I'm doing it for anyone else who would care enough to read :D

Which is why, incidentally, I rarely take part in debates when you're posting there, even though we disagree on most everything. I prefer to read and think when one or more of the very good posters are around.

Anarchism and communism seem to me to be at completely opposing ends of any political spectrum so this kind of confuses me. Granted, there are a myriad breed of anarchism, but generally it is by far closer to some kind of idealized libertarian utopia than, say, Soviet style communism.

Okay. Briefly, anarchism has historically been a very left wing ideology, leaning towards communism, collectivism, or syndicalism. Recently, more individualist currents have emerged, with both 'anarcho'-capitalism, and individualist anarchism, which is still often rather left wing, just less organised. As the historical position is generally leftist, 'anarchism', without adjectives, normally refers to the left wing position.

Importantly, it is completely incompatible with statist communism such as the USSR. However, it is communism none the less, merely a very different form. So really, leftist anarchism is simply the step 'beyond' state communism, if one insists on a single dimensional view. It is the purest form, where equality is sought not just in the economic sphere but in the political sphere as well.

Note that even Marx presumed that the state would wither away as society transferred to communism. The key anarchist departure from him here is the idea that a totalitarian state --- a 'dicatorship of the proletariat' --- is a necessary first step (see Bakunin's comments on this here (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Archive/BakuninMarx.html)).

Maybe not thesame but they deserve to live anyway, treating everybody the same doesn't work, if you work for 10 hours you should get more money then someone who works for 5 hours, however everybody should have enough money to get food and proper housing (the ones who refuse to work should get the very least required to survive), even if they can't work for whatever reason.

Even as a Socialist I believe that those who don't put into the society don't deserve to benefit from it. At all. Of course, I'm also a Bolshevik just like my grandparents who fought in the revolution. :D

Note that even Marx presumed that the state would wither away as society transferred to communism. The key anarchist departure from him here is the idea that a totalitarian state --- a 'dicatorship of the proletariat' --- is a necessary first step (see Bakunin's comments on this here (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Archive/BakuninMarx.html)).

marx's rebuttal:

"schoolboyish rot!"

marx's rebuttal:

"schoolboyish rot!"

All too probable, unfortunately.

Ok a doctor has done lots of studies, but hey he already comes from a privileged background. He has not had a hard life. He has worked hard ok. But
think of a builder who has done little studies, and who has no choice but to go into the family business. How can he afford anything else? And the farmer's boy, who's parents could not afford to pay for him to study any longer? Do you really believe that the doctor "deserves" to be paid more? They play with life and death yes. So do the builder and farmer. They build the doctor's house and feed him.

As much as i dislike management without them the society cannot support itself, so i say fair pay for all.:)

Pascoli, my mother was born in a poor suburban area, and my grandfather was a Ukrainain refugee. I am studying to become a consultant psychiatrist.

Are people really still making these threads? I thought this horse got beaten to death years ago (oh wait, it did...). I don't think I've ever met a Communist above 17 or 18 years of age. I think most of the rest of us long ago realized that the lyrics to "Holiday in Cambodia" weren't based on fiction. People try to sugar coat it and argue from policy because they have to ignore humanity's attempts at Communism to be taken seriously, but in reality (and this goes for politics as much as science) if the theory doesn't work when applied to reality, then something is wrong with it.

Thr truth is that those who attempt true, good Communism (e.g. the West Ukrainian Peoples' Republic, Parisian communes) get beaten the shit out of by crap, fake regimes such as the U.S.S.R. and China. Real Communism is always capitalised on and destroyed.

yeah, I'm on my way to becoming a solicitor, and my parents certainly didn't have it easy...

a lot of people who have lived under communism, which then turned into capitalism wanted the good old times of communism back.

In the opinion of an elite clique of more intellectually gifted members, of which I consider myself a part, the overall ruling impulse of the world is a "know you not, owe you not" kind of thinking, which benefits everyone by benefitting the markets.

