NationStates Jolt Archive

You know, I don't especially like the Nazi's, or Intolerence, since we are TRUE comunists and not some skinhead newb that just says so.
But, there's not really much We can do about it, cause Human nature causes us to show a certain amount of animosity towards those that are different. It's the "Group system". If you're not in "The Group" then you're not as good a sthe next person.


I just want to clear the names of all the True Communists here. We're not evil people. most of the people that supposedly hate Communists have not even read the Communist Manifesto. It basically states that the people are the most powerful force of a country. Therefore, by Destroying the people of their own countries, (German Jews...) Nazis are weakening themselves.

Communism is a Style of Government where everyone is just as able to succeed in life as the next person. Nobody is "Better" than anyone. Equality.
This is of course, hardly a reality in Nazi and Surpreme right wing society. There is discrimination against those of other races, as well as a surplus of Multi-Millionaires that control most aspects of Life. These few people live in the lap of luxury, while people die of hunger everynight, right outside of their forty floor business complexes. I'd like to make people realize that Communism is not the Scourge of Human Culture. That is all.

I'd like all of the people that belive Communism is evil to state some well researched proof right here. And don't anyone Dare say, China Or North Korea because those are NOT Communist countries.

good post good stuff


spread the red comrade!

Go democracy!

Long live the spirit of Father Marx

Communism is not evil. However, its system of government is completely reliant upon the morality of humanity. People are evil, or, at least, a significant enough portion of them are in a certain way, which ensures that no true Communist state will ever succeed. Therefore, this brings up the point that if someone willingly encourages the develop of such a government, are they really moral? Willful ignorance (or perhaps simply ignorance) of the outcome of such a form of government does not absolve its proponents of the blame for having created it.

Communism is a wonderful theory. So are all utopian ideologies. But I have observed no evidence in my own life or in my knowledge of the world that such societies can exist on a national scale, although they have had some limited success in small communities.

Yes indeed, go democracy. A democracy in which all people have an equal vote, and large corporations headed by the rich can't buy votes. Go democracy in which all people have an equal say. Hail to our socialist and communist comrades.

FACTS: Civilian death tolls for three Communist regimes.

25 million in The Soviet Union, 65 milion in China , 1.7 million in Cambodia.

How could any SANE person want to live under a Communist regime??? :(

It is dehumanizing: it denies the basic dignity of the individual. The highest goal of any society should be balancing the necessity of social justice with individual freedoms. Communism doesn't meet that test.

I agree with you: China and North Korea (or the old Soviet Union, for that matter) are not true Communist states; they are single-party authoritarian states. Nevertheless, their raison d'etre is communist: the realization of the Marxist worker's paradise. That they've failed to achieve that goal reveals the flaws in Marx's thinking. Human beings are acquisitive, and not unhealthily so. This basic fact - also present in other species - coupled with human kind's intellect, physical adaptabillity, and manual dexterity, is responsible for human progess. Communism denies that reality.

FACTS: Civilian death tolls for three Communist regimes.

25 million in The Soviet Union, 65 milion in China , 1.7 million in Cambodia.

How could any SANE person want to live under a Communist regime??? :(


compared to the hundreds of millions that starve under western/capitalist influence...?

also the USSR figures have always been unclear.....

they range from 100,000 to 50 million.....

FACTS: Civilian death tolls for three Communist regimes.

25 million in The Soviet Union, 65 milion in China , 1.7 million in Cambodia.

How could any SANE person want to live under a Communist regime??? :(
There has never been a true example of a communism. Those country's leaders are corrupt and put themselves above the people. They restrict civil rights and ast like fascist dictators. If we really could have a socialist nation that has democratically elected leaders, then everyone would see that communism can be a good thing.

Me and my population can. Communism is evil just because USA saw USSR as a threat to themselves. Its all propaganda. Half of it is not true. Also, we consider those countries as Stalinists, not Communists. Being Stalininst is like being Fascist, and we are all against fascism

Me and my population can. Communism is evil just because USA saw USSR as a threat to themselves. Its all propaganda. Half of it is not true. Also, we consider those countries as Stalinists, not Communists. Being Stalininst is like being Fascist, and we are all against fascism

The deaths caused by the Communist regimes around the world were done so in the hope of creating a Communist utopia. Communist-haters are basing their views of Communist ideology on the actions of single figures or corrupt governments. Thus they are mistaken in their views. The Marxist ideology does not call for the extermination of 25 million individuals, and neither does any other ideology in its pure form.

In Greenmanbry, the TCP (The Communist Party) is flourishing, like all others. We do not dislike Communism. Although we are capitalists, we do admit that immorality exists in both Capitalism and Communism. Neither system is perfect.

socialism is evil, it denies the basic rights of individuals to their property.

it denies equal protection of the law, because people are denied the rights to enjoy the fruits of their labour so that others may steal it from them through the use of force and coercion of the state.

socialism requires a dictator (someone has to decide what the interest of the state is).

socialism denies people the fact that they are ends to themselves, as opposed to being simple tools of the collective.

socialism isn't evil because it's unamerican. it's evil because it denies the basic rights of individuals, rights are freedoms of action, not requirements from anyone else.

if you honestly believe that socialism could work, then you are intellectually lazy.

i've read marx, how about you read locke http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/, rand http://www.capitalism.org/ and mises: http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSContents.html

DOLYEMU!

An innocent point about Communism not being so 'evil' decends into this?

Ok, First off:

There has never been a MARXIST state, there has been several with Marxist rhetoric, some with many Marxist aspects and fewer still which the leaders acitivly understood and tryed to impliment it.

Socialism is evil? The poeple are denied the fruits of thier Labour? and you claim you understand Socialism?
ok, Socialism has many forms, the two main branches being to me Utopian (theory) and Scientific, Engles' essay with this title is a good read to understand this. Socialism is the moderate state as a State evolves, Democracy is the foundation of Socialist and Marxist states, Leninism was the first real ideology to attempt to practicaly implament Marxist Socialism and Communism (in different degrees) in a State that was no ware near developed enough to Marxist theory! Even if Engles did come round to the view Lenin later espoused in his 'Imperialism: The Highest Form of Capitalism' that the weakest link in the chian would bring the house down, the ACTUAL CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BY MARX HAVE BEEN STOPPED FROM ADVANCING IN THE WEST BECAUSE OF THE RISE OF CONSUMERISM AND ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM IN OTHER STATES -
Free-Trade and Global Corpratism have meant that the conditions the brewed so much classs antagonisms in the West have been relaxed, through the mass market 'we're all middle class now' , the spreading of our markets and sources for cheap reasources and services to other countries and the form of luxuary for most of the Western class that consumerism gives, has of coarse slowed down the appearance and extension of class antagonisms, however this is not indefinate as the developing world slowly develops.

Evil? Leninism requires a strong Party, Stalinism and Maoism tend to require dictators.

Ends to themselves? We are all the means to our own ends, but together we can be a common means to a common end that otherwise would be impossible.

Then you show your arragance and ignorance in calling those that think the thoery (never mind the practicle application!) could work, are intellectualy lazy! Do you realy understand Socialist theory? Please show your understanding and point out to me the flaws that make it 'not work'

By the way, you do realise that Marxism is mainly an analasis of Economics on a scale of complexity and insight not seen since Adam Smiths' The Wealth of Nations? I see Marxism as a study of the economic factors that have shaped general human societys and to a lesser extent thought up to his present day, then after understanding the common economic historical factors and that the mindsets that develop to push these and inturn the structure of the society based around those very means of production, it takes all the solid Truths and foundations it has established in it's study of the past and applies rational and logic to take the current ever refining form of it and taking it to it's logical conclusion, and inturn stateing the political consequeces.

What Marx have you read? Do you make the distinction between Marxism and the many types of pre- (and a few post) Marxist Socialist beliefs? Do you see that Leninisn was Marxist fueled, setting up apperatus to enforce and speed up Marxism (and even if he had lived it would have probably failed but on a much less horrific extent) , that Dictorial ideas are not central to Marxist development of Socialism? As for Maoism and Stalinism, my understanding of Mao is not as firm as what I know about Lenin and I see Stalin as a plain power moger who exploited the system to his own ends, and a humiliation of Lenin's ideals.

I view Communism as semi-Utopian, I belive with the current mindsets of people generaly, mild to proper Socialism can flourish in todays world.

ComPolands statements spot on, the figures are immence and hazy and the irony of the pot calling the kettel blacks' not lost:)


Long live the Spirit of Marx, and the life of Che.

An ideology based on indivuduals working together, Socialism is based around the growth and Enlightenment of the individual and inturn mass groups of individuals, each unique in thier development and each gaining thier complex understanding and mixing it with a furiourse rage at the things that should not be in this world, at hands that hold them down.

i've read marx, how about you read locke http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/, rand http://www.capitalism.org/ and mises: http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSContents.html


I'll look at the information on your links and respond if you want to continue to fill what i belive are gaps in your knowledge and you belive are gaps in mine.

I suggest you look through the immense archoves of work at www.marxists.org , it will help you understand the interpritations and analasys of past economic system and the current form of Capitalisms' one and why certain common factors are thier and why picked out and taken to the next stage the results will mean the social and political shift eventualy to Socialism. A true Communist isn't anti or pro Capitalism, it's just a phase in our development that although based on mans lower instincts (Greed being the most prominant) , will result in a better and more Enlightened society in reation to the eventual shape Capitalism takes place before it can no longer support itself.

