[QUOTE=tomcat13;22997274]You can't be serious. Tell me you're joking.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution[/url]
The redistribution of land and capital are central to Marxist theory. Are you really going to claim that forcing landowners off their land, abolishing private property, and the creation economic and social communes all across the country didn't happen? You're worse than a holocaust denier.[/QUOTE]
quote mark where he said:
"redistribute land and capital" (BTW, there is no capital in communism)
"forcing landowners off their land"
"abolish private property" (which is relevant to the means of production, if you'd bother to fucking read the manifesto)
"creating economic and social communes"
please, go on and quote either Marx or Englels.
[QUOTE=Chippay;22997497]tomcat you are making a fool out of yourself
you're right in the sense that saying mao wasn't a communist is absurd, but you're 100% wrong in saying that the prc was communist. you repeatedly state policies that could be construed as communist, but you make the mistake of thinking these add up to a communist society
they do not.[/QUOTE]
All I have stated is the obvious, the People's Republic of China was founded by communists, based on communist principles, and ruled by communist polititians in an atmosphere were any political opponents to socialism were persecuted, imprisoned, and even murdered.
The historical revisionism i'm seeing in this thread by so called communists who believe the PRC and Mao Zedong had absolutely no connections to Marxism is laughable and naive at best and downright fucking scary at worst.
Tell me what you find foolish about that.
[QUOTE=tomcat13;22996648]no it was not fascist because they didn't succeed[/quote]
you are terrible at making points lol
instead of pointing to another event/theory, why not, you know, make a fucking point.
[quote]So then i imagine you believe that
Agrarian Collectivization[/quote]
not communist, communism is a mix of economic
[quote]Food rationing[/quote]
not communist
[quote]using the proletarian class as the primary recruitment tool for his poltcical movement[/quote]
Joe the plumber is the same exact thing.
[quote]trying to destroy "the bourgeoisie" as a social and political class[/quote]
Mao never really did that, but yes, that's communist.
[quote]and establishing people's communes throughout the country[/quote]
are in no way related to communism?[/quote]
1/5
i'd say: nope
[quote]They're just fun things he decided to spontaneously do that had absolutely nothing to do with marxism or communist theory, right?[/quote]
where in marxist theory does he say that?
[quote]Hitler didn't get rid of all the jews.[/quote]
oh, fun fact, Hitler never called himself fascist, he called himself socialist. please, tell me Hitler was a socialist JUST because he said he was.
[quote]We can play the label game all day long. The point is, what were their political intentions? What ideology did they subscribe to?[/QUOTE]
just because you label yourself something, doesn't mean you're that. ever heard of this nifty word? corruption
[editline]05:35AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=tomcat13;22997569]All I have stated is the obvious, the People's Republic of China was founded by communists[/quote]
kind of irrelevant.
[quote]based on communist principles[/quote]
which ones and back it up with Marx/Engels theory.
[quote]and ruled by [B]communist [/B][B]polititians [/B][/quote]
if only you were smart enough to understand the irony here
communist government, that's like a libertarian autocracy.
[quote]in an atmosphere were any political opponents to socialism were persecuted, imprisoned, and even murdered.[/quote]
fun fact, it wasn't political opponents, it was just plain opponents. Communist/socialists/etc were also persecuted.
[quote]The historical revisionism i'm seeing in this thread by so called communists who believe the PRC and Mao Zedong had absolutely no connections to Marxism is laughable and naive at best and downright fucking scary at worst.
Tell me what you find foolish about that.[/QUOTE]
it's not really revisionism... seeing as i'm fucking smart enough to draw my opinions from... well, the founders of the fucking theory.
you're an ignorant fuck wit
[QUOTE=tomcat13;22997569]All I have stated is the obvious, the People's Republic of China was founded by communists, based on communist principles, and ruled by communist polititians in an atmosphere were any political opponents to socialism were persecuted, imprisoned, and even murdered.
The historical revisionism i'm seeing in this thread by so called communists who believe the PRC and Mao Zedong had absolutely no connections to Marxism is laughable and naive at best and downright fucking scary at worst.