HAHAHAHA! The fact you consider yourself in an "elite intellectual clique" says it all! You needn't spread your political poison, since you've just thrown your credibility in the garbage. If by publicly humiliating yourself, you could die, I'd give you a Darwin Award xD

P.S. Trust me, those "intellectuals" with that primæval egotism combined with self-righteous bombasticity are usually at the lower end of the spectrum, if they're even above average/Mensans at all.

on that note, it's pretty easy to say that in believing yourself to be intellectually gifted, you are lying to yourself. Intellect is limited to a series of truths, logic and reason. However, as no absolute truth is ascertainable (nor ever will be - should we see it, we're most likely not to recognise it as being the truth), all that can be concluded is that you may be a tiny bit less stupid than the rest of us. Nonetheless, you remain stupid and ignorant, just like every person on the planet.

a lot of people who have lived under communism, which then turned into capitalism wanted the good old times of communism back.
That's true, I know this from living in Slovakia just over 10 years ago. Some of my students actually prefered communism. One of the reasons I remember was "there were no illegal drugs around then".
I think the main problem with any type of government is that whoever gets elected leader will go off on a huge power trip and fuck up the country in one way or another. Usually it's the poor people that get it the most of course, whether capitalist or communist or any other form. There are cons to every existing form of government which is why I'm starting to write a new book ;)

That more or less assumes that hard work WILL in general lead to a class change for the better. Reality shows us that that is not the case - with or without castes.
Evidently it doesn't, or I wouldn't be living in a semi-detached with a hundred-foot garden right now.
I for instance doubt that your parents ever worked as hard as the average African single mother stereotype, or a bottom class citizen of India
My father worked at least 2 hours' overtime per day on top of his 9-5 for my entire childhood, my mother got a bar job and we all chipped in when we were doing the main kind of income generation - property development.
Ha! It's not exactly that straightforward! Do you think that anyone actually wants to become addicted to things that will undoubtedly do them harm in some way?
No, on the other hand is everyone informed of the risks nowadays? Absolutely. I smoke and probably drink a bit much - I know these are Bad Things, so when I die early, that's self-inflicted. So's wasting all of your money on slot machines or the lottery.
If they didn't have the scope to be able to blow all their money, it wouldn't happen in the first place (yes, I know that it could still be done in an underground way but the authorities can only stop so much).
You can't stop people gambling. People like taking chances, after all.

a lot of people who have lived under communism, which then turned into capitalism wanted the good old times of communism back.
Aye, and for some it was genuinely better, and for others, that's just because they're looking back on their youth with rose-tinted spectacles.
HAHAHAHA! The fact you consider yourself in an "elite intellectual clique" says it all! You needn't spread your political poison, since you've just thrown your credibility in the garbage. If by publicly humiliating yourself, you could die, I'd give you a Darwin Award xD

P.S. Trust me, those "intellectuals" with that primæval egotism combined with self-righteous bombasticity are usually at the lower end of the spectrum, if they're even above average/Mensans at all.
Yes, I know, I was being an egotistical and extremely opinionated prick on purpose, if you'd actually read my post properly.

You're right, it could just be nostalgia for by-gone times

on that note, it's pretty easy to say that in believing yourself to be intellectually gifted, you are lying to yourself.
It's pretty easy to say anything on the internet -

"Llamas have Jewish facial features and hence should be burnt at the stake"
"I genuinely believe that George W. Bush has been a credit to the US"
"My favourite dictator is probably Pinochet, because lefties deserve to be tortured to death"
"Cuba is a democracy."
"Belgium is an interesting place"

See?
*pretention*
Aye etc.

Socialism (I will use this instead of communism) is a progressive alternative to the inherent injustice of capitalism. In the most general sense, history is the constant battle between the haves and the have-nots. Slavery, then serfdom, and now capitalism. Although capitalism is certainly more desirable than slavery and serfdom it still creates injustice. When a person is employed they are used to create a profit for their employer. This means that their work is done not for their benefit, but for the benefit of others. Inequality is created. In a more specific sense, under capitalism a corporation cares more about its profits than its workers, the workers are only there to produce, so the corporation will try to get as much production out of them as possible. This lack of concern for well being is the inherent flaw in capitalism. The workers are exploited. Eventually a rich/poor gap forms. Socialism, and its influence on capitalism (the New Deal) is combating that. Socialism tries to eliminate this inherent flaw. Socialism comes in many forms so it is impossible to predict exactly how it works, and each idea has its pros and cons, and much hasn't even been tried. But the goal is take away the economic injustice that is created by capitalism. People are protected from the company trying to exploit them for maximum profit. Much of the world has implemented some forms of socialism, including the US. Restrictions, labor laws, minimum wage, social security etc all try to heal the wounds of capitalism (as seen in the Great Depression, which is a large reason America has some socialism). Democratic socialism is this same belief, but also trying to create more say in the workplace, and empowering the worker with rights. Socialism also seeks to eliminate the inequalities in race, gender and religion. Equality of the classes, equality of the people, that is what socialism stands for. That is why socialism.

