• Book review of the communist manifesto
    304 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Warhol;23020463]What does socialism have to do with this? dude capitalism capital capital = money christ...[/QUOTE] And trotsky has degenerated into incoherent insults and trolling again, what a surprise. just get permabanned again so we can get this over with.
the mongol empire was in fact very peaceful and tolerant, and OP is stupid
[QUOTE=Novistador;23020509]And trotsky has degenerated into incoherent insults and trolling again, what a surprise. just get permabanned again so we can get this over with.[/QUOTE] capital isn't part of capitalism? uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh wot
[QUOTE=Warhol;23012524]north korea isn't communist [editline]09:11PM[/editline] yeah, that is in no way Marxist.[/QUOTE] Redistribution of wealth, abolishing private ownership of the means of production, and trying to destroy class divisions is in no way related to marxism? You gotta tell me what you're smoking, because it must be some pretty good shit if you still fail to see the connection. [quote]Ok, fine, call it a workers states. It's not communist.[/quote] How about this, it was a workers state created by Marxists-Leninist and ruled by Communists who happened to build giant statues of Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels all over the place, banned religion, abolished private property, and made The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital required reading for all citizens. They thought communism was a great idea, but don't you dare call it communist! [B]Nazi Germany was not fascist, it was a totalitarian regime created by National Socialists and ruled by them. But it was not fascism! [/B] That's what you sound like right now. [quote]Just because one factor of communism is similar to a factor in a workers states, does that mean it's the fucking theory itself. Are you willing to tell me since abortions were legal in Nazi Germany, any system that allows abortion is now mirrored to Nazism? your shitty logic eludes me and no, lol, that's not how Socialism works. Then again, your image of the world is pretty black and white, you're either American Capitalist or a fucking pinko dictatorship.[/quote]Just because Nazi Germany shared some common factors with fascism doesn't make it fascist. This is essentially the argument you are making. Just trying to make you understand how retarded it sounds to people who aren't historical revisionists, like you seem to be. North Korea, the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and countless other states were founded by Marxists who believed that socialism was a realistic goal and that it would eventually lead to communism. Don't deny this. National Socialist Germany, The Italian Social Republic, The Kingdom of Spain, and countless other authoritarian governments were founded by fascists who believed that capitalism and communism were both pipe dreams and that only by expelling all foreigners and by creating a society in which only the strong survived and the weak were done away with, that they could create a better society. Nazi Germany was founded by fascists. The Soviet Union was founded by communists. It's as simple as that. You can argue all day as to whether or not you think they were "doing it right" but the fact remains that they were communists who believed in communism. In the end it doesn't matter. All totalitarian systems end up the same way. They seek to centralize all power and take from individuals for the benefit of the collective. And every time it leads to shit. All authoritarian goverments begin with economic planning. You see with a free market, economic power is decentralized amongst many players within the economy. No one person actually owns the pie. It is divided amongst many people who all have conflicting interests, so one group rarely wields enough power to abuse it. But when this power becomes centralized and controlled by one single entity, then it becomes infinitely more dangerous. All economic planning eventually requires a consolidation of power over the economy. What Marxists would call a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in which all economic power is in theory manifested in the working class, but in reality it is manifested in the control of a party of communists who have formed a vanguard party to "defend the revolution" against the "bourgeois counter-revolutionaries." You want a really good book to read? One that wasn't written in the 1800s by a fat bearded man being chased by creditors and still thought the labor theory of value was legit? Read some Friedrich von Hayek. Here have a sample. [quote=Friedrich von Hayek]In order to achieve their ends the planners must create power – power over men wielded by other men – of a magnitude never before known. Their success will depend on the extent to which they achieve such power. Democracy is an obstacle to this suppression of freedom which the centralized direction of economic activity requires. Hence arises the clash between planning and democracy. Many socialists have the tragic illusion that by depriving private individuals of the power they possess in an