Communism.

[Vlerchan]

Note: I know the last Communism thread was locked. I'm not going to allow for the same carry-on to happen in this one. I'll ask people to leave if they're not posting rational arguments or making relevant points to the topic at hand.

Now, with that warning out of the way, I'll begin by making it clear that I'm not actually a Marxist. I find Leftist thought interesting however, and am generally horrified that it gets slandered so harshly by users - on this board, and others - that are, honestly, completely uneducated about the whole line of thought - it'll be a dictatorship!; They'll take all my stuff!; We'll all die!!1!; being the most common arguments. They're all false, mind you, but I highly doubt we'll ever see an end to them. I created this thread in the hope it would allow me to debunk rational arguments and allow me to better educate the people about the current Communist movement - of which I am not a part of.

So shoot. Tell me why you don't believe Communism - or Market Socialism, if anyone wishes - will work and I'll do my best to ease you doubts.

[britishboy]

Ok for communism to succeed every single person must follow orders like ants, most people like success and so will resist, because these people cant exist they will be forced into it, it best intimated into it, at worst executed.

[Miserabilia]

For communism to work, you need controll over people. And from needing controll over people often comes dictatorship.

[Stronk Serb]

A communist government should be all epual. That way there will be no dictatorship

[Vlerchan]

Ok for communism to succeed every single person must follow orders like ants [...]
That's called State Capitalism. Please research Communism - which is a stateless, non-hierarchal society - before making any more baseless claims.

[...]most people like success and so will resist[...]
You can still be successful in a Communist society. It simply depends on how you define success. I'd argue that 14 years of pro-Capitalist propaganda has simply twisted your mind into believing that success is indicated by material gain, which it is not. Success is reaching a position in society that you are contented with, and Communism gives you all the tools to do just that.

because these people cant exist they will be forced into it, it best intimated into it, at worst executed.
Ignoring the fact that somebody can't be executed into working, I've heard speak from Communists that perhaps it would be best not to force people into work and it ought to be their right to refuse work - these are anarcho-communists, mind you, Leninists have a 'work or starve' standpoint which I don't agree with. Beside the fact that I don't believe that many would actually refuse work for long - sitting around soon becomes dull - we've already entered a stage in economic development were we don't actually need a huge amount of people working. A large percentage of our work-force is employed in the (I meant marginal employment here:/) - employment that I believe will cease to exist in a Communist society - and are employed there because it is simply the alternative to starving or in management which is effectively supervision of those in the service sector. There's many people who are employed for the sake of being employed.

Think about it this way: 1000 years ago we had 90% working in agriculture to feed the top 10%. Now I'd say it's more like 3% feeding 97%. The introduction of automation has helped achieve this, and over the next 40 years I feel that the number actually needed to work will dwindle even more. It's corporations that are actually slowing this process down. An increase in automation will lead to an increase in unemployment and consequently a decrease in consumption and profits.


For communism to work, you need controll over people. And from needing controll over people often comes dictatorship.
Again, I'll ask that people differentiate between State Capitalism and Communism. In Communism there is no state and therefore there is no dictator.

There's also no need to control people. If a job is needed then that'll become self-evident to society. A doctor would practice medicine because (s)he wants to or feels it is necessary, and a bin-man will collect bins because (s)he wants to or feels it's necessary. I believe though that we'll have a lot more of the former, and a lot less of the latter. To expand on what I said to BritishBoy I actually believe that much of the service sector - a sector that provides jobs that are in which fundamentally degrading - will break-up in a Communist society, as people seek to become involved in more fulfilling work.

[Harry Smith]

Ok for communism to succeed every single person must follow orders like ants, most people like success and so will resist, because these people cant exist they will be forced into it, it best intimated into it, at worst executed.

It could be argued that people have to follow orders in all society- they're called laws.... Millions of people have been executed in capitalist societies for not following the laws, heck people have been executed in the US for not following orders- the bank robber was trying to be successful wasn't he?

But back to the OP the problem I see with communism is looking at the Leninist approach which was largely urban based I can see why it was popular but now workers have a lot more protection in the work place for example a minimum wage, a welfare system and protection from unfair dismal.

That's my problem with communism- it's about 70 years out of date, and the majority of problems with workers can be solved with socialism

[Vlerchan]

But back to the OP the problem I see with communism is looking at the Leninist approach which was largely urban based I can see why it was popular [...] That's my problem with communism- it's about 70 years out of date, and the majority of problems with workers can be solved with socialism
It could be easily argued that it's more relevant than ever now - particularly the non-Leninist variant, but Marxist-Leninism[1] is still relevant, too. As I've already pointed out a large part of our workforce is employed in the service sector, work that is - as perceived by many Communists - infinitely more degrading than blue-collar work[2], which has largely been exported to East Asia. The increase in automation has also led many Communists to conclude that by 2050 Communism may actually be the only rational course of action for the majority to take

[1]: I strongly disagree with it, though. Marxist-Leninism is still outdated (and barbaric), regardless of how well I - or anyone else - can justify its application to the 21st Century.
[2]: Degrading is highly subjective here. Lots of my family work - and have worked - in what are traditionally working class positions. They live - and have lived - pretty happy lives

[...]but now workers have a lot more protection in the work place for example a minimum wage, a welfare system and protection from unfair dismal.
This is largely what I believe. I've seen people argue that since the mid-eighties we've undergone what is the systematic dismantlement of the Welfare State - which there is some amount of truth in - and a move towards 'Free-er' Capitalism, but the recent recession, which resulted from such movements, will halt the movement, I believe. Though this thread is more about dispelling the stigma associated with Communism than getting my own opinion across.