Capitalism rewards the people who would sell their own kids down the river for a job promotion. It rewards Machiavellian sociopaths who have no concern for the state of society as a whole and only care about getting money.

Capitalism as it stands allows the rich to get richer and makes sure the poor stay that way.

Massive, meaningless generalisation, you may have said that the whole of the universe thinks Marmite is a god send, and that may still be less of a broad generalisation.


You can try and inject it with some humanity and say that "oh well the victims of circumstance shouldnt be punished, no, thats not what capitalism is!" Are you joking? That's exactly what capitalism is. I'll use a wonderful book, Christ in Concrete by Pietro di Donato (though I'm sure anyone who classifies themselves as as any kind of conservative wouldn't appreciate the level of humanity it brings to the table) as an example of how the cutthroat world of the supposed "free market" likes nothing more than to get cheap labor which they can exploit, and keep in submission.


Don't delude yourself into thinking that exploitation can only happen when there is a market, it always has happened whatever the system in place is, often these pseudo (fake) communists would rather have their massive statist government exploit everyone equally, effectively replacing all the separate companies into one giant and very vulnerable corporation, where the class (yes I did say class) division between the governmental leaders and the workers (slaves) is so huge it makes capitalism look like a fucking utopia.


Society as a concept generally includes redistribution of wealth.

Find me a capitalist government in the whole world that doesn't tax (hint, tax is redistribution of wealth). If you don't think wealth is being redistributed enough, support higher taxes, many capitalists however acknowledge that this may reverse the desired effect by causing the economy to decline if you tax to highly.


The "big difference" between capitalism and socialism is that capitalists want that wealth back in their hands because "Oh, we 'worked hard' to get that money"

Massive generalisation.


even though where they got that money is usually a fat inheritance from their parents.

We don't live in late 19th and early 20th century any more, this is a very unrealistic assessment.


Socialism wants the wealth redistributed to the people who are living by a poor standard of living.


So does everyone.


The myth that people are poor because they're lazy is a laughable one; almost up there with the myth that people who are rich got there through hard work, but I think the latter still wins in terms of ridiculousness. The big "path to success" is considered to be a college education, but as is the case for most of the "lower class," poverty becomes a cycle which is very difficult to break because of the fact that the children need to enter the workforce as soon as they can just to keep their heads above water (in this case being starvation, i suppose). They can't afford to go to college.

The majority of people here at least these days can afford to go to university if they are academically capable of gaining a degree. If they can't, this in no way means that communism is the only answer, if that's what you're saying then that is one of the worst arguments for communism I have ever seen.


Are there scholarships? Yes. The thing about scholarships, though, is that getting them becomes so mind-bogglingly competitive, and they're so few and far in between that less than a handful of the kids get them. So you have maybe three kids out of a graduating High School class in an impoverished area who get that shot to succeed. This does absolutely nothing to help raise the overall standard of living. Government issued funding from grants and financial aid, most will find to be quite lacking. So yes, you can break the cycle of poverty, but it's about 3-5/250 who get to move onto college, let's say, since that's what seems to be an average size for an urban-centered graduating class as well as the amount of kids who actually get scholarships that can fully cover getting them into college. Like I said, that still does nothing to help the standard of living of American society as a whole; it has nothing to do with "being lazy."


Guess what, America isn't the only capitalist country in the world. Further consider that the countries with the highest average education have all free market economies. And this whole crap about needing to go to university, especially in the USA, in order to gain a comfortable living is utter nonsense anyway.


Capitalism is severely flawed, but since it does manage to actually sustain a certain portion of the population, and it is easy to pull off, it gets lionized by conservatives, when it does not deserve to be put on a pedestal.


Yet you haven't provided anything approaching an argument as to why, just rhetoric and some tenuous crap about universities.


If America has taught us another thing, it's that "trickle-down economics" is a joke. The upper class won't do anything to support the lower class if they aren't forced to. This is why there is a dire need for better social welfare systems; so the government can tax the people who are able (see: upper class) and redistribute enough of money (ideally wisely, although idealism doesn't mean a thing without action) down to the lower class, among other things, and raise the standard of living. Higher standard of living means more active economy, which is better for everyone.