individualist system, and transferring this power to society, they thereby extinguish power. What they overlook is that by concentrating power so that it can be used in the service of a single plan, it is not merely transformed, but infinitely heightened. By uniting in the hands of some single body power formerly exercised independently by many, an amount of power is created infinitely greater than any that existed before, so much more far-reaching as almost to be different in kind. It is entirely fallacious to argue that the great power exercised by a central planning board would be ‘no greater than the power collectively exercised by private boards of directors’. There is, in a competitive society, nobody who can exercise even a fraction of the power which a socialist planning board would posses. To decentralize power is to reduce the absolute amount of power, and the competitive system is the only system designed to minimize the power exercised by man over man. Who can seriously doubt that the power which a millionaire, who may be my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest bureaucrat possesses who wields the coercive power of the state and on whose discretion it depends how I am allowed to live and work? In every real sense a badly paid unskilled workman in this country has more freedom to shape his life than many an employer in Germany or a much better paid engineer or manager in Russia. If he wants to change his job or the place where he lives, if he wants to profess certain views or spend his leisure in a particular way, he faces no absolute impediments. There are no dangers to bodily security and freedom that confine him by brute force to the task and environment to which a superior has assigned him. Our generation has forgotten that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves. When all the means of production are vested in a single hand, whether it be nominally that of ‘society’ as a whole or that of a dictator, whoever exercises this control has complete power over us. In the hands of private individuals, what is called economic power can be an instrument of coercion, but it is never control over the whole life of a person. But when economic power is centralized as an instrument of political power it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery.[/quote]
if a person subscribes to a theory, and they are running the country, does that mean the country is also subscribed to that theory? [editline]04:41AM[/editline] dude your logic is terrible. [editline]04:42AM[/editline] and you still never quoted marx
[QUOTE=Warhol;23021633]if a person subscribes to a theory, and they are running the country, does that mean the country is also subscribed to that theory? [editline]04:41AM[/editline] dude your logic is terrible. [editline]04:42AM[/editline] and you still never quoted marx[/QUOTE] Jesus. Fucking. Christ. [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"[/quote][quote]The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. -Karl Marx[/quote]It is right fucking there. Communism is the abolition of private property. Right from the fucking horses mouth. I don't know how i can make this any clearer for you, it's been right in front of you for two pages and you still refuse to read it. It's in chapter fucking two of the communist manifesto, in fact you can find it in the VERY SAME FUCKING LINK YOU TOLD ME TO READ. If you had read the very chapter you had linked me to, you would have fucking seen it. Christ. I'm afraid you may be beyond reasoning with.
that's 1/3
[QUOTE=Warhol;23022146]that's 1/3[/QUOTE] So basically you have no response. [quote]"redistribute land and capital" (BTW, there is no capital in communism)[/quote]first of all, how is there no capital in communism? second of all, marx saw the appropriation of land and redistribution as essential [quote]Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.[/quote] Right from the 10 point program for communism that Marx and Engels themselves wrote. Nationalization of land, i.e redistributing it from private hands and into public hands. [quote]"forcing landowners off their land"[/quote] Well golly gee, I wonder how the nice old communists are going to get the evil "bourgeoisie" to give up their land? Surely they will just ask nicely for it, right?
how is there no capit- come the fuck on, if you knew ANYTHING about marxist theory you would know money is not part of it.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23023366]how is there no capit- come the fuck on, if you knew ANYTHING about marxist theory you would know money is not part of it.[/QUOTE] Well first of all, money and capital are different concepts. Money is a commodity of a mutually agreed upon value, whereas capital is the actual land, factories, and machines that are used to produce everything in an economy. Money is currency. Capital is land and the means of production. Money is used to buy and trade capital, but Capital is not money. I'm beginning to wonder if you have actually read any economics at all, let alone this little 19th century pamphlet you are defending so dearly. So tell me, how will land, factories, and other means of production cease to exist in communism?
