Re-writing Communism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Kromoh are you ever going to say anything of substance? I only see you posting emotionally appealing stories with no evidence to back up your claims that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." Most of the "poor" today have access to television, electricity, or some form of shelter.

How do you explain the explosion of real wages and the increase in the standard of living over the past century?

---

This is one of the most ignorant comments I've read in a long time?
Most of the poor have access to televisions? Try going to fucking India.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imran_p

For me the major incentive to move towards a more communal and less capitalistic economic system would be the cultural effects. Capitalism in its current form is so far removed from the original principles that surrounded its conception. capitalism is now a cultural issue. The system has come to a point that in order to further itself the capitalist system creates culture, as it were through the mass media. This is a backwards, degenerate empty culture. Capitalism has successfully created a culture of I want more, I don't no why, I just want more, and I'll stand on whoever the fuck I have to, to get there. Some view that as healthy because it "creates competition and therefore high levels of competency." For me there has to be an alternative. Regardless of whether communism would work, for the international community capitalism as the dominant global system, isn't working. The majority of people on the planet live in absolute poverty, shit simply isn't good. Obviously we aren't meant to worry about that because we've got detached suburban houses and new cars. Capitalism has succeeded in creating a very horrible culture.

---

I guess I agree with you.
Even though it is very easy to blame capitalism for everything that is wrong
with the world today - this is usually not how things work, there never is only
one causing factor.

But the main reasons, why I would strongly opt for a revision of the most
fundamental basics in our system are as well exploitation of other cultures,
environmental implications and the fact that unconditional competition isn't
always healthy. (privatization [or corporatization] of media, health-sectors
or entanglement with political motivations, militarization).

The case that the only (real) public criticism is at best superficial makes this a
very difficult problem, though. I really shrug at the thought that most people
don't even think twice about how exactly that food came on the table and if you
don't show personal interest in it, you really never need to find out. Uncomfortable
issues that directly criticise the core of the system are quickly dismissed or ignored.
Since the driving force is to sustain that system at all costs, I fear we will have
no idea of what hit us, once one of these issues doesn't only affect little brown
kids somewhere else, but everyone.

On the other hand, I'd like to add that the way the American government
behaves in foreign policies and also the tendencies in politics at home are
the same as of any imperialistic country known to date. Before Capitalism.
So, while there are major exploitations through corporations, I don't think
that, as I've mentioned before, all problems can just easily be distributed
to one causation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imran_p

This is one of the most ignorant comments I've read in a long time?
Most of the poor have access to televisions? Try going to fucking India.

---

I think he was talking about the United States. People bitch about our economic system, but nobody can get around the fact that even our "poor" people are rich by other countries' standards. Our system works.

Your missing something. Your "system works" because of the suffering of the global ultra poor. Capitalism was never meant to be an international thing, the majority of the goods and the natural resources that help our capitalist economies run come from countries where the ultra poor are being heavily exploited. Without the masses in absolute poverty around the world, your beloved system would collapse. your economic system is the only economic system that has had the chance to develop since the second world war. Since this point in history the United States has pursued a very aggressive foreign policy. Removing governments all over the world that attempted to delve into economic policies that weren't to your liking.

Shit Iran's nationalising its oil, we need that oil, let's replace the leader with a puppet.
Obviously the same all over the Americas.
Currently there is a nice little puppet government in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Capitalism "works" only because the rest of the world is forced to follow economic guidelines set out by the West, mainly the USA. In reality you've gone some way along the path to setting up your own world, just how you want it.
Capitalism isn't working outside of the developed world, it's been around for almost a century as the dominant economic system on our planet, and things are fucked up. More fucked up than they've ever been in so many ways. We just have our eyes closed for us by that lovely tool of the state, the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imran_p

Your missing something. Your "system works" because of the suffering of the global ultra poor.

---

Yep. And the theory that global markets are going to make everybody
rich and prosperous in the long run wasn't even at all on the minds of the
people enforcing economic principles. But it's still a common myth put forth
by public figures. Joseph E. Staglitz is a pretty good source for this, I think -
he's an economic scientist who won the Nobel Prize in 2001.

He is basically critizising globalisation how it exists today, but doesn't condemn
it to the extend many other critics do. He's mainly just suggesting adjustments.

--

Just a thought regarding this thread:
Shouldn't the discussion, simply put, be about communism vs. democracy
and free market capitalism vs a planned economy? Admittedly, it does have
a different vibe to it than capitalism vs. communism.

Well, thinking about it, the thread is about re-writing it. So sorry if this is off-topic.

It's been off topic since just after post two but that is all right, I've enjoyed the arguments presented and am going to create an additional thread to fullfil my original intention for the topic of discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dajo

Shouldn't the discussion, simply put, be about communism vs. democracy

---

No, no, no... The two aren't mutually exclusive at all.

Could you elaborate, since one is the form of government and the other is
the form of the markets. They aren't mutualy exclusive if you make a mixture
out of them, but doesn't A + B = C, like.. something new? (Did I just make the
connection to the topic?)

Anyway, I don't think I disagree with you, I'd just like to hear what you mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dajo

Could you elaborate, since one is the form of government and the other is
the form of the markets. They aren't mutualy exclusive if you make a mixture
out of them, but doesn't A + B = C, like.. something new? (Did I just make the
connection to the topic?)

Anyway, I don't think I disagree with you, I'd just like to hear what you mean.

---

Well communism is an economic policy foremost and a political concept second, but it is not a form of government. Democracies, dictatorships, monarchies, those are all forms of governments that can implement communist policies.