Are you seriously fucking telling me all along that you're merely just a welfare capitalist? edit: and the USA has a massive welfare state.

God I guess you know something is wrong when you intentionally avoid threads on NSG labeled 'Communism' or the like. The fact is, I would prefer an environment like revleft (or with political friends) to discuss such matters.

The problems with debates such as these is that nothing is ever accomplished, no consensus on anything ever achieved, to put it straight 'you have to build the wheel every time you have a debate'. I like debating issues relating to communism with friends because firstly you don't have to deal with the fiery anti-communist rhetoric, and secondly you don't have to explain to people the concept of self-criticism, which simply means debating with people who have limited knowledge of Marx means they DON'T KNOW THE ECONOMIC BASIS FOR THEIR OWN IDEAS. They think their own ideas are original, even profound, and debating is therefore fruitless.

Therefore I am not going to enter into this debate, but I will say this, beware of those 'leftists' and 'socialists' who by preference appeal to 'the people as a whole' and not the working class.

"We cannot speak of 'pure democracy' so long as different classes exist; we can only speak of class democracy".
(V.I. Lenin: "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", in: "Selected Works", Volume 7; London; 1946; p. 129).
"The bourgeoisie finds it advantageous and necessary to conceal the bourgeois character of modern democracy from the people and to depict it as democracy in general, or as 'pure democracy'...
The bourgeoisie is obliged to be hypocritical and to describe the (bourgeois) democratic government as 'popular government', or democracy in general or pure democracy, when as a matter of fact it is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the exploiters over the mass of the toilers".
(V.I. Lenin: "Democracy' and Dictatorship", in: ibid.; p. 219, 220).

So in the few days that i've been here i've noticed a distinct left wing bias, not that it's a problem of course everyone is entitled to their views. As the name suggests i'm am not a fan of any left wing ideology least of all communism, i was wondering if anyone could produce a firm defence of communism for me so i could see what the argument are and at least attempt to debate them.

p.s i'd rather not be called an evil nazi by any of you communists in the same way that i'd prefer if communists wern't referred to as evil commies.:D

Lurk moar, evil nazi.

Seriously, there are tons of threads about this already, and there is a search function.

There is only one communist on this board: Andaras.

Those with "left-wing bias" tend to be social-democrats, with left-wing economical views combined with socially liberal views - thus in the completely wrong quadrant to be communists.

I'm Communist. So, he's not the only one. I'm just... more reasonable, and don't give into the rhetoric as much as he does, nor do I believe all Communist countries are Wonderlands(Such as Andaras saying how wonderful NK is. Honestly, now, that is just bad). Nor do I say that Capitalistic countries are necessarily bad. I disagree with capitalism to a great extent, but I don't see it as necessarily evil.

But that's not really here nor there.

I'm Communist. So, he's not the only one. I'm just... more reasonable, and don't give into the rhetoric as much as he does, nor do I believe all Communist countries are Wonderlands(Such as Andaras saying how wonderful NK is. Honestly, now, that is just bad). Nor do I say that Capitalistic countries are necessarily bad. I disagree with capitalism to a great extent, but I don't see it as necessarily evil.

But that's not really here nor there.

The DPRK is revisionist, so I support them only to a limited degree.

Communism has failed, Andaras. Plain and simple. Especially in North Korea. Any one who supports the leaders of that brutal, poverty ridden, third-world hell hole is either being deluded or willfully ignorant.

Communism has failed, Andaras. Plain and simple. Especially in North Korea. Any one who supports the leaders of that brutal, poverty ridden, third-world hell hole is either being deluded or willfully ignorant.
Or they believe all sources are in a gigantic plot to decieve everyone. In other words...

Option three: Paranoid :D.

Communism has failed, Andaras. Plain and simple. Especially in North Korea. Any one who supports the leaders of that brutal, poverty ridden, third-world hell hole is either being deluded or willfully ignorant.

I refuse to speak with anti-communist scumbags like you whose ideas are nothing but the extension of bourgeois property relations.

You can 'quote' me every bourgeois source you like, but you do not know my stance of the DPRK, so do not presume yourself to judge it.

You have no decent debate to offer me, go away troll.

If you think communism has failed at everytime of it's practice then you haven't looked at Cuba. They're government is doing amazingly, and people get paid an even 20$ a week for their work and services (unless you work overtime, you gain more)

Oh hi, let me just leave this quote here.