[QUOTE=Warhol;23019501]The idealist lens, which is bullshit[/quote] :cawg: You're the communist, bud. You have to be a balanced mix of extremely fucking optimistic and extremely fucking stupid to think communism in any way, shape, or form will ever exist for as long as capitalism can. [QUOTE] [editline]02:24AM[/editline] btw, your massive walls of text are nothing but redundant shit[/QUOTE] :irony: [editline]01:00AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Warhol;23020463]What does socialism have to do with this? dude capitalism capital capital = money christ...[/QUOTE] You are actually retarded now
[QUOTE=Conscript;23017163]God you can be a fucking idiot sometimes earthen. But that's why I love you. Prove that is the amount he deserves. The rest of your post doesn't. 'Anyone can do it' doesn't disprove the fact that he is forced to work longer then he needs to to live and isn't even paid for the time. I'll just ignore this bit because you probably want me to :) (joking) So then what are you telling me here? that only the modern, european countries are capitalist? Or are you admitting you were wrong in your own way? Or wait, I know, is it that Diem is the only pro-capitalist dictator ever?[/QUOTE] In a modern capitalist society the majority of people don't have to work excessive hours and by modern I mean Europe and the US/Canada. Naturally there are extremes of poverty in developed nations wherein people have to take on many jobs. But then again quite a lot of those people have other socially related worries... i.e. single mother, losing everything, lack of proper education, oppression by certain groups, etc... I don't see who you can't understand that in a capitalist economy the majority of the time everybody gets the amount of money they deserve for their work. In communism it wouldn't matter how long you work, you still get the same amount of money, therefore there is no incentive to work overtime. Basically you go from one extreme that you were describing to another extreme. What I meant by capitalist was modern European countries, you have countries like Somalia that are simply anarcho-capitalism. You failed to realize my note about social circumstances. Name one European country that has gone from modern, developed capitalism to dictatorship. Of course for you all the evil capitalists are dictators because they don't give away their hard-earned money (most of the time hard-earned) to people who do work that anyone can do... [editline]08:39AM[/editline] [QUOTE=emPiRe14;23017176]What's your opinion on monopolies.[/QUOTE] They're wrong, but in a modern capitalist society, monopolies are almost impossible. Somebody will always offer something with different features, specs, cost, etc... [editline]08:40AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Warhol;23018794]right, earthen, the guy who doesn't know what the FUCK communism is because of his anti-soviet angst capital and trade are two very different things. [editline]01:50AM[/editline] you missed the point, you asked where capitalism has dissolved into despotism. he gave a ton of examples [editline]01:51AM[/editline] wait, wait, wait... are you implying Franco was not a dictator?[/QUOTE] Franco was a dictator, but once again difficult social circumstances and A FUCKING CIVIL WAR Wait so hating the soviet union is now angst? nice one dipshit. Fine let me restate my statement then: Capitalism and agriculture are the bases of civilization. Also Engels came from a rich family, pretty fucking ironic. [editline]08:44AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=NOD Engineer;22929335]Thread music: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U06jlgpMtQs&feature=related[/media][/QUOTE] Regardless of how evil the USSR was, that song still sounds really awesome.
[QUOTE=tomcat13;23024075]Well first of all, money and capital are different concepts. Money is a commodity of a mutually agreed upon value, whereas capital is the actual land, factories, and machines that are used to produce everything in an economy. Money is currency. Capital is land and the means of production. Money is used to buy and trade capital, but Capital is not money. I'm beginning to wonder if you have actually read any economics at all, let alone this little 19th century pamphlet you are defending so dearly. So tell me, how will land, factories, and other means of production cease to exist in communism?[/QUOTE] Communism is the abolishment of Private Property, I.e. The Bourgeois means of production. The land, factories and the means of production won't cease to exist, they will just be transferred into the hands of the proletariat in order to be used for the benefit of the many, rather than the few. Capital is the elements of production from which an income is derived, I.e. Profit. But, In Communism there would be no profit so those things would cease to be capital.
[QUOTE=Synaesthesia;23025734]Communism is the abolishment of Private Property, I.e. The Bourgeois means of production. The land, factories and the means of production won't cease to exist, they will just be transferred into the hands of the proletariat in order to be used for the benefit of the many, rather than the few. Capital is the elements of production from which an income is derived, I.e. Profit. But, In Communism there would be no profit so those things would cease to be capital.[/QUOTE] They would still be capital. They would simply change who controls it. In theory it would be democratically governed by workers but in reality it always leads to nationalization and government control through central planning. In that way work ceases to be something you do to earn money, and becomes something you have to do or else you are thrown in prison. That has always been the difference between the Soviet Union, PRC, North Korea, and all other communist ruled countries. In a free market, you don't show up to work, you get fired. In a controlled market, you don't work, the police show up at your door and ask why you were not fulfilling your "duty "to society.