It's not a belief, pro/anti thing, it's just looking at the factors that shape history and looking at the consequences of it, the long running joke of some Communists being that instead of burning Mc.Donalds they should become CEO's of it to speed up the process. It's more of a Socialist Gradualist point of view, but the focusing effects of active rebellion and revolution also help to politicis people more and make the Capitalist ideology often show it's true colours in how it deals with it.

i've read marx, how about you read locke http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/, rand http://www.capitalism.org/ and mises: http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSContents.html


I'll look at the information on your links and respond if you want to continue to fill what i belive are gaps in your knowledge and you belive are gaps in mine.

I suggest you look through the immense archoves of work at www.marxists.org , it will help you understand the interpritations and analasys of past economic system and the current form of Capitalisms' one and why certain common factors are thier and why picked out and taken to the next stage the results will mean the social and political shift eventualy to Socialism. A true Communist isn't anti or pro Capitalism, it's just a phase in our development that although based on mans lower instincts (Greed being the most prominant) , will result in a better and more Enlightened society in reation to the eventual shape Capitalism takes place before it can no longer support itself.

It's not a belief, pro/anti thing, it's just looking at the factors that shape history and looking at the consequences of it, the long running joke of some Communists being that instead of burning Mc.Donalds they should become CEO's of it to speed up the process. It's more of a Socialist Gradualist point of view, but the focusing effects of active rebellion and revolution also help to politicis people more and make the Capitalist ideology often show it's true colours in how it deals with it.

don't get me wrong, i find socialism to be an acceptable ethos, but in terms of jurisprudence, and economics, it's unfeasable.

Ladies and gentlemen, please accept a simple fact of politics: People are idiots who don't know what they want. Communism and socialism rely on the basis that the people have some shred of sense. Which they don't. A person is smart, people are morons. Personally, I wouldn't trust the people with anything, never mind being equal to me.

Amen...China is in denial and needs to get over the fact that it totally left out the 'equal' in equal distribution of wealth. However, I'm a capitalist...don't think Communism is evil, but that's just my opinion...

Shouldn't this be in General? Or do you not want it to turn into a flame war? :P

I don't bother with any particular political party. My nation is Mikeist, if anything, which is a combination of various political ideas. Except capitalism. I don't like capitalism.

capitalism enslaves everyone; that is, in one part of the world, you are likely to be a total slave, in the other part of the world it is hard not to benefit from slavery.
communism is another element of capitalism, cus either the whole countries gonna enjoy the benefits of slavery, or its all gonna be enslaved.
that is of course, while capitalism exists.
but its really hard to get rid of when human civilisation has arisen from having enough farmers to feed one gu who dosent have to farm.
anyway, you cant really pick a hole in it though. go and bring about world communism with zach de la rocha and a revolution on the freeway.
the world id like is just capitalism, but people actually go and actually do things to help others. so no one dies of starvation, but people can still become brilliant and burn brightly.
im amazed in the UN employment oppurtunities theres no vacancies for teams of road workers, wanting to go to africa.
hehe. everything is wrong when you think about it. everything is someone else trying to suck something out of you. while you lie in the supportive nest of a country which basically burns bodies for fuel. its horrible being human.
"if you try the best you can, you can try the best you can, and the dinosaurs roam the earth."

socialism is evil, it denies the basic rights of individuals to their property.

Capitalism is evil, it gives people the right to their property then encourages a select few who mostly do nothing to take it for their own gain.

it denies equal protection of the law, because people are denied the rights to enjoy the fruits of their labour so that others may steal it from them through the use of force and coercion of the state.

Capitalism denies equal protection of the law, because the rich are in a position to be above the law provided they don't do anything too public. It also denies people the right to benefit from their labours, instead giving that benefit to the ruling classes.

socialism requires a dictator (someone has to decide what the interest of the state is).

No it doesn't. By that logic, capitalism would require a dictator, to decide what the interests of the economy are.

socialism denies people the fact that they are ends to themselves, as opposed to being simple tools of the collective.

Capitalism denies that humans have any value beyond their use as fuel for the engine of economy. "Human Resources" was not coined by Engels. Capitalism also denies that people are rightfully entitled to the wealth generated by their labour.

socialism isn't evil because it's unamerican. it's evil because it denies the basic rights of individuals, rights are freedoms of action, not requirements from anyone else.

Capitalism isn't evil because it's American. It's evil because it denies the basic rights of individuals to receive the full benefit of their efforts and makes a worker little more than a gear in a giant machine which works for someone else's benefit.

if you honestly believe that socialism could work, then you are intellectually lazy.

Non sequitur. You've been talking about why it's evil and now you object to its' practicability? In addition, if you believe that capitalism is a decent or morally good system, or a fair one, you are intellecutally lazy and blind to reality.

socialism is evil, it denies the basic rights of individuals to their property.

Capitalism is evil, it gives people the right to their property then encourages a select few who mostly do nothing to take it for their own gain.

it denies equal protection of the law, because people are denied the rights to enjoy the fruits of their labour so that others may steal it from them through the use of force and coercion of the state.

Capitalism denies equal protection of the law, because the rich are in a position to be above the law provided they don't do anything too public. It also denies people the right to benefit from their labours, instead giving that benefit to the ruling classes.

socialism requires a dictator (someone has to decide what the interest of the state is).

No it doesn't. By that logic, capitalism would require a dictator, to decide what the interests of the economy are.

socialism denies people the fact that they are ends to themselves, as opposed to being simple tools of the collective.

Capitalism denies that humans have any value beyond their use as fuel for the engine of economy. "Human Resources" was not coined by Engels. Capitalism also denies that people are rightfully entitled to the wealth generated by their labour.

socialism isn't evil because it's unamerican. it's evil because it denies the basic rights of individuals, rights are freedoms of action, not requirements from anyone else.

Capitalism isn't evil because it's American. It's evil because it denies the basic rights of individuals to receive the full benefit of their efforts and makes a worker little more than a gear in a giant machine which works for someone else's benefit.

if you honestly believe that socialism could work, then you are intellectually lazy.

Non sequitur. You've been talking about why it's evil and now you object to its' practicability? In addition, if you believe that capitalism is a decent or morally good system, or a fair one, you are intellecutally lazy and blind to reality.

i've read marx, how about you read locke http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/, rand http://www.capitalism.org/ and mises: http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSContents.html

How about you stop pontificating from behind your books and actually see the results of capitalism in the countries where the rich benefactors aren't.

All of this arguing is wonderful but it misses the fundamental point lying at the heart of socialist and communist theory: the inevitability of capitalism's collapse and the subsequent advent of socialism.

As Marx stated in The Communist Manifesto, all history is about class struggle. Back in the day of feudalism, it was a struggle between landlords and peasants. The peasants got pissed at the landlords and revolted, right about the time of the Industrial Revolution when feudalism was becoming irrelevant anyway. The peasants set themselves up as businessowners and became the modern bourgeoisie.

The modern bourgeoisie has evoved into a massive corporate capitalist class of millionaires and billionaires that control much of the world. The opposing class, the proletariat, has been split up by the capitalists into meaningless "sub-classes" like blue-collar and white-collar. In this way are the capitalists able to divide the working class against itself and delay a proletarian revolt. Couple this with repressive anti-union legislation, a corporate media that serves the interests of the capitalists, and rampant globalization allowing companies to go to countries where they can oppress workers even further, and what you have is a very difficult situation for the proletariat of all nations.

But look deeper at the system and you see the fundamental flaws. Companies can't seem to function only in developed nations anymore; it's as if they've hit a "profit ceiling" and the only way to increase profits is to move offshore and cut labor costs, do a lot of layoffs, or cut benefits. The gap between the richest CEO and the lowest paid Wal Mart worker is massive. Meanwhile the fictitious "middle class" is being stretched to the limit like a rubber band as the top income earners get richer and the bottom income earners get poorer.

Eventually something's going to snap.

It may be 100 years, but I think it'll be sooner. We're in the final phase of capitalism: rampant, unstoppable imperialism. I think it'll take some time, but eventually the working class will rise up and take matters into their own hands. This will be especially true if democracy is subverted further by regimes like the Bush administration, whose concern is corporate power and not the rights of citizens.

Thus, socialism is inevitable. It may not come under a red banner and the singing of the Internationale, but the capitalist system as it exists now cannot stand.

FACTS: Civilian death tolls for three Communist regimes.

25 million in The Soviet Union, 65 milion in China , 1.7 million in Cambodia.

How could any SANE person want to live under a Communist regime??? :(
There has never been a true example of a communism. Those country's leaders are corrupt and put themselves above the people. They restrict civil rights and ast like fascist dictators. If we really could have a socialist nation that has democratically elected leaders, then everyone would see that communism can be a good thing.


I get tired of people saying "There has never been a true communism"... That just gives you a blank check to "keep trying"... We know communism is sick and wrong... How about you give nazism "another try"... See... You don't like the sound of that, do you?

Amen to that Dregruk. However, as to your point that an individual human is smart, but that groups are not, perhaps you should look into a recent work that was published which discovered that the group, as a whole, often comes up with the most accurate and efficient way of doing something. Although I can't remember the exact title, it cited many examples in which the average of the responses of the individuals in a group turned out to be an amazingly accurate response. The true weakness of the group is in the individual, and not vice versa. The individual is capable of great stupidity, but the group is capable of moderating those impulses. However, when an individual dominates a group or the group fails to consider the opinions of all of its members, that is what causes the group to fail.