Tell me what you find foolish about that.[/QUOTE]
what you're seeing here isn't people saying mao and the prc has no connection to marxism
what you're seeing is people who are telling you that states such as the prc, the soviet union, and vietnam are not communist.
i'm sure your familiar with the central tenets of communist philosophy. the complete abolition of classes, the abolition of currency, the redistribution of the means of production from a leader class to the working class.
the prc, the soviet union, and vietnam had none of these. intentions do not make a state. furthermore, as time went on it became increasingly clear that none of the central tenets were being acted upon in any state that dared to label itself marxist inspired. today china is the complete opposite of a communist utopia, as are any other surviving marxist inspired states. i'm sure you can at least agree on that.
and as a final note, no state has labelled itself as communist. the prc is a people's republic, the soviet union was a socialist vanguard state, etc.
[quote]quote mark where he said:
"redistribute land and capital" (BTW, there is no capital in communism)
"forcing landowners off their land"
"abolish private property" (which is relevant to the means of production, if you'd bother to fucking read the manifesto)
"creating economic and social communes"
please, go on and quote either Marx or Englels.
[/quote]I'm starting to question whether or not YOU have even read the communist manifesto, if you fail to see the similarities.
[quote]
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. -Karl Marx [/quote]Welp. There you have it. Straight from the horse's mouth. Don't know how else we can make it any clearer for you.
[editline]09:48PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chippay;22997762]what you're seeing here isn't people saying mao and the prc has no connection to marxism
what you're seeing is people who are telling you that states such as the prc, the soviet union, and vietnam are not communist.
i'm sure your familiar with the central tenets of communist philosophy. the complete abolition of classes, the abolition of currency, the redistribution of the means of production from a leader class to the working class.
the prc, the soviet union, and vietnam had none of these. intentions do not make a state. furthermore, as time went on it became increasingly clear that none of the central tenets were being acted upon in any state that dared to label itself marxist inspired. today china is the complete opposite of a communist utopia, as are any other surviving marxist inspired states. i'm sure you can at least agree on that.
and as a final note, no state has labelled itself as communist. the prc is a people's republic, the soviet union was a socialist vanguard state, etc.[/QUOTE]
The point is their goals were the abolition of private property and the destruction all economic classes. That's the eventual goal of communism. That was their eventual goal, that's why they fucking CALLED THEMSELVES COMMUNISTS. Their goal was communism, their problem was actually getting there. Which they utterly failed to do.
That's the point i'm making by claiming Nazi Germany was not fascist. They never created an ubermensch. They never created an ethnically homogeneous society free of class antagonisms. But to say that because they did not achieve their goals that they therefore are not an example of fascism, is fucking RETARDED.
[QUOTE=tomcat13;22997777]I'm starting to question whether or not YOU have even read the communist manifesto, if you fail to see the similarities.
Welp. There you have it. Straight from the horse's mouth. Don't know how else we can make it any clearer for you.
[editline]09:48PM[/editline]
The point is their goals were the abolition of private property and the destruction all economic classes. That's the eventual goal of communism. That was their eventual goal, that's why they fucking CALLED THEMSELVES COMMUNISTS. Their goal was communism, their problem was actually getting there. Which they utterly failed to do.
That's the point i'm making by claiming Nazi Germany was not fascist. They never created an ubermensch. They never created an ethnically homogeneous society free of class antagonisms. But to say that because they did not achieve their goals that they therefore are not an example of fascism, is fucking RETARDED.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm[/url]
[QUOTE=Warhol;22997591]you are terrible at making points lol
instead of pointing to another event/theory, why not, you know, make a fucking point. [/QUOTE] Socialism and Communism are shitty economic theories that don't work in theory, let alone in practice.
[quote]not communist, communism is a mix of economic
not communist
Joe the plumber is the same exact thing. [/quote] There is not a facepalm image macro in the world big enough to respond to this.