[Harry Smith]

It could be easily argued that it's more relevant than ever now - particularly the non-Leninist variant, but Marxist-Leninism is still relevant, too. As I've already pointed out a large part of our workforce is employed in the service sector, work that is - as perceived by many Communists - infinitely more degrading than blue-collar work[1], which has largely been exported to East Asia. The increase in automation has also led many Communists to conclude that by 2050 Communism may actually be the only rational course of action for the majority to take

[1]: Degrading is highly subjective here. Lots of my family work - and have worked - in what are traditionally working class positions. They live - and have lived - pretty happy lives.


This is largely what I believe. I've seen people argue that since the mid-eighties we've undergone what is the systematic dismantlement of the Welfare State - which there is some amount of truth in - and a move towards 'Free-er' Capitalism, but the recent recession, which resulted from such movements, will halt the movement, I believe. Though this thread is more about dispelling the stigma associated with Communism than getting my own opinion across.

The problem is that service jobs are really the backbone of our economy, and as we develop further we're only going to get more service jobs being created. But I agree that they do have a very ugly side- just look at internships- you've got university leavers being used as free slave labour just to try and get a job.

Even these service jobs are now getting exported to India so it will be very interesting to see what happens in 40 years time

[Miserabilia]

That's called State Capitalism. Please research Communism - which is a stateless, non-hierarchal society - before making any more baseless claims.


You can still be successful in a Communist society. It simply depends on how you define success. I'd argue that 14 years of pro-Capitalist propaganda has simply twisted your mind into believing that success is indicated by material gain, which it is not. Success is reaching a position in society that you are contented with, and Communism gives you all the tools to do just that.


Ignoring the fact that somebody can't be executed into working, I've heard speak from Communists that perhaps it would be best not to force people into work and it ought to be their right to refuse work - these are anarcho-communists, mind you, Leninists have a 'work or starve' standpoint which I don't agree with. Beside the fact that I don't believe that many would actually refuse work for long - sitting around soon becomes dull - we've already entered a stage in economic development were we don't actually need a huge amount of people working. A large percentage of our work-force is employed in the service sector - employment that I believe will cease to exist in a Communist society - and are employed there because it is simply the alternative to starving or in management which is effectively supervision of those in the service sector. There's many people who are employed for the sake of being employed.

Think about it this way: 1000 years ago we had 90% working in agriculture to feed the top 10%. Now I'd say it's more like 3% feeding 97%. The introduction of automation has helped achieve this, and over the next 40 years I feel that the number actually needed to work will dwindle even more. It's corporations that are actually slowing this process down. An increase in automation will lead to an increase in unemployment and consequently a decrease in consumption and profits.



Again, I'll ask that people differentiate between State Capitalism and Communism. In Communism there is no state and therefore there is no dictator.

There's also no need to control people. If a job is needed then that'll become self-evident to society. A doctor would practice medicine because (s)he wants to or feels it is necessary, and a bin-man will collect bins because (s)he wants to or feels it's necessary. I believe though that we'll have a lot more of the former, and a lot less of the latter. To expand on what I said to BritishBoy I actually believe that much of the service sector - a sector that provides jobs that are in which fundamentally degrading - will break-up in a Communist society, as people seek to become involved in more fulfilling work.

you need controll and state in order to make the system work because what are they gonna do if people just do whatever the f*** they want? Just make thousands of ilegal dollars euros pounds whatever

[britishboy]

Beside the fact that I don't believe that many would actually refuse work for long - sitting around soon becomes dull - we've already entered a stage in economic development were we don't actually need a huge amount of people working. A large percentage of our work-force is employed in the service sector - employment that I believe will cease to exist in a Communist society - and are employed there because it is simply the alternative to starving or in management which is effectively supervision of those in the service sector. There's many people who are employed for the sake of being employed.


nobody pays people money for work they don't need doing

the service sector is hotels and restaurants, are they going to go? because that would be another reason to hate communism, no freedom, no luxuries

[Harry Smith]

nobody pays people money for work they don't need doing

the service sector is hotels and restaurants, are they going to go? because that would be another reason to hate communism, no freedom, no luxuries

Oh wow- the service section isn't just hotels and restaurants. It's teachers, doctors, nurses, office workers, receptionists, bus drivers and civil servants. It's not literally just people who serve food... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_sector_of_the_economy

These jobs are already eroding as it is due to outsourcing- why would BT employ people here when they're millions of educated people in India happy to work for a lot less.

Luxuries differ from person to person, a luxury to a person in china is very different to someone from the UK. Under the beautiful capitalist system of the US millions of farm workers in mexico are being denied freedom through NAFTA.

One way in which I agree with communists is how the west has some crazy ideas about freedom- look at Britain for example- we can't vote for our head of state, we can't vote for our commander in chief and we've given the US government a free hand to read our emails

[Vlerchan]

The problem is that service jobs are really the backbone of our economy, and as we develop further we're only going to get more service jobs being created.
The problem most modern Communists have is that much of the service sectors employment - bin-men, burger-flippers, etc., - are entirely needless, and only exist to employ for the sake of employment. They - and I, to an extent - believe it's wrong that we've built our economies in such a manner that one is forced to involve themselves in employment that is so intuitively distasteful that the only way they can be compelled to do it is to offer them a choice between working and starving.

