this guy seems far too ridiculous to not be some elaborate troll
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;34380320]Well if we are saying someone actually managed to make a good communist country this really wouldn't be an issue. If they managed to get people actually willing to be doctors and teachers they would probably work far harder then someone who is simply doing it for money (and probably wont get you to take an operation simply because the doctor makes more money).[/QUOTE]
In this world, (leaving the theoretical question again) nobody in the west part of the world would support communism to begin with after the cold war and Americas anger against their system. Everyone supporting them would end up becoming foes with USA, something bad since America lies ahead. (Not for long! [sp]CHINA[/sp])
[QUOTE=Kellerbewohner;34476308]I just read to be able to fight communists.[/QUOTE]
you sound like the giant robot from Fallout 3.
[QUOTE=Kellerbewohner;34474358]
FAIL. George Orwells works are anti-communist.[/QUOTE]
No, George Orwell was not anti-communist, he was anti-Stalin. Animal Farm is a perfect example. Old General or whatever his name is (the old pig) represents Marx/Lenin, who came up with a communist ideal. Snowball represents Trotsky, who sincerely believes in the idea, while Napoleon represents Stalin, who abuses his power to take over the farm, and then kicks out Snowball/Trotsky. He then turns the farm into a dictatorship.
And you know why communism has failed so far? because it was based of the stupid idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and a vanguard party. Putting all the power in one party, and openly saying that some anti-revolutionaries had to be repressed would obviously lead to a dictatorship, like the Soviet Union or China. But if we were to form a democratic (multi-party) socialist nation, it could work fine. The problem wasn't communism; it was Marxist-Leninism.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34490366]No, George Orwell was not anti-communist, he was anti-Stalin. Animal Farm is a perfect example. Old General or whatever his name is (the old pig) represents Marx/Lenin, who came up with a communist ideal. Snowball represents Trotsky, who sincerely believes in the idea, while Napoleon represents Stalin, who abuses his power to take over the farm, and then kicks out Snowball/Trotsky. He then turns the farm into a dictatorship.
And you know why communism has failed so far? because it was based of the stupid idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and a vanguard party. Putting all the power in one party, and openly saying that some anti-revolutionaries had to be repressed would obviously lead to a dictatorship, like the Soviet Union or China. But if we were to form a democratic (multi-party) socialist nation, it could work fine. The problem wasn't communism; it was Marxist-Leninism.[/QUOTE]
Sorry man, but I did sincerely laugh at your words above. Let's just put it like this, communism is an ideology that sees human beings as naturally contributing to a society's wealth without receiving a proportional amount of promotion in return.
Many people have said what you have said, and I can assure you that history has clearly shown how communism lowers a society's living standard to a terribly low level. It doesn't matter whether the form of communism is despotic or democratic since the main weakness in communism is purely fiscal. There have been dictatorships with capitalism that have succeeded way further than any communist dictatorship has ever managed to dream about.
[QUOTE=RonPaul4ever;34517390]Sorry man, but I did sincerely laugh at your words above. Let's just put it like this, communism is an ideology that sees human beings as naturally contributing to a society's wealth without receiving a proportional amount of promotion in return.
Many people have said what you have said, and I can assure you that history has clearly shown how communism lowers a society's living standard to a terribly low level. It doesn't matter whether the form of communism is despotic or democratic since the main weakness in communism is purely fiscal. There have been dictatorships with capitalism that have succeeded way further than any communist dictatorship has ever managed to dream about.[/QUOTE]
And I must laugh at your and your horrible misunderstanding. Your definition of Communism makes no sense. Human beings contributing to a society's wealth, without receiving any in return? where does it go? to the CEO's? Dictators? oh wait, real communism doesn't have either of those. And there has never been true communism, so history shows nothing. True communism would have higher standards of living for the average man, since our paychecks aren't taken away by CEO's and board members. Instead workers are payed what they deserve. Please read up on communism before claiming you understand it.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34490366]No, George Orwell was not anti-communist, he was anti-Stalin. Animal Farm is a perfect example. Old General or whatever his name is (the old pig) represents Marx/Lenin, who came up with a communist ideal. Snowball represents Trotsky, who sincerely believes in the idea, while Napoleon represents Stalin, who abuses his power to take over the farm, and then kicks out Snowball/Trotsky. He then turns the farm into a dictatorship.