Also, someone tried to make the point earlier that a capitalist society requires a dictator to determine what is best for the economy. This simply is not true in any sense of the word. True capitalism is ruled by market forces, not by the will of the individual. In fact, the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is to delegate to much authority to an individual or group of people, because such groups are too inflexible to properly respond to the vagueries of the market (as the Soviets discovered with their authoritarian quasi-capitalism that they developed to compete with the US).

Whenever I think about government systems that have been attempted but have thus far failed, I am reminded of several famous quotes by Winston Churchill:
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries"
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

"Communism is not evil"
Sure, tell that to people of Kambodza.
Or them which fathers died in Katyn.
I understood, that people can be stupied- but i can`t understood the blindness...
And saying that Bush regime is capitalist... Well... I`m not close to Washington, but...
One question: Do Bush regime pass any laws thet regulate the economy? If Yes: They socialists.
If No: Everyone have the same rights.
Possibilities is other thing- should i demand Dr. title ? I can merit it with my work, not because-Mr. X is dr. thats unfair, he live now form gouverment pays, that come from my taxes, so You HAVE to make me dr.

Anyway: All those, who belive that "Communism is not evil" is suggest going/sailing/flying to North Korea. Good luck in Your`s paradise !!

I get tired of people saying "There has never been a true communism"... That just gives you a blank check to "keep trying"... We know communism is sick and wrong... How about you give nazism "another try"... See... You don't like the sound of that, do you?

Well sorry for it being a fact. Must be hard to deal with. As for Nazism? Tha Nazis had some theoretically good ideas. Perhaps a curb on their more dangerous xenophobia or alternatively a few big superpowers to slap them down should they get cocky and I see no reason not to try. Hitler did some good things.

"Communism is not evil"
Sure, tell that to people of Kambodza.
Or them which fathers died in Katyn.
I understood, that people can be stupied- but i can`t understood the blindness...

"Capitalism is good" - tell that to the people who make your trainers and the people who toil in the mines lad. Tell that to the people who have to make the products that you waste your money on.

Everyone should first know that Communism is imposible to aquire. And Democracy too. Each type is just a way of people but individual allways choose. Cause of that all is "will of people". When i read your debate i see that most of you are blind to truth that in all -gouverment types there is one MAJOR mistake : People must obey! That is imposible. There is no 2 same people, two same wish... so ... we must keep seeking :)

Oh, I'm just conveniently ignoring that for now. That's why in reality I'm an authrotarian-Socialist: rob from the rich and give to the poor, and damn anyone who doesn't like it. :)

Communism's track record:

1. Soviet Union 1917-1991
a. Stalin('nuff said there!)
b. Invaded Poland WITH Hitler(1939)
c. Occupied East Europe(setting up puppet Communist governments!)
d. Crushed the uprising in Hungary in '56
e. Invaded Afghanistan 1979
f. Set up a puppet Communist government in Korea(1947)
g. Suppressed uprising in East Berlin 1953
h. Suppressed uprisings in Poland 1957
i. Invaded Czechoslavkia 1968(deposed the Czech government)
j. Placed ICBM's in Cuba

Just a few that came to mind.

The openly stated goals of the vast majority of Communist nations is the exportation of their revolution and the overthrow of the legitimate and sovereign governments of other nations. This is a blatently aggressive and imperialistic attitude. It is this expansionist rhetoric to which most capitalist nations are opposed. Is it any wonder we need to band together to defend ourselves when faced with a mob of nations intent on doing what is (in their misguided opinion) best for humanity? Of course not. It is every nations sovereign right to have which ever form of government and which ever form of economy it wishes, and it is Communists who wish to impinge upon that right, not capitalists.
Not to mention that Communism is practically godmoding since it has never been sucessfully implemented despite numerous attempts, and that it's followers are essentially the same as Holocaust-deniers due to their rather skewed attitudes towards history.

Marx was a complete idiot that never worked a day in his life but sat around living off someone else and a capitalist society while dreaming of some perfect society that could never be acheived. Communism or any "perfect utopia society" will not work because people are not perfect. Any attempt at communism has failed.... yes the soviet union, china, and north korea are not "true communists" but they did start out that way and with those goals. They failed because the system in the hands of people is doomed to faliure. Communism also takes away they very reason for people to strive for something better. Under capitalism we have been giving the ability to work for a better life, and though it's not perfect it has worked in the U.S.A for over 200 years.... one of the longest running governments in history. Where are your communist states now? Sure it would be nice for everyone to be equal... but where do we draw the line... till everyone has equal healthcare, a boat, and mansion. It simply can't work. The USA's government is under threat by socialist and communist hippies like yourselves. If u have your ways the USA will fall to ruins... but i guess that is what u want... forget everything we've done for everybody. Selfish, pot-smoking, tree-hugging, hippies who need to get off your lazy butts and help the people in the need that u supposedly care about instead of dreaming of the impossible. USA and capitalism, a blessing from God.

Marx was a complete idiot that never worked a day in his life but sat around living off someone else and a capitalist society while dreaming of some perfect society that could never be acheived. Communism or any "perfect utopia society" will not work because people are not perfect. Any attempt at communism has failed.... yes the soviet union, china, and north korea are not "true communists" but they did start out that way and with those goals. They failed because the system in the hands of people is doomed to faliure. Communism also takes away they very reason for people to strive for something better. Under capitalism we have been giving the ability to work for a better life, and though it's not perfect it has worked in the U.S.A for over 200 years.... one of the longest running governments in history. Where are your communist states now? Sure it would be nice for everyone to be equal... but where do we draw the line... till everyone has equal healthcare, a boat, and mansion. It simply can't work. The USA's government is under threat by socialist and communist hippies like yourselves. If u have your ways the USA will fall to ruins... but i guess that is what u want... forget everything we've done for everybody. Selfish, pot-smoking, tree-hugging, hippies who need to get off your lazy butts and help the people in the need that u supposedly care about instead of dreaming of the impossible. USA and capitalism, a blessing from God.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

actually it's usually best if people who are like Georgie boi up in the white house stayed away from here, especially when "u cannot spell!"

A blessing from God?
I suppose de-stabilizing a country... is a blessing from God?
2,400 americans & allied soldiers dead... is a blessing from God?
An idiot who wants to make his freinds richer, by removing the USA's recognization of Global Warming... is a blessing from God?

Homeless and starving people, In thrid world countries because the Western world (led by the USA) is forcing them to pay a ridiculous amount of money for machinery....is a blessing from God?


You should really look at the world and "All the good it has done" The reality is, Yes USA is a nice country, but at present it isn't being nice to certain people in africa and the Third world, or the world itsself.


The USA is classifed by a Britsh scientist as the "68th Imperial power in the world".


Anyway, i do not have total illusions of communism, if you check i run my country semi-stalinist, also have none of you people ever heard of a philosphor? Or am i right in thinking there are very few educated people among you?

The openly stated goals of the vast majority of Communist nations is the exportation of their revolution and the overthrow of the legitimate and sovereign governments of other nations. This is a blatently aggressive and imperialistic attitude. It is this expansionist rhetoric to which most capitalist nations are opposed. Is it any wonder we need to band together to defend ourselves when faced with a mob of nations intent on doing what is (in their misguided opinion) best for humanity? Of course not. It is every nations sovereign right to have which ever form of government and which ever form of economy it wishes, and it is Communists who wish to impinge upon that right, not capitalists.

Surely it is also the right of people to reap the fruits of their labours? Or is that not so? Also, I should point out that capitalism is equally imperialistic with its' sole intent being to colonise economically other nations and use their people as yet more cola for the furnace of profiteering.

Not to mention that Communism is practically godmoding since it has never been sucessfully implemented despite numerous attempts, and that it's followers are essentially the same as Holocaust-deniers due to their rather skewed attitudes towards history.

Nor has capitalism. No society that has been entirely capitalist has ever been successful, because the unrest capitalism engenders among those who exploits always eventually spills over.

Surely it is also the right of people to reap the fruits of their labours? Or is that not so? Also, I should point out that capitalism is equally imperialistic with its' sole intent being to colonise economically other nations and use their people as yet more cola for the furnace of profiteering.

When Henry Ford set up his production line, he made a big thing about how it would now be possible for the people who made his cars to be able to buy them. Now I'm not familiar with Henry Ford's politics, but I suspect his motivation was "The more people who buy my cars, the more money I can make, and the more time I can spend snorting cocaine out of supermodels' cleavages."
Capitalism requires that the workers be able to buy the things they make, else the entire system falls apart, and it does this because it makes allows the people at the top to make money, while also allowing the people at the bottom to enjoy the wonders of televisions, etc.
Now no doubt you will bring up the example of those penniless third world types who work for a pittance and who can't afford to buy the things they make. Well, I shall make my counterpoint in advance so as to save you the effort:
Even if those third world types could afford to buy the things they make, what would they do with them? Those tin-pot little third world countries don't usually have the infrastructure to support everyone owning electrical goods. Eventually that infrastructure will develop, and when it does those nasty, evil, corporate businessmen will realise there is a huge new market to sell their snazzy things to, and they will begin bumping up the wages so people can afford to buy the snazzy things. The businessmen have their increased profits, and their supermodel girlfriends, and Joe Third World Type has his widescreen TV with matching video recorder, and everyone is happy.
Except the Communists, who will have lost the ability to point at third world countries and say "Capitalism is teh evil"

Nor has capitalism. No society that has been entirely capitalist has ever been successful, because the unrest capitalism engenders among those who exploits always eventually spills over.