Even these service jobs are now getting exported to India so it will be very interesting to see what happens in 40 years time
It's interesting, yeah. But unlike some Communists I'm not prepared to structure my whole ideology around the possibility:/

you need controll and state in order to make the system work because what are they gonna do if people just do whatever the f*** they want?
There will be control. The control just wouldn't be exerted by a top-down hierarchal organisation such as the state. I'm unsure why you'd think coercion is needed in order to make individuals act. As I've said: if a job is self-evidently necessary then individuals will make sure it's done. Example: One would clean the streets because they don't want to live in their own filth. Then, if enough like-minded individuals got together one could form a co-operative that would involve itself in cleaning the streets - say, one does it on Monday, and a friend on Wednesday, etc. In my own town we've a voluntary organisation who cleans the street for the same reason I outlined above.

Just make thousands of ilegal dollars euros pounds whatever
There'd be no such thing as dollars in a Communist system since private ownership is effectively abolished.

[...]the service sector is hotels and restaurants, are they going to go? because that would be another reason to hate communism, no freedom, no luxuries
I define the service sector as any profession in which one involves himself in serving others - bus drivers, bin-men, burger-flippers all being key examples. I suppose if enough people feel that such employment is needed then they're free to trade their services, but - strangely, perhaps - I can't see many finding burger-flipping to be a particularly fulfilling form of employment. Can you?

I'm also confused how being unable to find an individual to cook your dinner constitutes as an attack on your freedom. If restaurateur-ing suddenly became unprofitable in our Capitalist system I can assure you that you'd have the same difficulty in finding someone to cook your dinner. That's the key difference between a Communist and Capitalist economy: Capitalist economies are built up around private interests whilst a Communist society is built up around ones own personal incentives and goals. You cook because you want to cook, not because someone is paying you.

[britishboy]

.
I define the service sector as any profession in which one involves himself in serving others - bus drivers, bin-men, burger-flippers all being key examples. I suppose if enough people feel that such employment is needed then they're free to trade their services, but - strangely, perhaps - I can't see many finding burger-flipping to be a particularly fulfilling form of employment. Can you?

I'm also confused how being unable to find an individual to cook your dinner constitutes as an attack on your freedom. If restaurateur-ing suddenly became unprofitable in our Capitalist system I can assure you that you'd have the same difficulty in finding someone to cook your dinner. That's the key difference between a Communist and Capitalist economy: Capitalist economies are built up around private interests whilst a Communist society is built up around ones own personal incentives and goals. You cook because you want to cook, not because someone is paying you.

no but burger flippers are needed, so are cleaners and bin men, this is the problem with communist societies, there are not enough perfect jobs for the population, we need people to do bad jobs. what if I dont want to cook? or if I want a meal I cant cook

[Vlerchan]

no but burger flippers are needed, so are cleaners and bin men, this is the problem with communist societies, there are not enough perfect jobs for the population, we need people to do bad jobs.
What?

You need someone to clean your house? You need someone to flip your burger? You don't need any of that, but our economy has created a setting in which people do need to work in those jobs to avoid starvation. There's no actual urgent need for these 'bad' jobs. You're being absolutely ridiculous.

what if I dont want to cook? or if I want a meal I cant cook
There's all sorts of informal arrangements you could make without threatening someone with starvation - figuratively here - in order to force them into a fundamentally degrading position. I outlined one in my previous post.

Important Edit Concerning All My Posts: The term 'Marginal Employment' is a lot better suited a term for the type of employment I mean than 'Service Sector Employment.' Lets pretend I was using it the whole time, because Service Sector just muddles my point.

[Sir Suomi]

Success is reaching a position in society that you are contented with, and Communism gives you all the tools to do just that.


So you're telling me I should just be "content" with my current life? What if I'm bored of my "content" life, and move on up in the world? Why should I be "content" with the fact that I went to medical school for a vast majority of my young adult life, spending countless hours into hard work, spend an enormous amount of money on receiving this education, just to find out that I'm being paid the same amount as the high school dropout who mops ups the floors? I sure as hell would not be "content" with that. I mean, honestly, there's no motivation to try and advance in my career, if it means that I can earn the same amount of money by doing practically nothing instead of putting in the hard work to get a more advanced job. What's the point in me wanting to innovate a new creation, when I know, even if it's a huge success, I really gain little to no extra profit? And at my job, why would I want to even try and work hard, if I know I will be paid, regardless. If you think an average human being is going to do that, you must be pretty damn crazy.

[Harry Smith]

So you're telling me I should just be "content" with my current life? What if I'm bored of my "content" life, and move on up in the world? Why should I be "content" with the fact that I went to medical school for a vast majority of my young adult life, spending countless hours into hard work, spend an enormous amount of money on receiving this education, just to find out that I'm being paid the same amount as the high school dropout who mops ups the floors? I sure as hell would not be "content" with that. I mean, honestly, there's no motivation to try and advance in my career, if it means that I can earn the same amount of money by doing practically nothing instead of putting in the hard work to get a more advanced job. What's the point in me wanting to innovate a new creation, when I know, even if it's a huge success, I really gain little to no extra profit? And at my job, why would I want to even try and work hard, if I know I will be paid, regardless. If you think an average human being is going to do that, you must be pretty damn crazy.

I'd just like to point out as a side not that the Person who created the internet didn't get any profit from it, I believe he said 'this is for everyone'. Similar to the way in which we have medical doctors out in Syria and Philippines doing work for free because they're passionate about providing medical care.

I do agree that it's one of the failing's of communism, because ultimately Doctors should get paid I'm just saying that not everything is profit driven

[Sir Suomi]

I'd just like to point out as a side not that the Person who created the internet didn't get any profit from it, I believe he said 'this is for everyone'. Similar to the way in which we have medical doctors out in Syria and Philippines doing work for free because they're passionate about providing medical care.