"Anyone who doesn't miss the soviet union has no heart, anyone who wants it back has no brain."

Oh hi, let me just leave this quote here.

"Anyone who doesn't miss the soviet union has no heart, anyone who wants it back has no brain."

More bourgeois propaganda?

More bourgeois propaganda?

bourgeois IS propaganda.

I'm Communist. So, he's not the only one. I'm just... more reasonable, and don't give into the rhetoric as much as he does, nor do I believe all Communist countries are Wonderlands(Such as Andaras saying how wonderful NK is. Honestly, now, that is just bad). Nor do I say that Capitalistic countries are necessarily bad. I disagree with capitalism to a great extent, but I don't see it as necessarily evil.

But that's not really here nor there.

and you CANNOT be COMMUNIST if you believe in the CAPITALIST ideals.

Well I don't want the USSR back, that sounds very much impractical and the only people who actually say 'bring back the soviet union' these days are Russian nationalists, not revolutionary Communists. Resurrecting the USSR would mean resurrecting Brezhnevite/Khrushchevite social-imperialism, and I support self-determination of peoples and oppose imperialism.

All those who think of me as a big-bad imperialist fail to realize that my support was with Albania, the only state which retained it's socialist construction and resisted revisionism.

As Enver Hoxha said, 'the Soviet revisionists hate us and regard us as a thorn in the side. Because they see that in their rear areas a tiny country and a heroic people are fighting to retain their independence and to build socialism successfully'

More bourgeois propaganda?

Please. Does throwing the term "bourgeois" at someone constitute a logical argument? It sounds more like an ad-hominem attack than a reasoned argument.

True free-marked capitalism - and no, we don't have that here in the USA, We have corporate monopolism - is a beautifully self-correcting system. True capitalism allows the creation of wealth through the addition of labor to raw materials. From a humanist standpoint, it means every economic transaction is conducted through a voluntary exchange of goods by coming to a mutual agreement on the relative values of the goods being traded. If you accept the theory of evolution as your model for economics, it rewards the innovators and the hard workers while efficiently eliminating the weak and lazy. If you prefer the judeo-christian model, it permits the skilled to succeed to the point of being able to aid others voluntarily.

All forms of socialism/communism involve some degree of outside force on a market, from regulations and taxation to price controls to complete domination by the state. this appears to me to have a stifling effect on innovation and restricts the creation of wealth.

No more babbling from me, though. It's bedtime here, and I'm bordering on complete incoherence. I'll have a look at the flames in about 8 hours. G'night all.

So in the few days that i've been here i've noticed a distinct left wing bias, not that it's a problem of course everyone is entitled to their views. As the name suggests i'm am not a fan of any left wing ideology least of all communism, i was wondering if anyone could produce a firm defence of communism for me so i could see what the argument are and at least attempt to debate them.

p.s i'd rather not be called an evil nazi by any of you communists in the same way that i'd prefer if communists wern't referred to as evil commies.:D

Well, that really tapped the finishing nails into the platform for Andaras. *facepalm*

So in the few days that i've been here i've noticed a distinct left wing bias...

If one were to do an analysis on how interesting your post was overall, this would be about the point that it would peter off... :rolleyes:

There's no working model in defence of communism - it's not really worked. However, communism is a fantastic ideology - putting every person on equal footing, sharing resources, helping each other - a working communist society would be lovely! But it can't be expected to happen - ever!

I thought Sweden had an advanced form of socialism... I could be wrong though, I'll have to check.

Out of curiosity, has any of you would be communist supporters lived under communism? Or for that matter knew anyone who lived under the hammer and sickle? It's nice to support an ideology you have no clue about in practice, but the facts are a bit different from the sugar coated perception some have.

I thought Sweden had an advanced form of socialism... I could be wrong though, I'll have to check.

That's because you are no doubt are from America, where anything slightly to the Left of Genghis Khan is 'socialist'. This isn't of course surprising, capitalism needs to use such rhetoric to put itself into an underdog position, to claim 'socialist' will take over any day now, without that rhetoric their system will decay.

Social-democracy, as I like to say, it 'letting pressure out of the capitalist pressure cooker so it doesn't explode'...

That's because you are no doubt are from America, where anything slightly to the Right of Genghis Khan is 'socialist'. This isn't of course surprising, capitalism needs to use such rhetoric to put itself into an underdog position, to claim 'socialist' will take over any day now, without that rhetoric their system will decay.