And you know why communism has failed so far? because it was based of the stupid idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and a vanguard party. Putting all the power in one party, and openly saying that some anti-revolutionaries had to be repressed would obviously lead to a dictatorship, like the Soviet Union or China. But if we were to form a democratic (multi-party) socialist nation, it could work fine. The problem wasn't communism; it was Marxist-Leninism.[/QUOTE]
The problem is communism so far that it is an vague ideal
of an utopian stage of existence, heaven on earth and
it is always and will always (also [sic!]) be a tool of ursupators and
stalins.
Orwell did not write against Stalin, he saw the problem of the ideology communism itself which enables
people like Stalin to (miss)use it as a source of power.
I think that Socialism works the best in real life, Communism could work well if implemented right, but so far...
[QUOTE=Kellerbewohner;34521160]The problem is communism so far that it is an vague ideal
of an utopian stage of existence, heaven on earth and
it is always and will always (also [sic!]) be a tool of ursupators and
stalins.
Orwell did not write against Stalin, he saw the problem of the ideology communism itself which enables
people like Stalin to (miss)use it as a source of power.[/QUOTE]
exactly. That's why a socialist nation shouldn't be run by one party; it should be a multi-party, democratic system.
I can't exactly take communism too seriously as an ideaology to pick up in this day and age simply because Marx's ideal soceity was simply done as a direct response to extreme capitalism, which was rampant during his time (the industrial revolution). Child labor, massive unregulated working conditions, terrible pay, etc. EVERY country basically treated industry like China. And keep in mind this was before the age of globalization, so generally the goods you produced in your country were exclusive to your country.
Marx's communism was a critique of this. He predicted that and endless cycle of depressions and recessions would happen in capitalist societies, causing more supply than demand since the working class is exploited for their wages and therefore cannot buy the goods that fuel the economy (which they were at the time in some ways), which causes more depressions until the conditions are so poor that a "worker's revolution" takes place, and a capitalist society becomes a communist society.
This never happened. Capitalism didn't fall at the height of the industrial revolution. Nevermind the issue that Marx's ideology focuses too much on the working class and "production of goods" versus anything else (there's not much support for creative fields, science/technology, etc in communism, since it's highest appeal is twoards labor). Capitalism has never seen communist uprisings - in fact the only areas where it happened, were in feudal countries where the governing bodies were weak.
Lenin tried to explain this by stating that Imperialism caused capitalist socieites to give themselves a "barrier" between failure because they could open up new markets in colonies, have extremely cheap labor in colonies, etc.
But we've since left the age of Imperialism and capitalism still hasn't failed. Instead, the next step in society was globalization, something that wasn't possible in "communism's time", and in my opinion is why Communism and Marxism as ideaologies are only relevant to gain understanding into the historical situation of the time they were concepted. I'd be willing to bet that if marx was alive during the age of globalization, there would be no communist manifesto. Ironically enough, the only countries that still operate in the conditions that Marx was trying to fight against and prevent are ones that have adopted "psudo-communism", like China. Yes, I know, China isn't real communism. But it's kind of funny how the only countries on earth anymore that have working conditions like in the industrial revolution that inspired Marx to write what he did are all countries that have adopted governments inspired by Marx's ideologies. Certainly not Marx's fault, no. But it's pretty obvious that Capitalism wasn't the direct cause and root of all that injustice that Marx critiqued.