I do agree that it's one of the failing's of communism, because ultimately Doctors should get paid I'm just saying that not everything is profit driven

I really don't care that much for profits, really. I was showing how Communism would more than likely end up lowering the quality of our goods and services done by people. As I said, there's no real motivation, for the average person, to try and work hard, when they really will get no benefit from doing so.

Now, did I say everyone wouldn't like to work hard? No. As you've stated, some people will still work hard and attempt to innovate people for the greater good, and there's nothing wrong with that. If everyone on Earth had that mindset, Communism would work great. But sadly, most humans are incapable of putting other people's needs in front of theirs.

[Harry Smith]

I really don't care that much for profits, really. I was showing how Communism would more than likely end up lowering the quality of our goods and services done by people. As I said, there's no real motivation, for the average person, to try and work hard, when they really will get no benefit from doing so.

Now, did I say everyone wouldn't like to work hard? No. As you've stated, some people will still work hard and attempt to innovate people for the greater good, and there's nothing wrong with that. If everyone on Earth had that mindset, Communism would work great. But sadly, most humans are incapable of putting other people's needs in front of theirs.

That's why I don't supporting communism, I'm just highlighting that our current system is no why perfect and it's simply driven by greed. That's why we need the in-between which comes from Socialism

[Vlerchan]

Why should I be "content" with the fact that I went to medical school for a vast majority of my young adult life, spending countless hours into hard work, spend an enormous amount of money on receiving this education, just to find out that I'm being paid the same amount as the high school dropout who mops ups the floors?
Firstly: There's no need to pay enormous amounts of money for such an education. It'd be free, actually. The point of Communism is that it gives you the tools to achieve your own personal goals.

Secondly: You work as a Doctor because it is what you want to do. Maybe you enjoy the work? Maybe you enjoy the Social Statues that comes along with your position? There's all sorts of reasons besides profit that one might chose to practice medicine.

Thirdly: Mindsets will change as it becomes the social norm. I'd argue that social, economic and political conditions largely shape how we behave, and whilst it would be a lie to say certain negative traits that drive Capitalism would be eliminated over time, I can certainly see Human Nature altering to fit the setting.

[Sir Suomi]

Firstly: There's no need to pay enormous amounts of money for such an education. It'd be free, actually. The point of Communism is that it gives you the tools to achieve your own personal goals.

Secondly: You work as a Doctor because it is what you want to do. Maybe you enjoy the work? Maybe you enjoy the Social Statues that comes along with your position? There's all sorts of reasons besides profit that one might chose to practice medicine.

Thirdly: Mindsets will change as it becomes the social norm. I'd argue that social, economic and political conditions largely shape how we behave, and whilst it would be a lie to say certain negative traits that drive Capitalism would be eliminated over time, I can certainly see Human Nature altering to fit the setting.

A) Ha, that's funny. Tell me, how are you going to pay for the teachers, other staff, books, and up to date learning equipment for every single college in the world(And I'm not even including all the miscellaneous items that are involved with college costs)? You'd have to supply every college the same amount of equipment, because what's the point of going to a smaller college when I can go to Harvard for free? Either you're taking a very big chunk of everyone's payroll(Excluding the corrupt officials overseeing the distribution of money, but that's another topic), or you're going to have to lower the quality of education. Neither of these options sound very appealing to me.

B) Let's be honest, most people who go for those jobs are those who are wishing to live a much more luxurious life, due to the payment of their career. Now do all? No, but they are far and few between. So that argument is invalid.

C) Sure it will, after you set in strict guidelines and regulations that require citizens to follow which, in order for them to be obeyed, must be enforced harshly. I'm pretty sure the German people were pretty happy during the late 1930's, at least those who believed in everything their government said and didn't question it.

[britishboy]

A) Ha, that's funny. Tell me, how are you going to pay for the teachers, other staff, books, and up to date learning equipment for every single college in the world(And I'm not even including all the miscellaneous items that are involved with college costs)? You'd have to supply every college the same amount of equipment, because what's the point of going to a smaller college when I can go to Harvard for free? Either you're taking a very big chunk of everyone's payroll(Excluding the corrupt officials overseeing the distribution of money, but that's another topic), or you're going to have to lower the quality of education. Neither of these options sound very appealing to me.

B) Let's be honest, most people who go for those jobs are those who are wishing to live a much more luxurious life, due to the payment of their career. Now do all? No, but they are far and few between. So that argument is invalid.

C) Sure it will, after you set in strict guidelines and regulations that require citizens to follow which, in order for them to be obeyed, must be enforced harshly. I'm pretty sure the German people were pretty happy during the late 1930's, at least those who believed in everything their government said and didn't question it.

great post 1000000% agree

[Vlerchan]

You're completely misrepresenting my points. I'm talking Communism here. You're talking State Capitalism.
A) Ha, that's funny. Tell me, how are you going to pay for the teachers, other staff, books, and up to date learning equipment for every single college in the world(And I'm not even including all the miscellaneous items that are involved with college costs)? You'd have to supply every college the same amount of equipment, because what's the point of going to a smaller college when I can go to Harvard for free? Either you're taking a very big chunk of everyone's payroll(Excluding the corrupt officials overseeing the distribution of money, but that's another topic), or you're going to have to lower the quality of education. Neither of these options sound very appealing to me.

B) Let's be honest, most people who go for those jobs are those who are wishing to live a much more luxurious life, due to the payment of their career. Now do all? No, but they are far and few between. So that argument is invalid.