It has been more sucessful than the attempts at communism. I'd rather have a bit of unrest than have a death squad at my door telling me that Stalin has decreed that I am now responsible for the safety and well being of all elephant farms in the region, and that if I fail (quite likely, owing to my distinct lack of knowledge of Elephants) then I shall be executed.

When Henry Ford set up his production line, he made a big thing about how it would now be possible for the people who made his cars to be able to buy them. Now I'm not familiar with Henry Ford's politics, but I suspect his motivation was "The more people who buy my cars, the more money I can make, and the more time I can spend snorting cocaine out of supermodels' cleavages."

Very nice of him. I don't suppose that if one of his workers had come up to him and pointed out that he was making a killing off his back and those of his kind Mr. Ford would have been too worried. Besides which, so what? The car was a cheap one. It was intended to appeal to the poorer markeyt. Meanwhile Mr. Ford could afford a Rolls-Royce for having done very little apart from say "right, I want you lot to work for me."

Capitalism requires that the workers be able to buy the things they make, else the entire system falls apart, and it does this because it makes allows the people at the top to make money, while also allowing the people at the bottom to enjoy the wonders of televisions, etc.

It allows the people at the bottom to potentially enjoy the benefits of televisions and whatnot, albeit of the very small screen black-and-white-goes-off-station-ever-ten-seconds kind, while at the same time the lovely chaps at the top get to sit in an air-conditioned living room of a bleeding great house watching satellite TV on a Sony Home Entertainment System.

Now no doubt you will bring up the example of those penniless third world types who work for a pittance and who can't afford to buy the things they make. Well, I shall make my counterpoint in advance so as to save you the effort:
Even if those third world types could afford to buy the things they make, what would they do with them? Those tin-pot little third world countries don't usually have the infrastructure to support everyone owning electrical goods. Eventually that infrastructure will develop, and when it does those nasty, evil, corporate businessmen will realise there is a huge new market to sell their snazzy things to, and they will begin bumping up the wages so people can afford to buy the snazzy things. The businessmen have their increased profits, and their supermodel girlfriends, and Joe Third World Type has his widescreen TV with matching video recorder, and everyone is happy.

No, Joe Third World still has his black-and-white TV and trudges to work by foot or on an obsolete and badly-maintained bus that poisins him thanks to CO emissions, while the guys at the top are now receiving it direct to their brains, having done even less work than their forefathers thanks to the miracle of working from home, mesaning they no longer have to drive five miles to work in their brand new Lexus.

Except the Communists, who will have lost the ability to point at third world countries and say "Capitalism is teh evil" No need. Just look at anywhere where the rich take the fruits of the workers.

It has been more sucessful than the attempts at communism. I'd rather have a bit of unrest than have a death squad at my door telling me that Stalin has decreed that I am now responsible for the safety and well being of all elephant farms in the region, and that if I fail (quite likely, owing to my distinct lack of knowledge of Elephants) then I shall be executed.

A bit of unrest? You think that the Peasant's Revolt was "a bit of unrest," or the General Strike of '26, or the Russian revolution? In any case, sure, in capitalism you don't get them doing that to you. They give you a nice job that lets you earn a living wage while the guys at the top have the money to snort coke off a hired stripper's tits every day of the week.

Multi-post

Multi-post :evil: *Kicks the NS server many many many many many many many many many many...

(30 minutes later)

...many many many many times. ARGH!

I believe communism is a good idea, but when put into practice, is a failure. Therefore, communism is not the answer. Socialism is the answer.

don't get me wrong, i find socialism to be an acceptable ethos, but in terms of jurisprudence, and economics, it's unfeasable.


A socialist economy is one that can only ever have a chance of succeding if it evolves from the exactly right conditions, the extreme ones resulting from the inevitable results of a Capitalist one and the forced maturity and mix of size and technological efficiency of industry before the workers themselves take power.

That's why it's always both a major hassle and useualy a bloodbath whe you mix centralist control with an economy and industry that is no ware near the levels or pressure required for a proper shift into the socialist one.

Plus, not one nation has a large enough groups of mature or Enlightened peoples for any chance in hell of it working yet, I don't think a Socialist economy is vaiable now or for a considerable while in the future but a Socialist controlled base economy is, leaving everything above essentials to the chaos of the market.

If you put a socialist economy and a capitalisty economy side by side and look at the details and intracites of the two, the chaos and inherant instability of the Capitalist market and system compared to the incredibly complex but stable Communist one - (both being thoerys on paper, since the first generations of the Communist market will be equally instable as the supplie and demand for essentials balance out)

A planned economy is perfectly feasable long term but addmittadly chaotic and in flux in the short.
Ironacly, a Capitalist economy is perfectly sustainable in the short and mid term but utterly chaotic and in flux in the long and once it reaches the stage where it's required expansion can no longer continue it's the most anarchic economic system you'd think there could be.

Wow, it's interesting seeimg the views people are taking.
The line between those who understand the Communist and Socialist interpritations and scientific predictions of History and economic development and those who refuse to since 'it failed anyway' and only intellectualy lazy pot smoking tree hugging hippies support it.

Not to mention that biggest of idoits, Marx! ha! How the quality of the opposing arguments has declined since his day eh? Even the standard conservatives and ruling elite of the time addmitted thier inabilite to understand the immensly complex Das Kapital and his percise thoerys on economics. Nowdays, the head of the New York stock exchange proudly boasts he has 'Never read Marx and ever intends to'



For those few and impressive people who have posted who seem to understand it and have cared enough to discover the origins of the events that shaped the last centuray and our future, add me to your MSN so we can talk more, bout NS, bout Socialism, bout anything.
I'm Army_Hobo@hotmail.com

Proschatsiye Slavianka eh? The days of a noble and learned opposition who put thought to defending naked selfishness in Greed or thier position in life seem to be gone. Now we have these, the backlash of the Enlightenment it seems, still, being reationary and going along with it's easy eh?

Hope to hear from those people who understand Socialism, even if you don't agree with it, MSN me.
Later.

Proschatsie Slavyanka? Are you Russian/a student of the language?

Ha, no unfortunatly, it's the rough sounding equivilant to the Russian for 'Farewell to Glory' , an old Russian marhcing song.

Only language I can pretend to be half decent in was Latin.

I'm intending to learn some Russian because I'm probably going to live there for half a year in the next year or two.

FRICK YOU!
Communism never worked and will never work. You see, for communism to work, you need a utopia. And if you have a utopia, you wouldn't need a government. You see? To add onto, I can bake a better pie than you. That means we are not equal. If I decde to wok hard and get rewarded for my hard work, okay. In Communism, no matter how hard you work, ou will get rewarded the sama mout as a complete slacker. Those peole in the street, they are there for their own fault. The only thing I ould do, is get them a job and help them get off an addiction, if they have any. That is all I say.
NOBODY IS EQUAL.

Communism is total government ownership of everything, and was meant to be used as a lead-up to socialism. As has been noted before, it requires a utopia, so it works in theory, rather than in practice.

It isn't inherently evil, however. Just flawed.

In practice communsim and fascsim aren't very different. Fascsim is superior to both communsim and democracy. And I'm not talking about nazism.

Never compare nazism and fascsism :evil:

Those stupid nazis gave us fascsits bad names!

Fascism = Dictatorship of the Eliteists
Communism = Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman economics = Utopia.
Any form of collectivist economy = Failure.

:shock: Have any of the last posters even hit puberty yet, never mind any form of mental maturity?



Shissm5 -

What are you talking about? A 'Utopia' (whatever the vauge state is) is no pre-requisit of a Communist state, a Socialist and inturn Anarchistic Utopian are the end result of extended Communist advancment (in the theory- that's where i place all utopias of any form)
And if we have 'a Utopia' we won't need gov't? this is some sort of contradiction? Plato's Utopia had a very real Govt , the Free market and Facist (Italian) Utopian aims are for a strong Corperate-State entity where business become the Govt. ironicaly like in Jennifer Govt. As for the slackers getting the same as the hard workers, you cant understand Socialist thought to say that, thier would be no root causes for the decadance 'slackers' of today so there wouldnt be no slaackers, and the point of a Socialist society seems to be that everyone contributes what they can through thier best skill to the community as a whole, everyone works at what they do best to help each other as there are many things they can't do. You comment on what you've got no idea about.

Jovus-

No No No No No! Socialism comes BEFORE Communism on the thoery, what is this undesignated 'Utopia' that keeps floating around? I think you're comfusing Utopian Socialism (the extended theory) with more pragmatic and appliable Socialism. Flawed? How so?

Alansyist Eurasia-

WHAT? I get that they're are a few simiplarites but the aims behind them are completly different and you know this as a Facist! Facism in it's root form IS the ideology that come the closest to pure Capitalism.

Fluffywuffy-

NO!!!!! MArx played with the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat, Lenin was the advocate of ot and created the structure that could be abused by the power hungry political animal that was Stalin. Your definition of Facism, what Elitests? Economicaly? Socialy? Political? All of them? COMMUNISM IS NOT THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT! It was a temporary phase Lenin advocated to secure power and modernise the backwardness of Russia very quickly, as it was 80% agricultural at the time of the 1917 October Revolution and the most powerful rival group the Social Revolutionarys (SR's) were based in the countryside! Leninism calls for it!