[quote]Mao never really did that, but yes, that's communist. [/quote][quote]are in no way related to communism?[/quote][quote]where in marxist theory does he say that?[/quote][quote]oh, fun fact, Hitler never called himself fascist, he called himself socialist. please, tell me Hitler was a socialist JUST because he said he was.[/quote] The National Socialist German Workers Party was founded based on the ideals of early fascists who themselves were a branch of the nationalist-syndicalist branch of early socialist parties in 19th century Italy. Read up on fucking fascist theory before you talk. Mussolini himself was a member of the Italian Socialist party before he broke off from the party and founded his fascist party in the wake of world war 1. Many of Hitler's closest colleagues in the National Socialist party were former socialists who broke off before the third International.
[quote]just because you label yourself something, doesn't mean you're that. ever heard of this nifty word? corruption[/quote] You're just trying to distance your crappy economic ideology from any historical event that might not show it in a positive light by saying it was not the final form of communism and therefore Marxism bears no responsibility for what happened.
[quote]kind of irrelevant.[/quote] How so?
[quote]which ones and back it up with Marx/Engels theory.[/quote] Have you not read my earlier posts?
[quote]if only you were smart enough to understand the irony here[/quote] When all else fails and you're losing the argument, just claim your opponent is "not smart enough" to understand!
[quote]communist government, that's like a libertarian autocracy. [/quote] Communists founded the PRC. Fascists founded Nazi Germany.
[quote]fun fact, it wasn't political opponents, it was just plain opponents. Communist/socialists/etc were also persecuted.[/quote] You're right. After they ran out of capitalists, bourgeoisie, and class enemies/counter revolutionaries to imprison and kill, they started to turn on each other. You're right about that.
[quote]it's not really revisionism... seeing as i'm fucking smart enough to draw my opinions from... well, the founders of the fucking theory. [/quote] And yet you fail to see that Mao Zedong studied Marx and Engels extensively, and yet in your few short years on this earth you somehow magically understand Marxism better than they did, and surely you could do a much better job at transitioning us to a dictatorship of the proletariat, right?
[quote]you're an ignorant fuck wit[/quote] I take it back, when you're losing an argument just call your opponent an ignorant fuckwit! You're a master debater.
[QUOTE=tomcat13;22997777]
The point is their goals were the abolition of private property and the destruction all economic classes. That's the eventual goal of communism. That was their eventual goal, that's why they fucking CALLED THEMSELVES COMMUNISTS. Their goal was communism, their problem was actually getting there. Which they utterly failed to do.
That's the point i'm making by claiming Nazi Germany was not fascist. They never created an ubermensch. They never created an ethnically homogeneous society free of class antagonisms. But to say that because they did not achieve their goals that they therefore are not an example of fascism, is fucking RETARDED.[/QUOTE]
yes. they failed. ergo, it was not a communist state. it was a socialist state run by people who professed belief in communist ideals.
and regarding you're nazi germany part. you're right. nazi germany was not fascist. they were national socialist.
and you don't 'create' an ubermensch, the german people are the ubermensch.
and you would be right, aside from the fact that even the rulers of these so-called 'communist states' were full in the realization they were not communist states. they were socialist states run by vanguard parties. yes, they were aligned with marxist theory, but they never achieved any goal of it.
national socialist germany united all of the ubermensch, almost completely wiped out the untermensch in their territory, and was only stopped by the divisions of the soviet union. your argument doesn't make any sense because the states you're attempting to label as communist recognized that [B]they were not communist. [/B]
[editline]05:06AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=tomcat13;22998084]Socialism and Communism are shitty economic theories that don't work in theory, let alone in practice. [/QUOTE]
i'm not about to argue every point you made in this post, but i would argue that socialism could work in both theory and practice. this of course depends on the chosen branch of socialism though
[QUOTE=Chippay;22998143]yes. they failed. ergo, it was not a communist state. it was a socialist state run by people who professed belief in communist ideals.
and regarding you're nazi germany part. you're right. nazi germany was not fascist. they were national socialist.
and you don't 'create' an ubermensch, the german people are the ubermensch.
and you would be right, aside from the fact that even the rulers of these so-called 'communist states' were full in the realization they were not communist states. they were socialist states run by vanguard parties. yes, they were aligned with marxist theory, but they never achieved any goal of it.