C) Sure it will, after you set in strict guidelines and regulations that require citizens to follow which, in order for them to be obeyed, must be enforced harshly. I'm pretty sure the German people were pretty happy during the late 1930's, at least those who believed in everything their government said and didn't question it.

A): I'd assume it'd work like the Irish system, where college is already free. The more intelligent students are granted entrance to the better colleges and do the better courses. I'd support that in any setting, and I have on another thread.

There's also no pay-check, and no payment. Read what I said about self-evident necessity if you're wondering why people bother then.

B): That's because we live in societies where ones level of material wealth is basically the litmus test for success. I'd also question your claim that individuals will enter professions that they don't enjoy working in solely for material gain. Actually, I'd go further than that: I'd call complete bullshit. People - with a choice - chose professions that they enjoy. It's incredibly difficult to dedicate yourself towards something you don't enjoy - though I won't deny that prospective-income does play a role in decisions.

There's a logical fallacy for claiming ones arguments to be invalid so to prop up your own. I forget the name, but it exists.

C): No, actually. Ignoring the fact that in Communism there is no imposer, I'll say that the wandering tribes in Africa and South America - which essentially work on an anarcho-communist system - have adapted their behaviour to suit the setting. I'm not saying it was immediate, but it is certainly possible.

Your point about Germany isn't really all that relevant. A communist 'state' is stateless making it essentially anarchic and thus lacking most of the negatives you associate with the Nazi regime.

[sqishy]

Communism's history has not been that great (then again most government systems had bad histories), communism has yet to get my thought-through opinion.

[Vlerchan]

Communism's history has not been that great (then again most government systems had bad histories), communism has yet to get my thought-through opinion.
We've never actually had a Communist 'state'. We've had State Capitalist and Socialist states, but never one state that made the transition to Communism. That's my biggest argument against it, though: due to the manner in which the transition towards Communism actually takes place I don't believe that the 'withering away' of State is actually possible. The concept behind anarcho-syndicalism and it's overthrow of state is also ridiculously idyllic.

[sqishy]

We've never actually had a Communist 'state'. We've had State Capitalist and Socialist states, but never one state that made the transition to Communism. That's my biggest argument against it, though: due to the manner in which the transition towards Communism actually takes place I don't believe that the 'withering away' of State is actually possible. The concept behind anarcho-syndicalism and it's overthrow of state is also ridiculously idyllic.

Yes; I meant communism as in the idea developing and implementation of aspects of it.

[tovaris]

Thumbs up on the cause for the thread.
EDICATION is kee.

[britishboy]

Thumbs up on the cause for the thread.
EDICATION is kee.

I am educated, my Father is well educated, just because somebody is not a supporter of communism does not make them uneducated

oh and look this is the communist world

www.theverge.com/2013/11/15/5109718/chinese-communist-party-pushes-for-even-more-internet-restrictions

www..bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/china_politics/government/html/1.stm

something that caught my eye:
The Chinese Communist Party has
ruled the country since 1949,
tolerating no opposition and often
dealing brutally with dissent.

[tovaris]

I am educated, my Father is well educated, just because somebody is not a supporter of communism does not make them uneducated

oh and look this is the communist world

www.theverge.com/2013/11/15/5109718/chinese-communist-party-pushes-for-even-more-internet-restrictions

www..bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/china_politics/government/html/1.stm

something that caught my eye:
The Chinese Communist Party has
ruled the country since 1949,
tolerating no opposition and often
dealing brutally with dissent.

Statisticly people with higher education have more of a leftist wiew on the world.
Secondly you yust made my point for me if you were educated to a point when you would be able to tell the diference between a party and an ideologied you wouldnt 6ave made this fudile point about some chines.



www.theverge.com/2013/11/15/5109718/chinese-communist-party-pushes-for-even-more-internet-restrictions

.

You do realise that communism propagates freedom of speech...
(Pslook over the pacific, from this news you will se a wonderfully censored internet)

[britishboy]

Statisticly people with higher education have more of a leftist wiew on the world.
Secondly you yust made my point for me if you were educated to a point when you would be able to tell the diference between a party and an ideologied you wouldnt 6ave made this fudile point about some chines.

Look, your trying to persuade me to vote for communists, but every ever successful communist is evil

long story short I hate communism, like HATE it, I hate both the real version and your version

[tovaris]

www..bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/china_politics/government/html/1.stm

.

I dont understand do ypu have some sort of a chinese fetish?
Again a sistem built upon the peoples power cannot be anything but democratic.

[britishboy]

I dont understand do ypu have some sort of a chinese fetish?
Again a sistem built upon the peoples power cannot be anything but democratic.

any resistance in communism would break it, have you ever herd of a party or policy getting 100% support? the fact is the communists like you, rule China, they are communists, full stop.everything would be censored and many will die as political prisoners

[tovaris]

Look, your trying to persuade me to vote for communists, but every ever successful communist is evil

long story short I hate communism, like HATE it, I hate both the real version and your version

How can you hate something you dont even know what is about? Noone is triing to make you vote for communism. The OP said nicely the puprose is merly to educate.
And blind unargumented hate means nothing (it can only mean that you are the victom of your enviorment or stubid, i doubtthelast one is the case). If you would simply listen to what people are triing to tell you you would realyse there is nothing to hate, you can stil be againced it for all i care but blindly hating and deniing it helps noone.

Ps if you want to be againced something you must firstly understand it.