[QUOTE=tomcat13;23047620]They would still be capital. They would simply change who controls it. In theory it would be democratically governed by workers but in reality it always leads to nationalization and government control through central planning. In that way work ceases to be something you do to earn money, and becomes something you have to do or else you are thrown in prison. That has always been the difference between the Soviet Union, PRC, North Korea, and all other communist ruled countries. In a free market, you don't show up to work, you get fired. In a controlled market, you don't work, the police show up at your door and ask why you were not fulfilling your "duty "to society.[/QUOTE] They would still be capital in the sense of this definition... [QUOTE]The factors of production used to create goods or services that are not themselves significantly consumed [/QUOTE] But the salient definition, and the one that represents the extension from capital to Capitalism, is... [QUOTE]Cash or goods used to generate income[/QUOTE] There would be no income as there would be no money, nor would there be profits, so it would cease to be capital in that sense. Yes, it is supposed to be democratically governed by the workers, but it doesn't necessarily ALWAYS lead to that which you say it does, it just always has, at the hands of despots - there is a difference. Although, one of the main issues that I have with Communism, is that it DOES have a high risk of ending up being exploited and becoming something like Stalinism. Work wouldn't be something that you would do for money anyway, as there would be none. You would give what you could in the way of work (unless you were physically unable), and in return you would receive that which you need. I prefer, but would still reject the title of "communist-ruled countries"; Stalin and Kim Jong-Il, didn't/don't give a shit about the working class, the very people that they would give priority over if they were indeed Communist. Communism is the emancipation of the working class, not the liquidation thereof.
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;22929135]True Communism will never work. Here are two reasons why: 1. People and animals are born with materialistic feelings. 2. Everytime someone says Communism can work, they always say things like: "if people were fair and kind to each other it could work" or "if people simply took what they needed rather then what they wanted" or "if people were smart enough to see that Communism is complete fairness". Those same "if's" can apply to any Government/Economic system. Humanity will never be perfect and that's what Communism requires. A perfect society. Communism can never work, because there were always be a group of people who want more, or people who don't work as hard and still get paid what hard-workers do. [B]Also: [/B]The USSR was not "evil", nor is Canada some freedom-loving land of perfect Communism.[/QUOTE] At the moment communism is a pipe dream by a few people. It just needs time.
[QUOTE=Kingy_who;23051863]At the moment communism is a pipe dream by a few people. It just needs time.[/QUOTE] Nah, no sane person wants communism. I'd rather live in a capitalist society where I can do as I please, work where I please and buy what I want.
[QUOTE=Synaesthesia;23050711]They would still be capital in the sense of this definition... But the salient definition, and the one that represents the extension from capital to Capitalism, is... There would be no income as there would be no money, nor would there be profits, so it would cease to be capital in that sense. [/QUOTE] There would still be land. There would still be factories. There would still be machinery and tools used to produce things. There would still be capital. The only difference is communists want this capital to be controlled by the working class. That is what they mean by abolishing private property. Taking these things and changing who controls them. They don't want to destroy capital, there will still be fucking capital they just want to change who controls the capital. Guess who they want to control it? They do. Yep, imagine that. Why is it that whenever somebody comes up with a magical idea to reorganize society and make it better, they always fail to mention that they plan on putting themselves in charge of it all? There would be no currency? If you think an economy with 8 billion people all buying, selling, and trading things thousands of times per second can possibly exist without some form of currency or mutually agreed upon object of trading value, then you are painfully naive i'm afraid. Spot trades only work in small communities. Large economies with many buyers and sellers require money. It's as simple as that. That you seem to think billions of people can trade for what they want exclusively through spot trades is pretty extraordinary to say the least. Profit is nothing more than what you get when you subtract costs from revenue. It exists in every transaction and trade. If you trade with somebody, and the revenue you gain from that trade is less than what it cost you, then you have effectively lost, and that trade did not help you at all, it hurt you. If you engage in a transaction in which your revenue is the exact same amount as your costs, then are just breaking even, and you are still no better off than you would have been had you never engaged in that trade at all. Hence, everybody who engages in any sort of transaction seeks to make a profit. They want to gain something out of it, otherwise why would they do it at all? [quote]Yes, it is supposed to be democratically governed by the workers, but it doesn't necessarily ALWAYS lead to that which you say it does, it just always has, at the hands of despots - there is a difference. Although, one of the main issues that I have with Communism, is that it DOES have a high risk of ending up being exploited and becoming something like Stalinism.[/quote] The reason why it always leads to totalitarianism is because by transferring power to "the proletariat" the commies effectively consolidate power under the command of one group of economic planners. It's a consolidation of economic power. Imagine the power that a multinational corporation has and magnify it tenfold. They create a power that is so easily abused and controlled and to top it all off, one that operates not based on what makes economic sense, but on what the controllers believe [I]should[/I] be done. Often with devastating consequences. [quote]Work wouldn't be something that you would do for money anyway, as there would be none. You would give what you could in the way of work (unless you were physically unable), and in return you would receive that which you need. [/quote] By who? Who would you trade with to get what you need? What would you trade with them? What if they don't want what you have to offer? What if you don't want what they have to offer? How can you offer them alternatives if there is no currency? This is the part where communists are so extremely vague that I can't help but notice that even they don't even seem to truly understand how their own economic system is going to operate. [quote]I prefer, but would still reject the title of "communist-ruled countries"; Stalin and Kim Jong-Il, didn't/don't give a shit about the working class, the very people that they would give priority over if they were indeed Communist. Communism is the emancipation of the working class, not the liquidation thereof.[/quote] They certainly did do much to eliminate the struggle between the bourgoisie and the proletariat. All the rich are in jail or dead, everybody else is dirt poor, meanwhile they live in huge communist party-only complexes where they spend all their time ranting about how evil capitalism is.