national socialist germany united all of the ubermensch, almost completely wiped out the untermensch in their territory, and was only stopped by the divisions of the soviet union. your argument doesn't make any sense because the states you're attempting to label as communist recognized that [B]they were not communist. [/B][/QUOTE]
Hitler did not achieve his goals of a Greater Germany. He believed that the national blood had become impure by allowing Jews, Roma, Slavs, and other ethnic minorities to intermingle with the Nordic blood of the populace. He never eliminated all minorities, he never created his colonies in the east, and he never created a mono-cultural paradise with fair wages for labor and a Nordic population free of genetic disorders. He failed to achieve his goals, therefore was Nazi Germany not a "true National Socialist" state? Because he failed to achieve the goals he outlined in Mein Kampf, was Nazi Germany therefore not an example of Nazism? Have you come to the realization yet that arguing about this petty distinction is pointless semantics?
[editline]10:09PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chippay;22998143]
i'm not about to argue every point you made in this post, but i would argue that socialism could work in both theory and practice. this of course depends on the chosen branch of socialism though[/QUOTE]
Prove it.
[QUOTE=tomcat13;22998208]Hitler did not achieve his goals of a Greater Germany. He believed that the national blood had become impure by allowing Jews, Roma, Slavs, and other ethnic minorities to intermingle with the Nordic blood of the populace. He never eliminated all minorities, he never created his colonies in the east, and he never created a mono-cultural paradise with fair wages for labor and a Nordic population free of genetic disorders. He failed to achieve his goals, therefore was Nazi Germany not a "true National Socialist" state? Because he failed to achieve the goals he outlined in Mein Kampf, was Nazi Germany therefore not an example of Nazism? Have you come to the realization yet that arguing about this petty distinction is pointless semantics?[/quote]
to be technical, he did achieve his goal. all german territories were united under his rule. it's just that it didn't last too long. he eliminated the majority of minorities, and there were colonies in the east, and they played a very valuable role in the nazi economy. i can recommend you a book if you're curious. and hitler did create many social services and did much of what he promised in mein kampf. you're right that he was unable to eliminate every single minority, but that was simply because he lacked the time. look at what hitler promised in mein kampf, most of it came true in part if not in whole.
look at the central tenents of communism. [B]not one state on earth has fulfilled even a single one of them[/B]. ergo, there has never been a single communist state. there are no 'near misses' with communism. each state has been a vehicle for political ambition and the enrichment of the political class (something that is to be eliminated in a communist state, mind you) this discussions has little to do with semantics, and much to do with facts.
[quote]
Prove it.[/QUOTE]
i can post a few examples of states with working models of socialism, if only for a time. but i would prefer you just give me a state to work with :)
[QUOTE=Chippay;22998577]
i can post a few examples of states with working models of socialism, if only for a time. but i would prefer you just give me a state to work with :)[/QUOTE]
he'll just ignore you and restate the same points he's been restating. the inside of his head is stuck in a feedback loop
[QUOTE=Chippay;22998577]to be technical, he did achieve his goal. all german territories were united under his rule. it's just that it didn't last too long. he eliminated the majority of minorities, and there were colonies in the east, and they played a very valuable role in the nazi economy. i can recommend you a book if you're curious. and hitler did create many social services and did much of what he promised in mein kampf. you're right that he was unable to eliminate every single minority, but that was simply because he lacked the time. look at what hitler promised in mein kampf, most of it came true in part if not in whole. [/QUOTE] His goal of creating a 1,000 year empire comprised of "ubermensch" who were all tall, good looking, physically fit, devoid of genetic diseases, and Nordic in appearance was never even remotely achieved. Remember that for 18th century philosophers humanity as it existed was doomed to failure and would eventually going to destroy itself. Early Socialists believed that only through liberating man from labor could an ubermensch, or a better man, be created and therefore a better society exist. Read up on Nietsche and see how this influenced early Socialists and National Socialists. For National Socialists, society could be bred into an ubermensch through selective breeding, much in the way that humans once domesticated horses and can breed dogs for desired traits, they could likewise breed a better man. They never even came fucking close to achieving this, therefore did National Socialism never truly happen?