[britishboy]

How can you hate something you dont even know what is about? Noone is triing to make you vote for communism. The OP said nicely the puprose is merly to educate.
And blind unargumented hate means nothing (it can only mean that you are the victom of your enviorment or stubid, i doubtthelast one is the case). If you would simply listen to what people are triing to tell you you would realyse there is nothing to hate, you can stil be againced it for all i care but blindly hating and deniing it helps noone.

Ps if you want to be againced something you must firstly understand it.

Ok lets go throuh it
1) encourages laziness
2) lowers quality of work
3) no personal freedom

[tovaris]

any resistance in communism would break it, have you ever herd of a party or policy getting 100% support? the fact is the communists like you, rule China, they are communists, full stop.everything would be censored and many will die as political prisoners

Again to the begining. Hhhh
Do you know what communism is?
Ok lets start at the begining. What was before marcet capitalism (neo libelarism being the version we have today)it was fewdalism. Fevdalism evolved (frew fiziocratism, and mercantilism) into the sistem we know today. And this sistem is reaching its end. It will soon ewolve out of its cocoon and the final stage of this evolution will be communism. The final stage of witch will be conplet local selfmanagment.

So you see there is no force requierd to create or ceep communism...

If you wish i can; AGAIN explane your china "mistery" to you....

Ok lets go throuh it
1) encourages laziness
2) lowers quality of work
3) no personal freedom

Do you realy not listen to what you are told...
Ok one by one again...
1) no reason for lazines,
2) why?
3) again no rational foundation for that clame



Please research Communism - which is a stateless, non-hierarchal society - before making any more baseless claims. /



Asi understood the op the purpose of the thread is not to argument one side ower the other but to simply educate people aboit communism so that they can make their decision based on fackt not some irational mith. That is what i am trying todo BB but you are making it prety hard...

[thatcountrykid]

It could be argued that people have to follow orders in all society- they're called laws.... Millions of people have been executed in capitalist societies for not following the laws, heck people have been executed in the US for not following orders- the bank robber was trying to be successful wasn't he?

But back to the OP the problem I see with communism is looking at the Leninist approach which was largely urban based I can see why it was popular but now workers have a lot more protection in the work place for example a minimum wage, a welfare system and protection from unfair dismal.

That's my problem with communism- it's about 70 years out of date, and the majority of problems with workers can be solved with socialism

Laws or more like suggestions. Their not telling you to go work here and do this.

[Harry Smith]

any resistance in communism would break it, have you ever herd of a party or policy getting 100% support? the fact is the communists like you, rule China, they are communists, full stop.everything would be censored and many will die as political prisoners

I'm sorry but you're actually stupid you think China is communist- literally anybody who knows a think about economic or politics will tell that China got rid of communism back in the 1970's...

Economic reforms introducing capitalist market principles began in 1978 and were carried out in two stages. The first stage, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, involved the decollectivization of agriculture, the opening up of the country to foreign investment, and permission for entrepreneurs to start-up businesses

Laws or more like suggestions. Their not telling you to go work here and do this.

As mentioned above in our current system people are being forced to work for extremely low wages, look at countries like Africa where kids are getting less than a dollar a day thanks to capitalism

[britishboy]

Laws or more like suggestions. Their not telling you to go work here and do this.
very true

1) no reason for lazines,
2) why?
3) again no rational foundation for that clame
1) yes there is, when you dont like your job and not receiving payment you wont be enthusiastic
2) same as above
3) you cant to what you want

and getting paid in food is just like slavery, and what if I want white bread instead of brown for example? can you do a shopping list?

[Cygnus]

something that caught my eye:
The Chinese Communist Party has
ruled the country since 1949,
tolerating no opposition and often
dealing brutally with dissent.

And is China doing badly? I don't think so.

[britishboy]

And is China doing badly? I don't think so.

its doing brilliantly economicly but read this
www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/china

[tovaris]

very true

1) yes there is, when you dont like your job and not receiving payment you wont be enthusiastic
2) same as above
3) you cant to what you want

and getting paid in food is just like slavery, and what if I want white bread instead of brown for example? can you do a shopping list?

Let me reming you that you missed the point and he mane argument all ogether, aain.

Why woul you work in a job you didn lik?
What what part of the whole ommunist ieoloie ae you drawing you clims.

You wont get paied in food food and everything you need would be provided.

Noone eats white bread nowerdays, im suprised you want to since it is considerd to be the bread of the poor....

[Harry Smith]

its doing brilliantly economicly but read this
www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/china

I'm sorry have you heard of Guantanamo bay? You claim that capitalism is some sort of democratic freedom ideology where everyone has equal rights, many capitalist countries have had terrible human rights records

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/americas/usa

Belarus, Burma and Chad have the worst 3 records on human rights in the world and they're all capitalist

[Vlerchan]

Most of what you're saying has either a) already been answered or b) entirely irrelevant. I'm going to ask you discontinue posting unless you're prepared to make some major changes to this current standard.
something that caught my eye:
The Chinese Communist Party has
ruled the country since 1949,
tolerating no opposition and often
dealing brutally with dissent.
any resistance in communism would break it, have you ever herd of a party or policy getting 100% support? the fact is the communists like you, rule China, they are communists, full stop.everything would be censored and many will die as political prisoners
its doing brilliantly economicly but read this
www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/china
China is State Capitalist. I'll ask again that you actually do some research before posting.

Look, your trying to persuade me to vote for communists, but every ever successful communist is evil
George Orwell and Albert Einstein were both highly successful Socialist/Communists. I'm sure they'd object to being labelled evil on the basis of their beliefs.