Tyrandis-

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ON ABOUT! In the new EU accection states, there has been anger over the prospect of CLOSEING the collective farms, a friend of mine went on a trip to a teaching conferance in Lithuania and the efficiency of the collective farming (becuase it had now been embraced and people worked better as they agreed and could understand it's potential) was threatening the price of grain in theie country and even the greater EU itself! Collectivised Labour in farms and industry with the motivated workers behind it produces attonishing results! look at the industrial development in Russian during the 5-Year plans when the hopes and drives of the workers was plowed into Industrialisation, it brought itself up to level on par with Britian in the space of only 4 years! It had taken Britian a 100 years to attain that level!
Explain your Capitalist Utopia's though.

DontPissUsOff,

You are weakening your argument by taking an adversarial stance towards capitalism. So far your argument has been that capitalism is bad because it does not distribute resources equally. So what? It's not fair. Maybe it would be more fair for everyone to work for the good of everyone else, but the fact of the matter is that when that happens, productivity suffers, and everyone is worse off. Better to serve in heaven than reign in hell....

Naturally of course you will retort that capitalism definately does not create any kind of heaven for the worker. However, the capacity for personal advancement is far greater than that in Communism, where in fact there is, in theory, NO advancement possible at all. You seem to regard the class system as a fixed structure that is created by capitalism. Class structure was never created by capitalism at all... it is a byproduct of the way humans CHOOSE to divide themselves to separate themselves from those they feel to be inferior. And this sense of superiority is not only a top-down phenomenon. Ask anyone from the lower classes of society how they feel towards the upper classes and they will reply with contempt, in the same way as the upper classes regard the lower ones. You take the side of one against the other, because you feel that one deserves more than the other. However, simply placing the workers in control of your ideal society does not resolve any of the class problems. You would usurp the place of the upper class only to create another one. Class struggle is a zero-sum game. Capitalism simply provides more net to work with than communism. And with capitalism, there is at least the chance of expanding the pool of resources through rapid technological growth, another thing which is discouraged in a communist state.

*Rolls in flame tanks*

Partisan and scotland I posted this elsewhere and after reading your posts thought you might like it (ignore the parts asking CL if it was acceptable for me to post in his thread)


Ooc:

CL I really don’t want to hijack your thread here but it seems kind of hijacked anyway so I think I’ll just through my two cents in (If you want I’ll edit it back out for the sake of thread cleanliness). Marx was probably one of the worst things for communism.

Before Marx wrote of the revolution communism had no name, no face. This meant that people didn’t flock in numbers but it also meant the capitalists had no inkling to fight against it. A social movement was taking place, Marx only named and riled it. If Marx hadn’t said anything then the movement would’ve had a slow growing pace but it would’ve been more encompassing today then it is now.

By separate communist states starting up it again put a face or an icon on an all encompassing ideology. This piece meal attempt at revolution gave capitalism time to respond, to react. Communism was meant to replace Capitalism, not combat it. It’s one of the reasons I support globalization, not because it’s good for business, but because it brings us closer and closer to the one world capitalistic government that is required to be in place before people wake up and realize we cannot simply treat ourselves like commodities, our services to be bought and sold on the open market.

I don’t want to step on any toes out there, I just see this as the future of things to come. True communism will not be achieved in my life time or yours but we are moving towards it slowly. Only when travesties like Stalin and the ‘Cultural Revolution’ have left humanity’s living memory will communism ever have a chance again.

DontPissUsOff,

You are weakening your argument by taking an adversarial stance towards capitalism. So far your argument has been that capitalism is bad because it does not distribute resources equally. So what? It's not fair. Maybe it would be more fair for everyone to work for the good of everyone else, but the fact of the matter is that when that happens, productivity suffers, and everyone is worse off. Better to serve in heaven than reign in hell....

A nice quote there, except that as far as I can see you end up serving in hell anyway, while reigning in heaven isn't possible. And yes, it isn't fair. I'm sorry if it seems odd to you that I object to that, but meh, that's how I am. As for productivity? Not necessarily. More in a minute.

Naturally of course you will retort that capitalism definately does not create any kind of heaven for the worker. However, the capacity for personal advancement is far greater than that in Communism, where in fact there is, in theory, NO advancement possible at all. You seem to regard the class system as a fixed structure that is created by capitalism. Class structure was never created by capitalism at all... it is a byproduct of the way humans CHOOSE to divide themselves to separate themselves from those they feel to be inferior. And this sense of superiority is not only a top-down phenomenon. Ask anyone from the lower classes of society how they feel towards the upper classes and they will reply with contempt, in the same way as the upper classes regard the lower ones. You take the side of one against the other, because you feel that one deserves more than the other. However, simply placing the workers in control of your ideal society does not resolve any of the class problems. You would usurp the place of the upper class only to create another one. Class struggle is a zero-sum game. Capitalism simply provides more net to work with than communism. And with capitalism, there is at least the chance of expanding the pool of resources through rapid technological growth, another thing which is discouraged in a communist state.

OK, one thing at a time. One: I am aware of how the class system evolves; I am aware that it works both ways, too. Does that mean I have to tolerate it? No. I am also aware that capitalism did not create the class system; they grew together, rather a symbiotic relationship. Two: Yes, I do feel the working class deserve more that the upper class, because they are the producers. Three: I do not create an upper class. An upper class is a very exact phenomenon, namely a class which has greater wealth and power than another. In a Communist society, you have an intellectual class, say, but not an upper one. Four: capitalism tellspeople that if they work harder they will better themselves. Most fall for it, without realising that for the vast majority this is simply not true. Five: also not true. Capitalism, it is often argued, is an upward spiral. The better the economy the higher the living standard, therefore the better people work and the better the economy. There's no reason the same can't apply to Communism too. The only difference is that instead of wealth from the labour of many being concentrated in the hands of the few, who in effect "get rich quick," it is instead distributed into the hands of those from whom it originates; they thus get rich more slowly.

Any goverment teacher worth their pay will tell you that, executed correctly (which it never has been), Communism is the ideal form of government. However, in order for it to work, the entire planet would have to adhere STRICTLY to Marx.
Also, in the first few posts, you repeatedly mentioned nazis, nazi's were never communist, they were racist facists.

Danke, sir. Maybe I should just set the record straight here: I am a Marxist, but also a pragmatist. I am talking about why Marxism is a good system, a good idea. But I would, of course, modify it as necessary in reality.

I find it odd how everyone seems to believe that capitalism turns men into machines or commodities, when communism so obviously strives to do exactly that. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". This is a communist idea. It treats each individual as though they were a cog in a machine, requiring only routine maitenance to keep alive and functioning. The Communist does not truly care about the worker. If they did, they would reward workers who work harder than others. The capitalist may also view the worker as a piece of a machine, but they also understand that each individual has individual desires, not just needs. A capitalist society is geared towards fulfilling desires for the individual, but this goal often results in the concentration of leisure in smaller groups of people. It is, perhaps unfortunate, but it does not mean that the life of a worker must be an unhappy one. However, communism's goal is not happiness, but rather contentment. A communist society would consider it irrelevant as to whether anyone were happy, because it is geared towards providing only the bare minimum to its people that is sustainable. I suppose my question would be: do you think most people would ever be satisfied with the bare minimum?

This fictional worker you discuss for whom a communist society would be a paradise can not exist.

To reply to some of the posts,

Unfortunatly the simplistic opposition views I responded to last havn't posted again yet so they will have to wait for now.


Nova Hope, excellent point you raise! Although I belive Marx's works were essential for the more defining elements of Socialism, but most importantly, his in depth analazis of the history of economics and there future, previousely there had been no one individual with the capacity or the drive to take on such a momentus task, so although the social reations would have still been there, they wouldn't have been as clear, no definition but more of an urge for something better with no fully explained rational basis (not that there wasn't before, just Marx raised the bar as much as one man could)

Telegram me Nova, I'm looking for a Region to join and one with you in it is probably worth seriousely considering.

Lebonia, to help me respond coheriantly to your arguments, could you please bullet point them, I can see alot of things to comment on but they may just be down to unclear responces to BontPissUsOff.

One thing on your last post though,
Your responce ot the claim that Capitalism views the world as commodities and turns people into machines in to simply reverce the charge. How does "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" automaticly mean people are treated as cogs in the Communist machine? Every individual works at whatever it is they can do best to the best of thier abilite, not with the aim of seeing what they can get back but in doing it because this way they help to advance the whole. Only looking at through a selfish mind would one (though a kind of gain/loss appraoch to it) think of it as unfair. Fairness? that those with greater skill, greater abilite should accept the responsibilites of thier position to thier fellow man who trys equally hard? You think of a Communist society with Capitalist workers, you have to understand the evolution of the mindset of the individual, Communism and Socialism arn't the Grey Masses uder the dictorial party, it's in essance the supreme Grass-Roots movment intensly based on th eindividual, a collective of mature and Enlightened individuals not views the strenths and weaknesses of others in thier relation to thier personal gain and loss, but understanding that as the gorups of individuals each will have the same motivation and same reasons for working to thier optimun level. The maturity of the individual is essential for any form of Socialist society, the shedding of personal interests and desires over the common good and goals of humanity, not of men.