Rhetoric... underdog... it all sounds so familiar, but from where...?

Oh hi, let me just leave this quote here.

"Anyone who doesn't miss the soviet union has no heart, anyone who wants it back has no brain."More bourgeois propaganda?

No, a witty reworking of your "Bringing back the Soviet Union means bringing back Kruschevism" remark, in the form of "Any man who is not a communist at the age of twenty is a fool. Any man who is still a communist at the age of thirty is an even bigger fool."

That latter remark I grew up with. It's from George Bernard Shaw. It was taught to me by my mother, a sound member of the working class (which I do not claim to be) and a true socialist.

Call my mother a "bourgeois" or a "scumbag" and I'll use some brand-new insults on you. The sort which can only be used once.

Watch your step around Shaw, too. :p

Social-democracy, as I like to say, it 'letting pressure out of the capitalist pressure cooker so it doesn't explode'...

Update your agitprop, comrade!

My grandmother (who is 98 soon, rose from the cutting floor to manage a clothing manufacturers, mothered three children on her own and never threw away a chicken carcass until it had been boiled thrice) used to use a pressure-cooker.

My own mother, despite being raised on soggy vegetables, owned but did not use a pressure cooker. From my own not-so-humble childhood I recall her weary words, as I tried to help her out in our not-so-humble kitchen: "I just don't like the thing."

I'm more for steaming the vegetables. In a pot with a resizable steaming-flower made by revisionist workers in China.

Boilers, comrade! Boilers! Big, working boilers with stokers to stoke them! That is the analogy you should choose to educate the lumpenproletariat!

Andaras, who comprises the bourgeois in America?

I do not judge people, events, or philosophies on their intentions, I judge them on their results. Then it would be silly to point to places like Cambodia as examples of communism, as they didn't result in communism.

What I don't get is, the hardcore American libertarians acknowledge strongly the inherent greediness in people, yet put so much faith in the effectiveness of private charity instead of tax, if people were as greedy and un-altruistic as they say they are, then surely private charity would in fact be very ineffective.One of my favorite examples of doublethink employed by right-libertarians.

Just after I joined this forum, I read a brilliant thread about Cuba. It was a compilation of essays about the country. I think if you want to see a Communist country on the right track, then to all Americans, look no further than your backyard! If you stopped harbouring Cuban terrorists, and instead helped Cuba to become your ally, both nations could really learn something.

Just look at Cuba's literacy statistics: there is not a single person in Cuba who cannot read and write. That's an amazing feat, and can only be achieved by a government as zealous and well-meaning as Cuba. While of course there is sadly an amount of corruption, as in all governments, it's nothing like that in most Western powers; Che Guevara's spirit really lives on. Moreover, there is an argument that Cuban democracy (one party, where citizens vote for representatives and policies) is superior to American democracy.

North Korea, on the other hand, is not Communist, but a market-controlling mess invented by China. In fact, China is even less Communist. It's nothing more than an embodiment of Fascism, with a massive gold star slapped on it's backside. They still have a huge rich-poor divide, exploitative business, racial subjugation of Uyghur Turks and Tibetans, and no free speech. If anyone can tell me where Marx said that all these factors were involved in the "Emancipation of the Proletariat", I'll jump off the Golden Gate Bridge.

Out of curiosity, has any of you would be communist supporters lived under communism? Or for that matter knew anyone who lived under the hammer and sickle? It's nice to support an ideology you have no clue about in practice, but the facts are a bit different from the sugar coated perception some have.

Not a supporter of communism, but I have a number of cousins who only came here in the 90's and lived in Soviet Russia. At least from their descriptions it wasn't the horrible hellhole that people sometimes like to think of it as, it just wasn't as good as a good many other places. But, on the other hand, from everything they've said, their education wtfpwned the hell out of ours, though it was a lot more rote memorization and such.

I'm trying to say that it wasn't this paradise that a very select few on this board seem to sometimes imply, but it also was not this bottomless cesspool of agony that a good many others like to imply. It had its good, it had its bads and unfortunately the latter outnumbered the former just too much to be operable. *shrug* Such is life.

the amazing thing is the number of soviets who regret the end of communism.
and what is russia now? a country filled with alcoholics, who live in extreme poverty and have an extremely bad health service...

who said communism was mostly bad?:mp5:

More bourgeois propaganda?

I thought you liked Vladimir Putin.