Ok lets go throuh it
1) encourages laziness
2) lowers quality of work
3) no personal freedom
I've answered this already. I'll ask that you refer back to my earlier posts and respond to them instead of making the same baseless assertions over-and-over again. I'd appreciate it.

[britishboy]

China is State Capitalist. I'll ask again that you actually do some research before posting.

I'm not supporting communism when the communist party rules China full stop.

ok lets move on to the day to day of communist art, you get paid in food, no matter how hard you work so your not going to work hard.

farmers are motivated by money to produce the most crops possible, without that incentive they will slack, creating a food shortage

im assuming people cant choose what they get as food, if they go on holiday, where to live, what kind of house can they?

Let me reming you that you missed the point and he mane argument all ogether, aain.

Why woul you work in a job you didn lik?
What what part of the whole ommunist ieoloie ae you drawing you clims.

You wont get paied in food food and everything you need would be provided.

Noone eats white bread nowerdays, im suprised you want to since it is considerd to be the bread of the poor....

err because there has to be people doing bad jobs

great ill sit at home

it was a point, brown is healthy you should always have that my point is lets say i want Beluga Caviar... I'm not going to get it am I?

[tovaris]

I'm not supporting communism when the communist party rules China full stop.

ok lets move on to the day to day of communist art, you get paid in food, no matter how hard you work so your not going to work hard.

farmers are motivated by money to produce the most crops possible, without that incentive they will slack, creating a food shortage

im assuming people cant choose what they get as food, if they go on holiday, where to live, what kind of house can they?

They are motivated by having to burn their crop? What? How is that mktivation? How is that good?

[britishboy]

They are motivated by having to burn their crop? What? How is that mktivation? How is that good?

the government pays for it to be destroyed and its better its not like anyone doesn't have food, and even if a few crops wasn't burnt nobody anywhere will do more than minimum, communism is a living hell

[tovaris]

the government pays for it to be destroyed and its better its not like anyone doesn't have food, and even if a few crops wasn't burnt nobody anywhere will do more than minimum,

Illl create a descusion just for this

communism is a living hell

What are you basing this irational clame on? (Exept years or-sory but there is no better word for it- brainwashing)
Again ypu are making rash irational clames with no ground to stand on.
I said it before im saing it again: if you want to be againced something you first have tounderstand it.

[Vlerchan]

I'm not supporting communism when the communist party rules China full stop.
China is ruled by a 'Commnist' Party the same was North Korea is a 'Democratic' Republic. I can only repeat myself so many times here.

ok lets move on to the day to day of communist art, you get paid in food, no matter how hard you work so your not going to work hard.
The problem I continually find with your posts is that despite my constant urging to research the topic or even to read over my posts I'm still met with the same baseless lies and assumptions. Lets start simple: In Communism nobody gets paid. Individuals would live in communes, and together they'd work towards common goals. Be that food production; schooling; cleaning; whatever. Goals would be prioritised based on their self-evident necessity. They would then share the produce of their labour. I could elaborate - and I will later - but I'm busy right now.

farmers are motivated by money to produce the most crops possible, without that incentive they will slack, creating a food shortage.
err because there has to be people doing bad jobs

great ill sit at home
C'mon, man: I've explained this already. Read my posts.

it was a point, brown is healthy you should always have that my point is lets say i want Beluga Caviar... I'm not going to get it am I?
If your commune decides that Brown Bread or Beluga Cavier are to be produced - democratically, mind you - then you may have your Brown Bread or Beluga Cavier. Though, there's nothing stopping you from going out and producing it yourself in your free time.

[Stronk Serb]

Lol, I didn't know it's possible to debate against ideas you don't know shit about.

[Miserabilia]

There will be control. The control just wouldn't be exerted by a top-down hierarchal organisation such as the state. I'm unsure why you'd think coercion is needed in order to make individuals act. As I've said: if a job is self-evidently necessary then individuals will make sure it's done. Example: One would clean the streets because they don't want to live in their own filth. Then, if enough like-minded individuals got together one could form a co-operative that would involve itself in cleaning the streets - say, one does it on Monday, and a friend on Wednesday, etc. In my own town we've a voluntary organisation who cleans the street for the same reason I outlined above.

People won't just do that, and that's exactly the problem. You need some kind of leadership because there will always be people that don't do what they're told

[Sogeking]

The only thing that matters is that Communism isn't forced on to the people like state Socialism/Communism was. Besides this, I really don't care how you run a town/community/city/whatever.

[CosmicNoodle]

Communism is a semi-beautiful idea, all men equal and no one man or group in control. But then you have all the down side that it just plane does not work.

[Miserabilia]

Communism is a semi-beautiful idea, all men equal and no one man or group in control. But then you have all the down side that it just plane does not work.

this ^

[Cpt_Cutter]

"China is ruled by a 'Commnist' Party the same was North Korea is a 'Democratic' Republic."

I was going to say that isn't china more socialist than communist now due to their increasing leniency, but I would assume the point has already been addressed.

[Vlerchan]

People won't just do that, and that's exactly the problem. You need some kind of leadership because there will always be people that don't do what they're told
Could you elaborate? It's rather difficult to respond to such vague points. I've already addressed the issue of what to do with the few who refuse to work - I'd appreciate if you responded to that instead - but I'm wondering if there's more to your point that I missed.

Communism is a semi-beautiful idea, all men equal and no one man or group in control. But then you have all the down side that it just plane does not work.
This is an incredibly broad criticism and I'll say it now: 'it won't work because it won't work' is horribly difficult to respond to. Would you mind being more specific - what are these downsides?