Every individual works at whatever it is they can do best to the best of thier abilite, not with the aim of seeing what they can get back but in doing it because this way they help to advance the whole.

Is this not the essence of a machine? Each piece is only significant as a part of the whole.

You think of a Communist society with Capitalist workers

One of the claims of Communism that I find to be most unrealistic is the idea that somehow, someday, people will no longer be motivated by selfish ideals. This idea has no basis in any real-world situation as far as I can tell. Stalin and Mao may have both conceived of a "New Man" theory whereby they could train their citizens to act altruistically, but they failed, as so many others have failed.

It is possible to create a fanatic willing to die for a cause, but it is not possible to create a fanatic willing to work tirelessly for one for decades. Even a martyr has a selfish desire to prove themselves and be praised, and this requires continual reinforcement, not the reality of daily struggle. The desire to help others has always come from within, it cannot be created by a society and it cannot realistically be expected to spontaneously evolved into human nature in such a manner.

Even in the case of the Japanese, who seem to outsiders to be completely dedicated to the group over the individual, eventually discovered that personal gain is a far better motivator. Japanese companies have begun devolving more initiative to the individual worker, in the hope of revitalizing their workforce and making it competitive creatively. A society of drones, which seems to be more characteristic of communist ideology than a capitalist one, destroys creativity. The individual becomes a machine.

I speak of a Communist or Capitalist society with HUMAN workers.

Every individual works at whatever it is they can do best to the best of thier abilite, not with the aim of seeing what they can get back but in doing it because this way they help to advance the whole.

Is this not the essence of a machine? Each piece is only significant as a part of the whole.

Only if you consider the end goal of Marxist advancment to be a highly centralised Communist society which would be more like a machine.
The eventual 'withering away of the state' is part of the natural evolution of a truly mature socialist state, the only reason it would be a centralised society initialy would be because the Socialists who would have been on the other side of Power, i.e. not having it, would take over pre-excisting state apperatus and still have been brought up with the Capitalist system so of course their abilite to enhance it (by de-centralising it) would not be as strong as future generations as they had known no other, progress would be gradual after the mindset of the country was Socialist, after of course the taking of power and expelling/excecution of the ruling exploiting class. you have to understand the very strict conditions have not been reached but we see them getting closer every day, it's a case of the natural economic extension of true Capitalism to the point it can no longer sustain itself and has done everything to prolong it's life, creating the extreme circumstances were the end result is an Enlightened and massive proletariat in a two class society.
I digress, as Socialism evolves into true communism over succecive generations it will intun become more akin to Anarchism (in the political sence, not the punk movment:) ) And with that there will be no state 'machine' , the entire system is based on the individual making the mature and consiouse choice to opt into a progressive society that is there for the good of all it's members, not a machine with a head honcho or the turing of the people into mindless machines. Engles I think it was once commented with Marx about how the communist would weave in the morning, teach through miday, work in the factory in the afternoon and go fishing in the evining. It means the total de-centralisation and mature sharing of work on a local level is the key to it, although I do agree that the need of a Federal body to help the equal spread of reasources and wealth would be required, but the safeguard to this is that although the organization would massive, the individual could veto any decision (worldwide we're talking). Of coarse this is at the very limits of Anchro-Marxist thoery but the point is the ethos, the mindset behind it.

The differance between the mindset of Capitalism and the mindset of Socialism! everything else, politics, economics etc flows from the fundemental acceptance of responsibility as a human and the drive to improve the life of your fellow people, this Enlightened viewpoint can only be formed under the immence pressure the Capitalist system will eventual put on the proletariat and the gradual awakning of it's exploitation via the class wars that the exploiting classes will wage untill only the purest Capitalis class remains.




] You think of a Communist society with Capitalist workers

One of the claims of Communism that I find to be most unrealistic is the idea that somehow, someday, people will no longer be motivated by selfish ideals. This idea has no basis in any real-world situation as far as I can tell. Stalin and Mao may have both conceived of a "New Man" theory whereby they could train their citizens to act altruistically, but they failed, as so many others have failed. .

Yes, the bloody Cultural Revolution and the attempt to make the homo Sovietus failed horribly, because the while the disire for advancement was in many of the poeple they and their leaders were not politicaly or mentaly mature enough to attempt a true socialist state, they were destinied to fail from the start, Lenin was the only one who had a coherant idea that those stages of Capitalist advancement, ifskipped, would reslut in a momentus educational role for the state and a river of blood as the process of the evolution of Capitalism in Russia had barely begun.
Marxism is a ration study of economics and the political and social consequences of it remember, through studing the past we can understand the present and single out the essances that will shape the future. When extreme pressures of oppression are put on a people form one ruling class, one of the lesser classes undernith it will (becauase of th emix of ever increasing Enlightenment education, even if it's just a few reasoureces no one looks at or trikeleing down of it) appeal to the other classes, namly iether the peasats (in the agricultural based states of the past) or the workers to join them in fighting for ideals. Then as the old class is dispossed of the new one which is usualy just a more abisiouse and efficient version of the old one takes power and the cycle continues. It cannot continue indefinatly.
In the end only two camps of polar extremes of interest will excist.
Because of the consequences of the final developments of pure capitalism, pure Socialism will develop and it will a simple case of Voctory or death, there will be no other classes or elements to try to divert the cause to thier own ends as it will only be the Enlightened proletariat and the exploiters who's very chaotic system brings them to the point it collapses, only to be rebuit and collapse on a greater scale again and again untill the Enlightenment and awarness of the proletariat has reached the stage that the mass of individuals who are all in the same extreme sitation but have never known the exploiting of other, only the feeling of direct exploitation, will realise that it's Victory or Death.



It is possible to create a fanatic willing to die for a cause, but it is not possible to create a fanatic willing to work tirelessly for one for decades. Even a martyr has a selfish desire to prove themselves and be praised, and this requires continual reinforcement, not the reality of daily struggle. The desire to help others has always come from within, it cannot be created by a society and it cannot realistically be expected to spontaneously evolved into human nature in such a manner..

Fanatics can never be Socialists, only fanatics for whatever cause they affilliat with and no more.

You view the example of the martyr through a the mindset of someone who belives that an act of marytrdom is for selfish reasons! Most people who die for cause would rather not, but they tend to accept what must be done for the positive effect within thier cause, not so they can be remembered! Only a few egotistical marytrs mabye, but not the majority.
Most are unaware they are marytrs, most just end up dieing for trying to get a better tomorro, a true Socialist dosen't put such an egotistical and selffish view on it (I'm not saying yours is) , a true Socialist relises they are an individual, one of many together, and the loss of a life in pushing the cause is accepted when you take on the ideology. I would only call my self a Capitalist if i fully understood the mindset required and accepted it, and was willing to accept all the consquences of my desicion, no half measures, I would accept the essance of capitalism, to extract the most profit from all availible reasouces, be it the rich, poor, strangers or friends.
That is why those who end up being portrayed as marytrs do not tend to see themselves as them, only Capitalist based mindsets see thme like that as that is the only way they could interprit the action within the limits thier ideology requires there thoughts to stay within for the system of guilt free exploitation to work.

Again, the point of a Socialist society IS NOT to enforce the desire to help, if that isn't a fundemental part of the matureity of the masses who take power then the system is doomed from the start, it comes from below and within the individual, not from above, any state actions or policies are a direct responce of the complete mature proletariat and thier Enlightened and aware mindset.



Even in the case of the Japanese, who seem to outsiders to be completely dedicated to the group over the individual, eventually discovered that personal gain is a far better motivator. Japanese companies have begun devolving more initiative to the individual worker, in the hope of revitalizing their workforce and making it competitive creatively. A society of drones, which seems to be more characteristic of communist ideology than a capitalist one, destroys creativity. The individual becomes a machine..

All that is doing is extending consumerism and the Capitalist mindset to most of the nations proletariat, as is the case with all western state, Capitalism is still evoloving remember, Jappan can do this because the technology and affluence are there because of a mix of Consumerism and cheap reasources. Since I'm not familure with the Japanese economy, apart from the heavy Western (US) influence in shaping modern JApan becasue of the continued occupation and Corperate presance.
Japan reflects the current stage of Consumerism and Global Corperate Capitalism, no surprise there as it is the main Capitalist powerhouse (western, China ironacly with it's unique form of Capitalisim) state in the East.
Look at what your doing though, your putting the urge to work, to create and to advacne down to Greed, aquisition of more reasources and luxuary.
The ponit is that mindset cannot continue indefiantly, it reflects the immaturity of the nation, same as it did in Russia when Stalin introduced pay incentives to productive workers.


I speak of a Communist or Capitalist society with HUMAN workers.

And I speak of the fundemental differance in aims and goals of the two, the primal animal emotion that gave us the edge over other speacies and inturn each other, Greed, the aquisition of pointless luxuary and more than we need for the sake of aquiring it and pulling the animal 'mine's bigger than your' game.

I speak of a maturity of the human condition, Humanity didn't stop evolving when it learned to walk on two legs, we will continue to advance, to think beyong our own simple primative desires and rise above them. To show our final maturity as a speacies by understanding the bigger picture and doing whats best for ourselves as a species as a world of individuals who are not always trying to fuck over each other to get that little bit more but work together, for each other.