[quote]look at the central tenents of communism. [B]not one state on earth has fulfilled even a single one of them[/B]. ergo, there has never been a single communist state. there are no 'near misses' with communism. each state has been a vehicle for political ambition and the enrichment of the political class (something that is to be eliminated in a communist state, mind you) this discussions has little to do with semantics, and much to do with facts. [/quote] Do you deny that these states were created by socialists and communists with the intention of creating a classless society devoid of private ownership of the means of production?
I do not deny that the PRC, the Soviet Union, and every other socialist state out there eventually decayed into an oppressive and authoritarian regime where one class of communist parties ruled over everybody else. But you seem to forget that they started out as bunch of well intentioned Marxists who thought they were going to create a better society.
[quote]i can post a few examples of states with working models of socialism, if only for a time. but i would prefer you just give me a state to work with :)[/quote] Sorry, you made the claim that it can work, so you're going to have to provide the examples.
[editline]10:46PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;22998776]he'll just ignore you and restate the same points he's been restating. the inside of his head is stuck in a feedback loop[/QUOTE]
Then maybe you can provide some.
Come on, if socialism is so simple and easy to create in modern industrial society, surely you can give one successful example of it outside of a few people camping out in the woods?
The Paris Commune? The Kronstad Rebellion maybe? Come on give me your best shot, commies.
[QUOTE=tomcat13;22998794]His goal of creating a 1,000 year empire comprised of "ubermensch" who were all tall, good looking, physically fit, devoid of genetic diseases, and Nordic in appearance was never even remotely achieved. Remember that for 18th century philosophers humanity as it existed was doomed to failure and would eventually going to destroy itself. Early Socialists believed that only through liberating man from labor could an ubermensch, or a better man, be creating and therefore a better society exist. Read up on Nietsche and see how this influenced early Socialists and National Socialists. For National Socialists, society could be bred into an ubermensch through selective breeding, much in the way that humans once domesticated horses and can breed dogs for desired traits, they could likewise breed a better man. They never even came fucking close to achieving this, therefore did National Socialism never truly happen?[/QUOTE]
national socialism was far more than an empire lasting a thousand years, and far more than an idealized ending utopia. in this it's important to realize the differences between national socialism and communism. communism is an ideology with very well developed central tenets. national socialism is socialism augmented with fascist and nationalist characteristics that was evolving as it went on. communism has continued to evolve since the original manifesto, but the original tenets always remain the same.
[QUOTE=tomcat13;22998794]Do you deny that these states were creating by socialists and communists with the intention of creating a classless society devoid of private ownership of the means of production?
I do not deny that the PRC, the Soviet Union, and every other socialist state out there eventually decayed into an oppressive and authoritarian regime where one class of communist parties ruled over everybody else. But you seem to forget that they started out as bunch of well intentioned Marxists who thought they were going to create a better society.[/QUOTE]
the writing in your first statement is oddly written, but yes. i do deny that many so called 'communist' states were completely dedicated to the cause of communism. vietnam and cuba for instance, relied then and now on nationalism and stateism rather than on communism. it's important to note that in every single state that viewed itself as communist inspired the government became more and more powerful, in complete contradiction to communist theory.
you're putting a lot of faith in these revolutionaries, and i think you could benefit a lot from a more detailed view of the leaders of these movements.
[QUOTE=tomcat13;22998794]
Sorry, you made the claim that it can work, so you're going to have to provide the examples.[/QUOTE]
sorts of socialism worked throughout the soviet union, the paris commune, and dozens of other states. in addition to this policies inspired by socialism has prevailed in more than a few states. but this inevitably leads into the discussion of what socialism is, as it lacks a centralized doctrine.