[QUOTE=Novistador;22932089]however your implication seems to be that the state is necessary to keep people from being too free. I contend the opposite, that government is necessary for the sole purpose of protecting freedom, of defending individual rights through the use of retaliatory force. The state exists to expel force from human relations, to ensure that they are free from force, or the threat thereof. The state that occurs when force is absent, and men interact by voluntary agreement as opposed to physical coercion is known as freedom. A government that takes on the job of protecting you from your freedom is called dictatorship.[/QUOTE] This is what I believe our founding fathers wanted in America.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23020463]What does socialism have to do with this? dude capitalism capital capital = money christ...[/QUOTE] capital = anything of use value or worth value. Probably the first paragraph in "Das Kapital" explains this.
How old are you Proboards? What have you read about economics?.
Proboards banme'd :w00t::banjo::derp::arghfist::downs::c00lbert: I'll never be able to call him out for [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=960957]saying guns suck[/url] even though without them none of those brilliant Communist minds would have been able to dictate anything.
Oh Proboards why... First Wakka and now him. Facepunch is running out of good Communists. :smithicide:
[QUOTE=Novistador;23019575]Sorry but your wrong. Capitalism is every bit as much a social system as communism is, at least Capitalism properly defined and protecting individual rights. When you have a system of government that protects individual rights, you have Capitalism, Laissez-faire at least. What people decide to do with their rights is their own business. Democracy can be every bit as oppressive as dictatorship, and the fact that you can have social democracy proves this. If one man violates anothers rights, its no different than if 100% of his countrymen vote to violate that mans rights. Something is not just merely because a majority of people vote to do it. Democratic elections are a fine way to choose officials but as a principle of government can be every bit as tyrannical as dictatorship. [/QUOTE] um, no. capitalism is an economic theory. this is a fact. it has nothing to do with government and or life. sure, stable. prosperous, and arguably free governments are conductive to capitalism, but that doesn't change facts. and the fact you think social democracy is oppressive and laissez-faire democracy protects individual life is the most absurd thing i've ever heard. are you joking or trolling or what? [editline]11:53PM[/editline] tomcat i'm kinda dissapointed you just ignored my last post not going to lie
If I'm a doctor, I don't want to be payed the same as a janitor.
[QUOTE=Levithan;23068480]If I'm a doctor, I don't want to be payed the same as a janitor.[/QUOTE] If I'm a rocket scientist, why the [i]fuck[/i] should I be payed the same as a janitor? Or a guy that pulls levers all day? Who the fuck can tell me my job deserves the same rewards that a lawnscaper gets? Who the fuck can tell me I get the same benefits as a taste-tester? Hell, I'd rather have a caste system then be a commie.
[QUOTE=Chippay;23067663]um, no. capitalism is an economic theory. this is a fact. it has nothing to do with government and or life. sure, stable. prosperous, and arguably free governments are conductive to capitalism, but that doesn't change facts. and the fact you think social democracy is oppressive and laissez-faire democracy protects individual life is the most absurd thing i've ever heard. are you joking or trolling or what? [editline]11:53PM[/editline] tomcat i'm kinda dissapointed you just ignored my last post not going to lie[/QUOTE] Thing is the protection of the individual is subjective.
[QUOTE=archie200034;22928081]communism is awful and if you even like it remotely you are awful :colbert: and that book is pretty awful too[/QUOTE] "Ignorant, you, are." It's a puzzle, work on it.
I think that everything that affects the wellbeing of the society on a significant level (including farms and factories etc.) should be controlled collectively. Social classes, national identity, countries and cultural values should be abolished but everything that doesn't touch the wellbeing of the society should be able to be privately owned. There should be no government but a council - all experienced scientists, engineers, architects, doctors ETC. should decide what changes should be made. As much liberty as possible should be attained.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.