I speak of the immaturity and short-sightedness of the current system, and of it's eventual downfall at it's own hands, I will not live to see it happen but the essances of the glaring contradiction that is Capitalism are plain for those who want to look, and it will be a case of the Victory of Socialism or Death for humanity in the end, which one happens will reflect the strenth of humanity or its weakness.

I speak of the future, the future that will oneday engulf your way of thinking, and your very way of life.

First of all, it is important to make a distinction between socialism and communism. I have made it a point in my posts to avoid criticizing socialism while attempting to argue against communism. Perhaps when you refer to socialism you mean it in the manner in which, in the past, no distinction was made between it and communism. Marx was called a socialist, Engels was called a socialist, but now we would call them both communists. To verify this, simply look up the definitions of each and compare them. Socialism is already a fact, in a limited form, even in the United States. I myself posess many ideas which could be called "socialist" because I am not blind to the evils of capitalism, and I believe that it is the role of government to moderate those evils. I am no laissez-faire capitalist, relying completely on the benevolence of the market.

It is communist theory that envisions a gradual withering away of the government, not socialist theory, which goes only so far as desiring government control of the economy. Communist theory is the theory of the optimist. These "very strict conditions that have not been reached" are conditions which I do not feel can ever or will ever be reached.

Prediction of the future is the job of soothsayers; it is not a realistic argument to make. Men have been broken for trying to predict the flip of a coin, what makes you think that you can predict the course of future human development? Once again I state that current conditions give no indication of ever developing into a society which is capable of attaining the communist ideal. You say people change, and maybe they do, but they have never changed that much. Human emotions are hardwired into our brains, and while it is true that it is at least possible that we might evolve out of them, the slowing rate of human mutation would seem to indicate that this would take thousands if not tens of thousands of years.

Also, and I do not mean to sound outraged or insulted, but what do you know of my way of life? Although the anonymity that the internet provides is often a blessing, it can lead to misunderstandings between people. I am a college student (Sophomore) studying Political Science, hoping to go into diplomacy. I want to be a public servant. But, to serve the people, I must understand them. I must understand what keeps our society going, and why it is worth continuing. My way of life is not one of greed (money is unimportant to me, and I leave very cheaply), but one of service. If I had wanted to debate matters from a personal point-of-view, I would have created my own topic to express that. However, since the original question dealt with the merits of Communism, I addressed only that argument.

Communism reflects a desire to ignore the current system and fabricate a fictional one (and it is, thus far) which does not obey any of the current rules. Anyone can do that; simply look at the rows of fiction in a bookstore. Marx wrote an exceptionally detailed and brilliant work of fiction. Oh, parts of it were true, since he was very good at describing the underlying problems of society, but his solution was fiction. The question of whether it will work in the future is completely different from can it work now. All things are possible, most are not probable.

I have gotten the feeling that we are arguing from two completely different and non-opposing viewpoints. I am trying to argue that Communist cannot work in our current situation, nor within the next 100 years, while you are arguing that if the situation that Marx described existed, Communism would be possible. I would agree with that. Communism is a cohesive theory, and in the perfect world that it describes, I have no doubt that life would be idyllic. Then again, in a perfect world where everywhere worked for everyone else, perhaps any government system could function well. That is, after all, why Marx envisioned the eventual disintegration of Communism and the creation of an anarchic utopia. Even anarchy can function in paradise.

socialism is evil, it denies the basic rights of individuals to their property.

Capitalism is evil, it gives people the right to their property then encourages a select few who mostly do nothing to take it for their own gain.

a person's labour makes it property, and property can be disposed of as the owner wishes.

it denies equal protection of the law, because people are denied the rights to enjoy the fruits of their labour so that others may steal it from them through the use of force and coercion of the state.

Capitalism denies equal protection of the law, because the rich are in a position to be above the law provided they don't do anything too public. It also denies people the right to benefit from their labours, instead giving that benefit to the ruling classes.

where the HELL did you get that?

socialism requires a dictator (someone has to decide what the interest of the state is).

No it doesn't. By that logic, capitalism would require a dictator, to decide what the interests of the economy are.

again, wrong. capitalism requires a republic, leaving economic matters to individuals. what you were describing is fascism, a form of socialism.

socialism denies people the fact that they are ends to themselves, as opposed to being simple tools of the collective.

Capitalism denies that humans have any value beyond their use as fuel for the engine of economy. "Human Resources" was not coined by Engels. Capitalism also denies that people are rightfully entitled to the wealth generated by their labour.

where are you getting this? have you read locke? rand?

socialism isn't evil because it's unamerican. it's evil because it denies the basic rights of individuals, rights are freedoms of action, not requirements from anyone else.

Capitalism isn't evil because it's American. It's evil because it denies the basic rights of individuals to receive the full benefit of their efforts and makes a worker little more than a gear in a giant machine which works for someone else's benefit.

you are not entitled to anything that i have done simply because you're alive. you're entitled to do it for yourself, you're not entitled to require anything of anyone else.

if you honestly believe that socialism could work, then you are intellectually lazy.

Non sequitur. You've been talking about why it's evil and now you object to its' practicability? In addition, if you believe that capitalism is a decent or morally good system, or a fair one, you are intellecutally lazy and blind to reality.

well considering you've been the one who's been making false accusations...



i've read marx, how about you read locke http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/, rand http://www.capitalism.org/ and mises: http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSContents.html

How about you stop pontificating from behind your books and actually see the results of capitalism in the countries where the rich benefactors aren't.[/quote]

oh you want to talk about reality? how about 20 million people killed at the hands of a communist state?

How about people starving to death for lack of wages to buy food? How about people dying from easily-cured diseases because their poor wages don't give them enough to buy drugs? How about the CIA killing Indonesians, Cambodians, South Americans? Now as for the rest of it.

1) Property can indeed be disposed as the owner wishes. No doubt the owner would want their property for themselves - capitalism denies that.

2)I got that from the fact that the benefit of the labour goes to the bosses, not to the workers, and from the fact that bribery is easier if you have a lot of available money.

3) Alright then, so it does. Why doesn't Socialism or Communism? The interests of the state are decided by the people themselves, or a council thereof.

4) Where do you get your ideas? Have you stopped reading theorists' treatises and looked at what actually happens?

5) And what of those people who are alive and cannot support themselves? Are they not entitled to anything? And what's this idea that people get that a Communist society would tolerate people lazing around doing nothing? If you sit around doing nothing and living off the backs of others you're no better than one of the capitalists who exploit people now.

Well spoken Lenbonia! I'd like to address what you said bit by bit...

First of all, it is important to make a distinction between socialism and communism. I have made it a point in my posts to avoid criticizing socialism while attempting to argue against communism. Perhaps when you refer to socialism you mean it in the manner in which, in the past, no distinction was made between it and communism. Marx was called a socialist, Engels was called a socialist, but now we would call them both communists. To verify this, simply look up the definitions of each and compare them. Socialism is already a fact, in a limited form, even in the United States. I myself posess many ideas which could be called "socialist" because I am not blind to the evils of capitalism, and I believe that it is the role of government to moderate those evils. I am no laissez-faire capitalist, relying completely on the benevolence of the market..

Your point on making the distinction between Socialism and Communism is a valid one, I agree Socialism is possible in todays world, and will slowly progress regadless of the occasional setback.
It was an oversight on my part since I was under the impression that from your posts you were groups Socialism with Communism, my appoligies.
I tend to judge Marx and Engles as m/c (apart form Marx's obviouse poverty, I mean in mindset and general manner, some actions too like Engles foxhunting) in nature but, this is mainly for Engles, Socialist in theory but only a little would applie to his actual living of his life. With Marx, iether because of circumstances beyond his control or not, I belive that although he was bound (espeacily in his old age) by m/c tendencies he was more Socialist in practice aswell as in theory, I don't know about toher people but I wouldn't consider them Communists even if they did understand and write Communist thoery (and belive it- socialism/Communism being seperate form most other ideologies as they are based on empirical analsis of the history making factors of the past and the results of) but because of them not being within the conditions they said were neccedary for the evolution of the Communist mindset, I think they accepted that they weren't pure Communists. I know at one point Engles saw himself as Cavalry commander of the almost fantasy revolution they were hoping would sweep Europe after a stock market crash and Marx kind of saw himself as the Partys man of Theory should it occur, they can't be classified, even by themselves as Communists beyond agreeing with the theory. This touches on a major problem with the understanding of Communism/Socialism I think, that there are two main factors to it, one is understanding the theory and testing it yourself to see if it holds water, the other is by being a physical and mental resultof the exploitation of the extreme Capitalist business, although since lesser Capitalist states excist you obviousely get lesser levels of awarenss and Enlightenment, and less of those who truly appriciate thier situation.
And your correct, Socialism is a fact, the earliest semi-institutional occurance of Socialism was with the very, very early Christian church during the Roman era is direct reaction to the perfecting of one side of mans nature in the Roman system (and it's subsequent decadance) at total neglect of the other, putting it simply the cold bastard state was overcome with love for your fellow man. There's an essay by Enlges on it I've been meaning to get round to reading on it aswell that's meant to have some good points on this.

Glad to hear you are aware of the world as it stands, esspeacily the mystical belief in the Free Market (ironic the main player Regan just died eh? Only Thatcher left, but I seriousely doubt she can die...)