[QUOTE=KorJax;34521970]I can't exactly take communism too seriously as an ideaology to pick up in this day and age simply because Marx's ideal soceity was simply done as a direct response to extreme capitalism, which was rampant during his time (the industrial revolution). Child labor, massive unregulated working conditions, terrible pay, etc. EVERY country basically treated industry like China. And keep in mind this was before the age of globalization, so generally the goods you produced in your country were exclusive to your country.
Marx's communism was a critique of this. He predicted that and endless cycle of depressions and recessions would happen in capitalist societies, causing more supply than demand since the working class is exploited for their wages and therefore cannot buy the goods that fuel the economy (which they were at the time in some ways), which causes more depressions until the conditions are so poor that a "worker's revolution" takes place, and a capitalist society becomes a communist society.
This never happened. Capitalism didn't fall at the height of the industrial revolution. Nevermind the issue that Marx's ideology focuses too much on the working class and "production of goods" versus anything else (there's not much support for creative fields, science/technology, etc in communism, since it's highest appeal is twoards labor). Capitalism has never seen communist uprisings - in fact the only areas where it happened, were in feudal countries where the governing bodies were weak.
Lenin tried to explain this by stating that Imperialism caused capitalist socieites to give themselves a "barrier" between failure because they could open up new markets in colonies, have extremely cheap labor in colonies, etc.
But we've since left the age of Imperialism and capitalism still hasn't failed. Instead, the next step in society was globalization, something that wasn't possible in "communism's time", and in my opinion is why Communism and Marxism as ideaologies are only relevant to gain understanding into the historical situation of the time they were concepted. I'd be willing to bet that if marx was alive during the age of globalization, there would be no communist manifesto. Ironically enough, the only countries that still operate in the conditions that Marx was trying to fight against and prevent are ones that have adopted "psudo-communism", like China. Yes, I know, China isn't real communism. But it's kind of funny how the only countries on earth anymore that have working conditions like in the industrial revolution that inspired Marx to write what he did are all countries that have adopted governments inspired by Marx's ideologies. Certainly not Marx's fault, no. But it's pretty obvious that Capitalism wasn't the cause and root of all this injustice directly.[/QUOTE]
Yes, Marxism is most definitively outdated. But other forms of socialism might not be. A personally just think we need less corporations and more cooperatives.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34522060]Yes, Marxism is most definitively outdated. But other forms of socialism might not be. A personally just think we need less corporations and more cooperatives.[/QUOTE]
i think its important for people to understand that corporations only become a threat to nations when they have influence in politics. this isnt part of capitalism or free markets by any means, and its disappointing when people confuse it with such.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34522228]i think its important for people to understand that corporations only become a threat to nations when they have influence in politics. this isnt part of capitalism or free markets by any means, and its disappointing when people confuse it with such.[/QUOTE]
more than just politics, I think they just exploit workers. Especially with smaller businesses, cooperatives are the way to go in my mind.
[QUOTE=KorJax;34521970]I can't exactly take communism too seriously as an ideaology to pick up in this day and age simply because Marx's ideal soceity[/QUOTE]
i don't know why i have to keep saying this, marx didn't have any conception of an ideal society.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34521860]exactly. That's why a socialist nation shouldn't be run by one party; it should be a multi-party, democratic system.[/QUOTE]
Even if you have 5 partys in a communist or socialist society, it's all
the same. Communism is a totalitarian ideology not to forget that.
There is no separation of powers (beetween society, politics and economics) in such
a society.
There the analogy to other totalitarian ideologies for example religions or National Socialism and Fascist ideologies takes effect.
communism has absolutely nothing to do with totalitarianism.
it's perfectly possible to be both capitalist and totalitarianist.
[QUOTE=thisispain;34523128]communism has absolutely nothing to do with totalitarianism.
it's perfectly possible to be both capitalist and totalitarianist.[/QUOTE]
You do not understand what a totalitarian ideology is at all.