[QUOTE=Chippay;22999014]national socialism was far more than an empire lasting a thousand years, and far more than an idealized ending utopia. in this it's important to realize the differences between national socialism and communism. communism is an ideology with very well developed central tenets. national socialism is socialism augmented with fascist and nationalist characteristics that was evolving as it went on. communism has continued to evolve since the original manifesto, but the original tenets always remain the same.[/QUOTE] I understand the differences perfectly. Socialism and National Socialism both originated in the labor movement, and were influenced by the idea of creating a utopian society through the creation of an ubermensch, or, a "better human." A human that was devoid of greed and vice and did not suffer from hunger and sickness. For socialists it was to be done through "the emancipation" of labor first through a dictatorship of the proletariat over the means of production and eventually the dissolution of all classes and private property. For national socialists it was to be done through selective breeding to create a genetically superior human by encouraging (or forcing) people who had a genetic disposition to favorable traits to reproduce and discouraging (or forcing) people who had unfavorable traits from breeding. I know my history and I know the political and philosophical history of these movements. I'm not as ignorant as you would like to believe.
[quote]the writing in your first statement is oddly written, but yes. i do deny that many so called 'communist' states were completely dedicated to the cause of communism. vietnam and cuba for instance, relied then and now on nationalism and stateism rather than on communism. it's important to note that in every single state that viewed itself as communist inspired the government became more and more powerful, in complete contradiction to communist theory.
you're putting a lot of faith in these revolutionaries, and i think you could benefit a lot from a more detailed view of the leaders of these movements. [/quote] They were all idealists who believed they could create a better society by examining society, and then declaring one particular element within society to be "bad" or the "enemy" and then trying to eliminate it. That is the trademark of all authoritarianism. That we will all be better off we just get rid of "those people." Socialism and National Socialism/Fascism both did this.
[quote]sorts of socialism worked throughout the soviet union, the paris commune, and dozens of other states. in addition to this policies inspired by socialism has prevailed in more than a few states. but this inevitably leads into the discussion of what socialism is, as it lacks a centralized doctrine.[/quote] First of all, these lasted for how long?
How many people lived under them? Were their economies devoid of poverty and did they have a fair and equal distribution of equity and power? You're dreaming if you think this was the case.
Communism is bad, it will never work. Most countries that have tried to employ it have either, collapsed, or forced under a Dictator (Or Dictatorish Goverment). Communism is very bad.
[QUOTE=$SLIMSWITCH$;23000221]Communism is bad, it will never work. Most countries that have tried to employ it have either, collapsed, or forced under a Dictator (Or Dictatorish Goverment). Communism is very bad.[/QUOTE]
wow what an erudite analysis
[QUOTE=mysteryman;22996717]Wow, that's a good idea.
But yeah, from what i've learned about communism, well actually more about socialism, I think Marx's view of socialism or marxism whatever you want to call his theory on it, was that it sounded like an ideal form of government. Everyone was equal. But it never took into account Human Error. Really humans in general, we are all not the same, and this system is wide open to exploitation. When stalin and trotsky took over and turned russia communist, they used a very flawed form of Marx's rendition. Stalin exploited the interpretation and used it to his full advantage.[/QUOTE]
:golfclap:
But since there's no free market in communism, wouldn't the economy still fail?
[QUOTE=Warhol;22986592]uh, proletariat revolution implies revolution which is usually against a government, so if a government is that bad the people will revolt, then they're not really innocent
now mind you, there are two types of revolution, reformist and violent. A country can become communist without a single drop of blood spilled.
humans still have a fucking concept of personal property.[/QUOTE]
Aah, but since the majority of democratic governments are quite good they shouldn't be brought down?
[QUOTE=Novistador;22957540]If you think Mao Tse Tung was a shining example of capitalism, you clearly have no idea what capitalism is. Next you'll be telling me that Adolf Hitler was really an Anarchist.
Your not going to try and make other people communists too?,
because propaganda was never a major part of communist states.
And I'm sure that all the wealthy people and business owners will be asked politely before their property is redistributed among the workers.
And taxes are always collected voluntarily right?
Lets not mention that those who would spread ideas that might threaten the future establishment of a "pure", "stateless" communist state will only be respectfully asked to hold their tongues.