It is communist theory that envisions a gradual withering away of the government, not socialist theory, which goes only so far as desiring government control of the economy. Communist theory is the theory of the optimist. These "very strict conditions that have not been reached" are conditions which I do not feel can ever or will ever be reached.
.

Another true point generaly.
The conditions that need to be reached will occur (unless, Marx forbid, 1984 turns out to be real) as they are the inherant remainder in the Capitalist system, and even in the last 50 years it's growth is astounding, as is it's progress along Marx's predicted lines. It's a case of Capitalism furfilling itself, by it's very nature it means in the end only the most efficient (and by default ruthless) Capitalists will survive in the long run and that the systems need for ever exanding and diversifing markets, ever cheaper world labour and raw reasources and by consequence ever riseing inflation the contradiction within the system will eventual be stretched to breaking point, this much is certain even if the consequences of this arn't fully. The instinct harnessed by Capitalism needs and desires more and more by it's nature.


Prediction of the future is the job of soothsayers; it is not a realistic argument to make. Men have been broken for trying to predict the flip of a coin, what makes you think that you can predict the course of future human development? Once again I state that current conditions give no indication of ever developing into a society which is capable of attaining the communist ideal. You say people change, and maybe they do, but they have never changed that much. Human emotions are hardwired into our brains, and while it is true that it is at least possible that we might evolve out of them, the slowing rate of human mutation would seem to indicate that this would take thousands if not tens of thousands of years.
.

You make several good points, but start of badly.
It's not prediction, it never claimed to be.
It's Rational thought, it's studying of the past, it's empirical thought in action, and it stands up to any rational attack on it's study of the past and the future up to the ponit of Capitalist collapse with ease.
Do you think that we cannot learn anything form the past that can show the outcome of the future? The oldest and first prose epic in Western literature, an early form of History (and topical), the Illiad showed some of the essances of mankind, that is why it is remembered and valued, because it is still relevant today. Men want power, for any great military action there is long term and short term factors, economics is a major (if not the) factor in going to War, that the common grief from war is felt by all. Herodotus, the Father of History, give's an impression of the Imperial court of Xerxes the Persian Med and it's identicle to the characters and influences on a human with sole power today, the point is you can accuratly say what's going to happen if it is readible in human nature, and the eventual result of Capitalism is one of them, the resulting Socialist/Communist state is based on what we see today and in History, that when oppressed people yearn for equality and freedom, and it again applies rational analsis, that in the past it has always been the lowest who were done out, being used to further those ideals only for other classes long term, but with the full maturing of Capitalism there will just be the two classes and the contradiction in the system, and it's here I show my faith in humanity which although based on our past great deeds is also balanced by the greet failures, it is under these intence circumstances the forced maturinty will evolve and since no other system is know but the intence Capitalist exploitation which they have no, and desire no, stake in, then the change will come.


Also, and I do not mean to sound outraged or insulted, but what do you know of my way of life? Although the anonymity that the internet provides is often a blessing, it can lead to misunderstandings between people. I am a college student (Sophomore) studying Political Science, hoping to go into diplomacy. I want to be a public servant. But, to serve the people, I must understand them. I must understand what keeps our society going, and why it is worth continuing. My way of life is not one of greed (money is unimportant to me, and I leave very cheaply), but one of service. If I had wanted to debate matters from a personal point-of-view, I would have created my own topic to express that. However, since the original question dealt with the merits of Communism, I addressed only that argument..

I admit I might have got a bit carried away on the old rhetoric.
Sorry for any personal attacks, I only mean to argue the thoery to.
Understanding of something, or the desire to further our understanding, is very different form our practicle appliaction of it in our lives and I don't pretend to live the full Socialist lifestlye, I try to change myself one part at a time and try to do what I can to help people around me.
It is impossible withing our current system anyway, even if under certain conditons you could get close:P
I admire your honest desire to want to help people from within the Govt, and I admire your desire to understand and aquire knowledge generaly, you are right that this thread was started about the theory, not personal appliction.



Communism reflects a desire to ignore the current system and fabricate a fictional one (and it is, thus far) which does not obey any of the current rules. Anyone can do that; simply look at the rows of fiction in a bookstore. Marx wrote an exceptionally detailed and brilliant work of fiction. Oh, parts of it were true, since he was very good at describing the underlying problems of society, but his solution was fiction. The question of whether it will work in the future is completely different from can it work now. All things are possible, most are not probable..

Fiction? How? You cannot condem that which has not yet come to pass, so far Marx has been correct in his understanding of Economic forces and Capitalism. All attempts at Communism thus far ,have been to me, reflections of a peoples desire at something better, even if the conditions mean attaining the goal is impossible, the attempts signifiy a general desperation in those countrys with how things were, not the advancement of Socialism/Communis, but markers showing us the offshoots if the chaotic and still developing Capitalist system.
How was his solution fiction? All things may be possible but one that seems so far to be the most probable tends to hold more water.
I agree 100% with Marx up to the final collapse and soving of the Capitalist contradiction, I don't think Marx fully appriciated the ingenuity of the Capitalist mind (the impressive effect of Consumerism) but when it comes to the point of switch when the oppressed take power, I'm not sure even in the gargantic majority they'll be able to take it or if Capitalist states will have inadvertantly destroyed one another, I'd give the unltimate revolution a 50/50 chance so I guess that's the Pessimist talking.

As a political ideology it reflects a work studiing the underlying forces of history that make and break Empires and nations, at the evolving economic forces that are acculminating in Capitalism.


I have gotten the feeling that we are arguing from two completely different and non-opposing viewpoints. I am trying to argue that Communist cannot work in our current situation, nor within the next 100 years, while you are arguing that if the situation that Marx described existed, Communism would be possible. I would agree with that. Communism is a cohesive theory, and in the perfect world that it describes, I have no doubt that life would be idyllic. Then again, in a perfect world where everywhere worked for everyone else, perhaps any government system could function well. That is, after all, why Marx envisioned the eventual disintegration of Communism and the creation of an anarchic utopia. Even anarchy can function in paradise.

I think we're both on the same wave lenth to a point, I may just be not getting myself across properly (a failing on my part) , we seem to agree on the current state of affairs but are not together on the actual study of Economics and there practicle results (in society and politics) , one question would help clear this up, do you agree that the structure of Society and Politics reflect the means of prodiction (and inturn the wealth distribution of a state globaly) ? Of course this isn't 1+1=2 but and not an exact equation, but in essance it is true even if the individual details within may stray or differ, it is all within the larger movments yes?

I agree, Communism could and will not be a pracitcal form of Govt for a long time, it all depends on the speed of the Capitalist systems growth, Socialism (or champagne socialism) is applicable now in the West and a more direct but by no means pure sysytem is also applicable in other states, but even then the class interests are still at heart contradicting.
What I am arguing is that the final collapse of Capitalism as a system, the acocunting for the remainder and inherant contradicion, the inevitable result of this will lead us to the point were Communism (as described by Marx) will be possible, wiether is succeds or wiether iether sides is living by the end of the stuggle is another question, but the grounds for Marx's Communism are definatly going to occur at some time.

Yeah, I have some theoretical troubles with the eventual shift into the Anarchist paradise within the Communist state, mainly about practical co-ordination of reasources and skills (assuming we're not at a tech. point where they are localy readily availible) and that in it centralised technological advancemet would be, by definition, impossible.
I think though that the assumption is that all the great technological advances will have been made with the pressures of Capitalism and the united drive in Communism, just a thought anyway.

I'll telegrame you, you seem to have a good understanding and a seriouse approach, something rare these days even, with friend and foe alike.

Well done The Peoples Scotland and Lenbonia both sets of posts have been worth reading instead of all the normal "OMG Look at what Lenin did, that commie b*stard"... it's nice to read something a bit more complete for once, both of you come across well.

Hihi

Couple of links for people who think capitalism is all sweetness and light and of course /nobody/ gets killed ~cough~

http://www.killercoke.org/ (Details of murder, torture of teenage boys etc.)

http://www.mcspotlight.org/ (Everything you didn't want to know about Mucky D's)

http://www.schnews.org.uk/ (weekly newsletter with information on all sorts of human rights abuses!)

My 2p's worth :p

--
Adam (Fusionchat)

*Tags* Don't have time to read all this now, might do later

Long live nazi nations and hitler

:roll:

While I am not a communist, I reject the line of reasoning that assumes communism "cannot work" and "thus far has failed". The airplane and the space shuttle are the results of the repeated failures of people attempting to build something that others said would not work. Before the American Revolution, many people thought democracy would not work; even many of the (American) founding fathers were nervous about it (hence the electoral college). The question isn't whether communism can or cannot work, because the ingenuity of human invention assures that it can, given enough resources and failures to learn from. The question isn't whether communism <i>can</i> work, it is whether we truly want it to.

Futhermore, it's absurd to refer to communism or capitalism as "evil". They are different perspectives on what is fair and do not presuppose anything truly evil will happen, even if such things are often unintended consequences of such a system.

Iuthia's right, it realy is good to see the posts here, from those who agree or disagree or differ on points within have raised the bar from 'Commie bastards/Facism bitches'. Good to have a proper discussion
Cheer's for the compliament anyhow, flattery gets you everyware eh?:wink:


Good point raised by Ticondera.

I'll be sure to look at those links FusionChat, they look promising.

:roll: DontUsOff, man, it's good to see some spirit in the argument, can't belive I almost forgot to mention you :roll:

Later all,
Hobo.