And by the way there is no ideology that is called "Capitalism",
it is word orginally created by marx as a scientific term to describe
19th century industrial society, nowadays inflationary (miss/over)used as a pejorative combat term
to sometimes only describe America othertimes the whole western society,
used by leftists, used by fascists, used by idiots in general - if not in the context of Marx.
i understand it very clearly and it has nothing to do with communism or capitalism.
to say communism is either utopian or totalitarian is completely false. first of all marxist communism is anti-utopian, communism is also anti-totalitarian in itself considering totalitarianism requires a state which communism lacks.
communism is a [I]stateless[/I] ideology.
[QUOTE=Kellerbewohner;34523118]Even if you have 5 partys in a communist or socialist society, it's all
the same. Communism is a totalitarian ideology not to forget that.
There is no separation of powers (beetween society, politics and economics) in such
a society.
There the analogy to other totalitarian ideologies for example religions or National Socialism and Fascist ideologies takes effect.[/QUOTE]
by that logic, all government is totalitarian. The powers of society, politics, and economics aren't separated in America, so I guess we are a totalitarian regime. Gosh, I thought only single party governments could be totalitarian.
single party governments don't have to be totalitarian either.
china is more authoritarian than totalitarian.
a small but notable difference.
[QUOTE=thisispain;34523343]single party governments don't have to be totalitarian either.
china is more authoritarian than totalitarian.
a small but notable difference.[/QUOTE]
what is the difference?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34523357]what is the difference?[/QUOTE]
totalitarian regimes attempt to control every aspect of the country right down to the single detail.
authoritarian regimes are more about political power, for instance China is fairly capitalistic and you won't get in trouble with the government till you start questioning them.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34522228]i think its important for people to understand that corporations only become a threat to nations when they have influence in politics. this isnt part of capitalism or free markets by any means, and its disappointing when people confuse it with such.[/QUOTE]
I think to say it's not part of capitalism is a stretch. Corporate capitalism is a huge part of capitalism. But yeah it's definitely not a part of a true free market (but it is a part of "The Free Market"). You have to be careful with terminology because it's misused so much to justify corporate power.
[editline]3rd February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34523317]by that logic, all government is totalitarian. The powers of society, politics, and economics aren't separated in America, so I guess we are a totalitarian regime. Gosh, I thought only single party governments could be totalitarian.[/QUOTE]
Well to be fair, all states [I]are[/I] totalitarian. :v:
The monopoly on violence is one of the most totalitarian features you can get. The fact our government gives us a few more liberties than you'd expect from a totalitarian regime is of little consequence, when they still hold the monopoly on violence.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34521062]And I must laugh at your and your horrible misunderstanding. Your definition of Communism makes no sense. Human beings contributing to a society's wealth, without receiving any in return? where does it go? to the CEO's? Dictators? oh wait, real communism doesn't have either of those. And there has never been true communism, so history shows nothing. True communism would have higher standards of living for the average man, since our paychecks aren't taken away by CEO's and board members. Instead workers are payed what they deserve. Please read up on communism before claiming you understand it.[/QUOTE]
Once again I laugh at you. It's both funny and scary to see a youngster like you, so naive and certain about an ideology that has failed every time it has been adapted by a society. It's obvious that you don't know anything about free markets, corporations or the basic psychological driving forces that are the complete base for our current prosperity. Therefore I advise you to listen carefully now.
The company owners and CEOs are surely earning a lot of money, but don't forget that they in return are providing people with goods and services for a reasonable price due to competition between corporations. Such competition would never possibly exist in a society where the government is in possession of all the companies. The company owners are taking a lot of risk when creating a company and placing their money in it. People don't take such risk if they don't have anything to win by doing so.
Profit is an extremely strong driving force, and when a society uses it in the right way, it encourages people to work, which in return creates a more prosperous society which can afford a strong welfare.