The point here is that there is no voluntary co operation under communism, only forceful coercion, so your argument of "its not like I'm trying to force you to do anything" is terrible, you want to rob everyone of everything they own.[/QUOTE]
just because communist goverments have done it. it doesent mean that I amd going to do it.
If you guys really want Communism how about you pay a visit to North Korea, gotta love the freedom and excitment they have.
[QUOTE=$SLIMSWITCH$;23004216]If you guys really want Communism how about you pay a visit to North Korea, gotta love the freedom and excitment they have.[/QUOTE]
North Korea isn't Communist. They may call themselves Communist, but they also call themselves a Democratic People's Republic.
Private property is all state controlled rather than commonly controlled; it's a system of state capitalism, not communism.
[QUOTE=Synaesthesia;23004570]North Korea isn't Communist. They may call themselves Communist, but they also call themselves a Democratic People's Republic.
Private property is all state controlled rather than commonly controlled; it's a system of state capitalism, not communism.[/QUOTE]
A common phrase for it is worker's state, in which private property is abolished and everything is owned by the state which is governed by a communist party. It's usually the form of government that forms in the wake of any anti-capitalist revolution when the revolutionaries realize that socialism cannot be democratically managed and that in practice it requires strongmen to force everyone to adhere to one national economic centrally planned philosophy.
[QUOTE=Synaesthesia;23004570]North Korea isn't Communist. They may call themselves Communist, but they also call themselves a Democratic People's Republic.
Private property is all state controlled rather than commonly controlled; it's a system of state capitalism, not communism.[/QUOTE]
Well... Then why the hell do they call themselfs communist? Also if Communism is just so amazing... why isn't there more Communist countries? Oh thats right! It does not work.
[QUOTE=tomcat13;23004748]A common phrase for it is worker's state, in which private property is abolished and everything is owned by the state which is governed by a communist party. It's usually the form of government that forms in the wake of any anti-capitalist revolution when the revolutionaries realize that socialism cannot be democratically managed and that in practice it requires strongmen to force everyone to adhere to one national economic centrally planned philosophy.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you to some extent. In the terminology of Trotsky, a country such as North Korea would be known as a Deformed workers' state. But that doesn't mean that North Korea is communist, or that it is run by a communist party in anything but a nominal form. Like Russia, under Stalin, and China, under Mao, North Korea is a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship, which is a bastardisation of communism, not communism itself.
[QUOTE=$SLIMSWITCH$;23004930]Well... Then why the hell do they call themselfs communist? Also if Communism is just so amazing... why isn't there more Communist countries? Oh thats right! It does not work.[/QUOTE]
I don't know why they call themselves communist, but that doesn't therefore mean that they are. I never said that communism was amazing. Just because it hasn't really worked doesn't mean that it couldn't.
Edit: North Korea doesn't tend to refer to itself as Communist; it tends to refer to itself as a democratic worker's republic under the ideology of Juche, which is equated, by many, to Stalinism. They dropped their semi-Marxist ideology almost 40 years ago, except for some phraseology.
[QUOTE=Synaesthesia;23005159]
I don't know why they call themselves communist, but that doesn't therefore mean that they are. I never said that communism was amazing. Just because it hasn't really worked doesn't mean that it couldn't.[/QUOTE]
But the real question is why one would want it to "work" in the first place.
Why should everyone be equal?
Am I really "exploiting" someone if I give them a job and make a profit out of our relationship?
To both of these questions I would say no
(somethings worth what someone will pay for it, not some value based on how long you worked on it)
But a better point to pull out here is that this thread is trying to argue politics while ignoring all that it rests upon (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics).
No matter how many instances in reality you show a die hard communist of their philosophy failing miserably, and resulting in either dictatorship, economic stagnation, or bloody massacres.
Their not going to change their mind, because to them the goal of a "classless society" where were all "equal" is worth any price , in lives or otherwise.
So you can waste your time arguing with them about whether some specific concrete communist policy would be successful in achieving its ends,
or you can challenge whether that end is just or worth pursuing in the first place, which is the only way you'll ever convince anyone.
[QUOTE=Novistador;23006606]But the real question is why one would want it to "work" in the first place.