Incorrect. There have been quite a few societies where social status did not depend on how much you had, but on how much you gave away.

Of course, that does mean that the generous people where not doing it purely for noble, selfless reasons - but hey.

Close, but misses the mark a bit. In order to give something away, you have to have it first*. Both methods of social status, therefore, are a way to demonstrate wealth and success to others, both have the same roots. You'll note that in those societies that gave great status to great givers of wealth- ancient Rome, or the Pacific Northwest indigenous people, for example, not so much attention was paid to HOW you aquired the stuff you gave away. Industriousness, cleverness, robbery, conquest, whatever worked. You'll note also that when a person in such a society did this, he generally never gave away so much that his remaining wealth was threatened. In the end, whether you are showing off your great wealth by driving a Bugati or writing a huge check to a charity, it is the same purpose- show it off.

(*Unless you are a politician)

Just look at Cuba's literacy statistics:

Indeed, do. But then ask, when a government controlls all information, including its own statistics, and those that question it are imprisoned...

is it easier to merely write "100%" on your annual report, or is easier to actually train 100% of the people to read and write?

Do you really think Cuban government workers will not do what's easier? Like their counterparts everywhere else?

The only difference is, in the west, the media will question them. If the state claims one thing and evidence shows another, the journalists will call them on it. It's a pain in the butt sometimes, but it's a good thing, really.

Never believe a word from a government that doesn't allow a free press.

(and if they do, remain skeptical anyway!)

and you CANNOT be COMMUNIST if you believe in the CAPITALIST ideals.

Understanding Capitalist ideals(And the pros of such a system) =/ believing in them.

Honestly, that's not a terribly difficult thing to wrap one's head around.

Out of curiosity, has any of you would be communist supporters lived under communism? Or for that matter knew anyone who lived under the hammer and sickle? It's nice to support an ideology you have no clue about in practice, but the facts are a bit different from the sugar coated perception some have.

I'm not a Marxist. I do not believe Communism can work as a government structured system. As a social structured system, yes, yes it can. But not forced from above, but instead accepted from within a society, if you will.

I'm not a Marxist. I do not believe Communism can work as a government structured system. As a social structured system, yes, yes it can. But not forced from above, but instead accepted from within a society, if you will.

We may have common ground here. As a libertarian, I have no objection to a group that determines to live in a communist system so long as participation is voluntary. What bothers me is the idea that I must be forced to live under a socialist system whether I want to or not as Andares has suggested on many occasions. Coerced labor will never match the efficiency of voluntary labor, and a government-mandated communist system will always become a burdensome threat of force.

We may have common ground here. As a libertarian, I have no objection to a group that determines to live in a communist system so long as participation is voluntary. What bothers me is the idea that I must be forced to live under a socialist system whether I want to or not as Andares has suggested on many occasions. Coerced labor will never match the efficiency of voluntary labor, and a government-mandated communist system will always become a burdensome threat of force.

That is libertarian airy-fairy Utopian garbage and you know it, capitalism ALWAYS MUST BE FORCED ON PEOPLE, IT IS NEVER VOLUNTARY.

So, yeah, go ahead, make your libertarian Utopia, because without a powerful state to protect it the working class will easily overthrow it, and class enemies like you will be the first to be shot like the scum you are.

That is libertarian airy-fairy Utopian garbage and you know it, capitalism ALWAYS MUST BE FORCED ON PEOPLE, IT IS NEVER VOLUNTARY.

Explain the following:
Hundreds of failed rebellions against Communist governments, the black market.

So, yeah, go ahead, make your libertarian Utopia, because without a powerful state to protect it the working class will easily overthrow it, and class enemies like you will be the first to be shot like the scum you are.
So shouldn't you be advocating a Libertarian state so it'd be easier to overthrow by the *Ahem* Proletariat. *Snickers*

Explain the following:
Hundreds of failed rebellions against Communist governments, the black market.
Class Warfare.

Any proper socialist state should implement the correct line of comrade Stalin, that being the theory of the development of socialism alongside the aggravation of class struggles.

Such thing like the black market and rebellions accurately reflect the brutal and unflinching class struggle waged by the ruling working class, who now in power are being assailed on every front by the ousted bourgeois and their class allies, who are desperate to retain power and continue their exploitation of the toiling masses.

Any socialist state must be absolutely merciless and brutal in it's class warfare, to destroy all sources of opposition to the Ruling Working Class.