[Miserabilia]

Could you elaborate? It's rather difficult to respond to such vague points. I've already addressed the issue of what to do with the few who refuse to work - I'd appreciate if you responded to that instead - but I'm wondering if there's more to your point that I missed.


This is an incredibly broad criticism and I'll say it now: 'it won't work because it won't work' is horribly difficult to respond to. Would you mind being more specific - what are these downsides?

"The few who refuse to work"
Is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about that you need some kind of leadership, to deal with people who don't just "refuse to work" but people who make lots of money illegaly and basicly do whatever they want.

[CosmicNoodle]

Could you elaborate? It's rather difficult to respond to such vague points. I've already addressed the issue of what to do with the few who refuse to work - I'd appreciate if you responded to that instead - but I'm wondering if there's more to your point that I missed.


This is an incredibly broad criticism and I'll say it now: 'it won't work because it won't work' is horribly difficult to respond to. Would you mind being more specific - what are these downsides?

It would not work because of the people it is controlling, if a man refuses to work, then he does not, no one could make him. Also, in a state where no one wants capital or power, one man who does would find it very easy to get both. To live in a communist or socialist state you would need EVERYONE to be communist/socialist, not just enough to vote it in. In a place where no one wants power or spare capital, it is VERY easy for one man who does to get it.

A famous man who's name escapes me one said. "Any 16 year old with any intelligence is clever enough to see the benefit if socialism, but to naive to see the hook under the bate"

If you want to talk more on it contact me, I love politics.

[tovaris]

It would not work because of the people it is controlling, if a man refuses to work, then he does not, no one could make him. Also, in a state where no one wants capital or power, one man who does would find it very easy to get both. To live in a communist or socialist state you would need EVERYONE to be communist/socialist, not just enough to vote it in. In a place where no one wants power or spare capital, it is VERY easy for one man who does to get it.


Why did capitalicm work? Why did it repaace fewdalism?
Becaise it was better and the society clerly realised where their interests lie, this is the case with communism, it will be the sistem to replace capitalism because simply the huge mas of the people will go into the development of society in that direction. (Even today you can fing people that would be very happy to be fewdal lords but they are not....). Now you see that it would be imposible to be a capitalist by action in a communost world.

[Vlerchan]

"The few who refuse to work"
Is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about that you need some kind of leadership, to deal with people who don't just "refuse to work" but people who make lots of money illegaly and basicly do whatever they want.
There's still a high level of organisation inside an anarchist commune: people won't just be able to do 'whatever they want'. There's still laws and there's still rules that need to be abided to (my post in the Anarchy Thread clearly outlines this thinking). You don't need instinctively coercive leadership to enforce restrictions on people, is what I'm trying to say. Though it's also wrong to believe that these communes won't necessarily have leadership; one doesn't need to be in an official position of power to be a 'leader' - such phenomenon is visible in every day life already.

There's also no 'money' as such in Communism. It's abolished, along with all other forms of private property. That's not to see a Commune may not have a black market in which individuals engage in barter, however. It's certainly possible.

It would not work because of the people it is controlling, if a man refuses to work, then he does not, no one could make him.
That's perfectly true: nobody would make him/her work and, I've heard Communists remark, it ought to be his/her right to not engage in work. The argument here is that it would take a lot more effort to force individuals into work than their labour might contribute to the commune and in practice would also involve the adoption of highly inefficient forms of institutional organisation. Some Communists don't believe that most individuals would actually refuse work in the first place - the social stigma that would come with consciously and deliberately leeching off the 'state' and the sheer boredom would be deterrent enough, they argue.

I'll also argue again that we also don't need our entire populations engaging in work. In today's economies a large number are either working unwillingly (the marginally employed - burger flippers; bin men; etc.) or employed merely to force these into work (management) In short: we employ way more people than we actually need in order to uphold the same productive output. The continued automation of our workforce will only further contribute towards this - in 50 - 100 years, I've heard argued, Communism may in fact be the only rational alternative left to us.

Lastly I'll add that in our capitalist Socialised Democracies there's a huge number of individuals who refuse to work and simply leech off the State in order to provide for their needs and wants already. The issue of inactive labour will always be a problem regardless of the system - excluding, maybe, anarcho-capitalism and the likes - though whilst Communism won't solve it I certainly don't believe it will contribute much further to it, if at all.

Also, in a state where no one wants capital or power, one man who does would find it very easy to get both.
This is a major issue in State Capitalism and other forms of Centrally Planned Governance. I'd actually call it the most major issue. It's why I've always proposed that the power structure be decentralised and operated in a fashion similar to proposed Direct Democracy. In an ideal world - and I put this idea across in the Anarchy thread - communes would be run by: 'a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils', each operating on a local level.

To live in a communist or socialist state you would need EVERYONE to be communist/socialist, not just enough to vote it in.
I can only ever see my transition occurring through Revolution or worker's Direct Action. You can't 'vote in' what is effectively anarchy. I also don't believe that everyone would need to be a communist or a socialist for my proposed alternative to capitalism to be effective. Individuals will adapt because it'll simply be the only choice available to them. I also can't find the actual quote, but Lenin once stated his belief in that over the course of generations we'd slowly, as a species, move away from our Capitalist mindsets. I find it ridiculous to believe that we'll all come home and perceive the world entirely different because we're living inside a new economic order. We won't, is the short answer. I instead share Lenin's belief that it'll be the next generation will find it's mindset more aligned along communist thought, and the generation after even further. The shift won't be immediate, but it will happen.