Why should everyone be equal?
Am I really "exploiting" someone if I give them a job and make a profit out of our relationship?
To both of these questions I would say no
(somethings worth what someone will pay for it, not some value based on how long you worked on it)
But a better point to pull out here is that this thread is trying to argue politics while ignoring all that it rests upon (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics).
No matter how many instances in reality you show a die hard communist of their philosophy failing miserably, and resulting in either dictatorship, economic stagnation, or bloody massacres.
Their not going to change their mind, because to them the goal of a "classless society" where were all "equal" is worth any price , in lives or otherwise.
So you can waste your time arguing with them about whether some specific concrete communist policy would be successful in achieving its ends,
or you can challenge whether that end is just or worth pursuing in the first place, which is the only way you'll ever convince anyone.[/QUOTE]
Just to stress the point, I am not a Communist, if it happens to seem to anyone that I am. Communism isn't an ideal that I strive for, but I can understand why people do.
The aim of Communism isn't to make everyone equal as such, but to remove the great inequality that is a large by-product of Capitalism. Marx was actually against everyone being paid the same wage, which is something a lot of anticommunists don't realise.
Regarding the second question, I would consider that relationship to be an example of exploitation, but it's an integral part of the capitalist system and has become the norm.
You are right by saying that this thread is focusing on just the politics and none of the real ideology, but I would say that you are wrong in the statement following, as all those things that you list were the results of the bastardisations of Communism and the ideas of Marx, (as it is, I presume, the 'communist' regimes in China/Russia/North Korea/Cuba e.t.c, that you are alluding to).
Communists and Socialists are more often than not the harshest critics of those regimes, and don't want to be associated with them, as they are gross misrepresentations of what they believe. Communists don't typically believe that a classless society is worth ANY price, in lives or otherwise (which isn't to say that there aren't Communists that do believe that), but many would put their lives on the line for such a cause.
Regarding your last statement: Just challenging something won't make someone change their mind, be it by exposing failure, or by questioning the justifiability, or worth, of an end's pursuit, as the end, and the probability of success thereof, would have to be focused on, and so if all Communist's really believed that the 'end' of a classless society is worth any means, as you say, then just challenging the end itself will do nothing by way of swaying their opinion - especially as the worth of an idea is just that, an opinion.
I don't see any problem with the second question really.
I mean there are different kinds of people where some people strive to be on the top and then there are the people who are okay living their lives under a decent enough wage under those people. They're not really being taken advantage of if everyone gets what they want.
Novistador's post is incredibly dumb. Gotta love the self-championed anti-communists that 'show us up'
Why should everyone be equal?
I think a better question is why shouldn't everyone be equal? Why should a small elite hold most of the wealth of an entire body of people?
Not like it matters anyway. This question isn't central to marxism anyway.
Do I exploit someone if I give them a job and profit from it?
I suggest you read Wage labor & and capital. I'm on my phone and not about explain the whole LTV to someone.
I could probably agree this thread's discussion is based on metaphysics and ethics. But if you're saying this is what marxism is based on you only show a strong ignorance of it.
I could show you, the 'die-hard' liberal, how your system fails and dissolves into dictatorship, economic stagnation, and bloody massacre. I could also disprove some of these things' relationship or communism as nothing short of cold war propaganda.
Challenge that end please. I'd like to see another arrogant liberal fail at it, as hard as he believes communism does haha.
People from countries which were against the Soviet Union during the Cold War are usually brainwashed with anti-socialist and anti-communist propaganda - 'communism is evil' and 'communism and socialism are the same' is common sense to them.
Capitalism has done a lot of damage to the mankind but communism isn't executed properly and turns into a corrupt dictatorship.
We need a better system, I suggest a science and rationalism based one (not a greed and religion based one, like capitalism in most of the countries) - focusing on science and technology and using it for benefit of humanity, which would soon set it free from labor, dramatically increase life expectancy, fight most of the diseases and increase the human likehood of survival by spreading into space.
Technically families are communist a group of people working together to support each other.
Communism with a group of 8 or less people works the more people you add the harder it gets.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.