So shouldn't you be advocating a Libertarian state so it'd be easier to overthrow by the *Ahem* Proletariat. *Snickers*
Of course, it's easier for the working class to organize in such an environment, just as it would be easier in the liberal bourgeois to organize as oppose to say a fascist bourgeois state. So necessarily I am not opposed to an libertarian order, but it's also important to remember that the bourgeois themselves would OPPOSE libertarianism because it would mean a lessening in their own political power.

Same reason Communists can supported anti-imperialist revolutions in Africa in the like, not being they were proletarian in origin but because they could eventually led to socialist revolutions.

I'd like to see money abolished - and instead, to survive and live as a population, we trade goods and services for other goods and services
Let's assume you're a chicken farmer and need a new barn. What if you need my services as an architect but I don't need your chickens or anything else you have to offer me? See the problem with barter systems?

Let's assume you're a chicken farmer and need a new barn. What if you need my services as an architect but I don't need your chickens or anything else you have to offer me? See the problem with barter systems?

See Bartercard, I could offset the chickens with someone who needs them, say a plumber when I don't need a plumber, but they could then be of service to you.

Of course, this inexorably comes back to pricing.

Why wouldn't you help build my barn? Why would I have a barn at all, why wouldn't it be a communal barn. Same with the chickens.

Each to their own for the good of the whole community.

...and class enemies like you will be the first to be shot like the scum you are.

I refuse to speak with anti-communist scumbags like you.

Andaras, because of those flames you've just been banned for seven days.

They're not the worst flames I've ever read on NS. They picked up that penalty because of your history.

Katganistan warned you a short time ago that continued flaming could result in your being DEATed. For a while you've seemed to be getting the point.

But you're still missing one vital detail. You MAY abuse ideas, ideologies or principles with which you disagree. You MAY NOT abuse the posters who hold the ideas, ideologies or principles with which you disagree.

When you return, please continue to display the ability to argue that you've proven you have, and put the ability to abuse on hold.

See Bartercard, I could offset the chickens with someone who needs them, say a plumber when I don't need a plumber, but they could then be of service to you.
Seems like a big hassle to work out deals with potentially 20 different people just to get me compensation for services provided. Wouldn't it be easier to just assign an amount of currency and pay me in something that everyone will accept in exchange for goods and services?

Of course, this inexorably comes back to pricing.
Yes it does. Money makes that much easier.

Why wouldn't you help build my barn?
What's in it for me?

Why would I have a barn at all, why wouldn't it be a communal barn. Same with the chickens.
You can do that if you want but not everyone wants to share everything they have with everyone else. If 2 people are fighting over something they both want to use at the same time in this community of your's resolving the conflict could be difficult if neither party yeilds. Personal property eliminates this problem but creates another, theft. Not perfect but I prefer it.

Each to their own for the good of the whole community.
Again, fine for you but not for me and I'm not alone. I like the idea of money because it limits personal acquisition unless an individual is willing to make a greater contribution to society. Since humans are a worthless greedy lot it can motivate them to do shit for others.

Workers Of The World Unite! You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Self-reliance, Liberty, Dignity And Future!

Indeed, do. But then ask, when a government controlls all information, including its own statistics, and those that question it are imprisoned...

is it easier to merely write "100%" on your annual report, or is easier to actually train 100% of the people to read and write?

Do you really think Cuban government workers will not do what's easier? Like their counterparts everywhere else?

The only difference is, in the west, the media will question them. If the state claims one thing and evidence shows another, the journalists will call them on it. It's a pain in the butt sometimes, but it's a good thing, really.

Never believe a word from a government that doesn't allow a free press.

(and if they do, remain skeptical anyway!)

Never believe what your Western media tells you about a Communist country. They rarely report the truth; remember they want to sell their information in a capitalist world. They will only write what sells. Obtaining free information on Cuba is difficult, but a few have cracked it, and I consider myself to be one of those people, having spoken to people who have actually visited the country. I intend to work there at some point in my medical career, as they have arguably the best health service in the world.

My information certainly does not come from the Cuban government, who will lie, as you would expect, considering the treatment they have received from America's lapdogs. They want people to think Cuba's better than it is, and there really are problems. Prostitution and a faulty agricultural industry are just two serious issues I can pull out of the air.

Workers Of The World Unite! You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Self-reliance, Liberty, Dignity And Future!Workers don't have any of those things, how can they lose them by uniting?