Now, you're right about the fact that I don't know much about your specific form of socialism. What I know though is that when you take away the basic driving forces for people to start businesses and thereby create jobs, compete with each other, take risks, you are on a very dangerous road.
My advise to you is to accept the world as it is and apply for a job instead of keep whining about your extremely Utopian socialism that might sound relatively nice on paper, but which would result in a miserable fiscal situation in reality.
I hope you are aware of that an extreme majority of all economists despite socialism and are very clear about its terrible consequences. You might throw up some stupid conspiracy theory about how these economists are "working for the establishment and all the big cooperations", but for the rest of us who believe they are professional people with a deep knowledge about economics and with an interest of helping people around them, we respect their hard work and their experience.
The ideology of the Soviet Union was nothing like most people who categorise themselves as socialists/communists/anarchists. Forgot what socialism is for a minute. The views of people like myself and (possibly) Kakistocrat are fucking nothing like the soviet union. Arguing over what these ideologies fundamentally are is irrelevant and just arguing over splitting hairs.
The Soviet Union tried to monopolise the legitimate use of physical coercion (like all states do) which was morally abhorrent. They also tried to enforce state capitalism which is even more fascist than corporatism is today. You can argue over what socialism or communism or marxism is but at the end of the day it's just avoiding the important question that needs to be addressed (and its addressing will solve the majority of political problems imo): is the state legitimate in monopolising the legitimate use of physical violence?
Economists are by and large very detached from the moral reality of the world to the point I really question their validity on a massive level. (Also why would you say 'working for the establishment and all the big [B]cooperations[/B]'? Us "lefties" (I fucking hate the right/left dichotomy it's fucking retarded) are by and large very pro-cooperative. Do you mean corporations?)
[editline]3rd February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=RonPaul4ever;34525242]Now, you're right about the fact that I don't know much about your specific form of socialism. What I know though is that when you take away the basic driving forces for people to start businesses and thereby create jobs, compete with each other, take risks, you are on a very dangerous road.[/QUOTE]
This is one of the most fucking retarded (and most overused) anti-socialism arguments I have ever heard. If anything freedom from state coercion would open up every single individual to explore their own entrepreneurship without some state-backed corporate cunt dicking all over you.
Statelessness would be [I]very good[/I] for incentivising competition and it's fucking ridiculous that such an idea has been propagated so much.
[QUOTE=RonPaul4ever;34525242]Once again I laugh at you. It's both funny and scary to see a youngster like you, so naive and certain about an ideology that has failed every time it has been adapted by a society. It's obvious that you don't know anything about free markets, corporations or the basic psychological driving forces that are the complete base for our current prosperity. Therefore I advise you to listen carefully now.[/quote]
[QUOTE=RonPaul4ever;34525242]My advise to you is to accept the world as it is and apply for a job instead of keep whining[/quote]
It is, the most condescending man in the world.
I want the freedom and choice to do what I want to do with my money.
I hate these threads.
"Let's have a bunch of uninformed teenagers without unbiased sources or any real comprehension of the issues regarding both systems debate one of the most complex questions in modern history only to have the entire thread derail as a flaming pile of shit!"
[QUOTE=Cheezy;34533429]I hate these threads.
"Let's have a bunch of uninformed teenagers without unbiased sources or any real comprehension of the issues regarding both systems debate one of the most complex questions in modern history only to have the entire thread derail as a flaming pile of shit!"[/QUOTE]
oh you really showed us with that informed comprehensive response!!
[QUOTE=Cheezy;34533429]I hate these threads.
"Let's have a bunch of uninformed teenagers without unbiased sources or any real comprehension of the issues regarding both systems debate one of the most complex questions in modern history only to have the entire thread derail as a flaming pile of shit!"[/QUOTE]
Why are you even posting in this if you hate it so bad? I made this thread to hear other peoples answers, since many are the "little bit of both" and someone is "Only Capitalism" and vice versa...
People are different, and people have different opinions
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.