I just see a lot of people thinking communism = something that isn't democracy, and it irks me :P. Communism doesn't have anything to do with the structure of governments, it's a term for the actions and policies that a government pursues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imran_p

For me the major incentive to move towards a more communal and less capitalistic economic system would be the cultural effects. Capitalism in its current form is so far removed from the original principles that surrounded its conception. capitalism is now a cultural issue. The system has come to a point that in order to further itself the capitalist system creates culture, as it were through the mass media. This is a backwards, degenerate empty culture. Capitalism has successfully created a culture of I want more, I don't no why, I just want more, and I'll stand on whoever the fuck I have to, to get there. Some view that as healthy because it "creates competition and therefore high levels of competency." For me there has to be an alternative. Regardless of whether communism would work, for the international community capitalism as the dominant global system, isn't working. The majority of people on the planet live in absolute poverty, shit simply isn't good. Obviously we aren't meant to worry about that because we've got detached suburban houses and new cars. Capitalism has succeeded in creating a very horrible culture.

---

You make a good point. We have put capitalism first, and more people need to realize this.

We keep making arguments to or for this or that kind of economy or government. But this is the wrong angle. Instead, we should ask, what do we want as a people. And maybe it requires something new. Something new has to happen eventually right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dajo

Yep. And the theory that global markets are going to make everybody
rich and prosperous in the long run wasn't even at all on the minds of the
people enforcing economic principles. But it's still a common myth put forth
by public figures. Joseph E. Staglitz is a pretty good source for this, I think -
he's an economic scientist who won the Nobel Prize in 2001.

He is basically critizising globalisation how it exists today, but doesn't condemn
it to the extend many other critics do. He's mainly just suggesting adjustments.

--

Just a thought regarding this thread:
Shouldn't the discussion, simply put, be about communism vs. democracy
and free market capitalism vs a planned economy? Admittedly, it does have
a different vibe to it than capitalism vs. communism.

Well, thinking about it, the thread is about re-writing it. So sorry if this is off-topic.

---

Like the other guy said, communism vs democracy isn't a reasonable debate since communism can exist alongside democracy, or it can exist within a dictatorship. One is the forms of government and the other is related to the economy. The idea that communism is anti democratic is really prevalent in the West. It helps explain not only why we wouldn't desire communism in place of the current system and why we have so aggressively opposed it internationally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

One of your issues with communism seems to be that highly skilled workers receive little pay after such a long education process. I have already explained how in communism, there is no such thing as "pay". You receive no monetary compensation whatsoever for your work. Your incentive to work hard is to keep the system healthy, or else everything falls apart. In exchange, the state provides you with a home, food, clothes, transportation, utilities, you name it... And in an advanced country, this means a very comfortable lifestyle. Now the question is, as a doctor, do you feel more important to society than a factory worker, or a teacher, or a police man? Are their places in society not just as necessary as yours? If everybody enjoys a comfortable lifestyle, does it really matter that they can live as you can, or must you enjoy a higher standard of living still?

---

In practice this has never worked out. The result has been just a bunch of highly educated people receiving meagre pay and meagre rations. And yes people in communist Russia did receive monetary compensation for their work;although, very little. We already live in an advanced state though, and most people do pretty well with the system. I don't see a beaucracy being able or competent enough to do so. Even the poor in our country and the states live very well at any rate (compared to other countries). Like i have said though, Money is a huge incentive for people, if it is not a huge incentive, then it is certainly part of the package. It is what drives ingenuity, competition and what keeps quality people working to earn the money they deserve. People can't be counted on to work just for the common good or just so that they can have an "alright" life style. They need the incentive. Take the contrast in Public Schools and Private ones.

That said, if we are on the topic of revising Communism, then i suppose a system within the beaucracy which operates much like a Capitalis one.

Example: where good teachers who prove themselves are rewarded and keep their jobs, and the ones who are not up to scratch are let go. But then the issue of rewarding the good teachers with higher pay comes into the spot light, since i take it a communist system would want to pay everyone just enough to get by or at least enough to live a basic existence.

See UM's post for details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

On the shortcomings of the Soviet Union in this respect, like I said, in a socialist country (the USSR was a socialist country working towards communism), it is up to the government to place a value on its workers. I know that the Soviet Union highly valued its factories and farms (hammer and sickle, eh), as most of the original Soviet base were peasants and factory workers while the intellectuals of the Russian Empire sided with the monarchy. In any case, that's what this thread is about, improving the system. A future socialist nation would simply have to revise its employment compensation in accordance with modern needs.

---

In my own opinion,, I don't think neither socialism nor communism need to be revised. In this respect, I believe that instead of revising such a system we (in north america) can learn from Northern and Western Europe's succesful marriage of socialist principles with a modern capitalist state.

I don't quite understand why you are advocating a pure communist or at the very least extremely socialistic state. The truth is, we have plenty of precedences that show that such a state would not work;while, at the same time we have a succesful demonstration of the marriage of socialism and Capitalism.

In the previous post of mine, i demonstrated why I believe having the state as the only employer is a huge down side, and that it limits ingenuity at the same time. Multiple employers provides competition and reward for the best workers. In Soviet Russia for instance there was no accountability for workers in regard to quality of their labour or negligance most of the time. People just didn't get fired. This hardly promotes innovation.

We also adressed the short comings of a pure capitalistc system in regards to an education system, and I gave support for why I believed that the best of both ideologies could be married into a system that works. (We laready have a viable example in Europe and as you have pointed out Quebec which in my opinion is more European than North American)


There are just too many problems with a Communist state.

Quote:

---

In the case of communist-like dictatorships, sure these nations had some economic policies that were inspired by communism, but communism is also a political theory. These dictatorships, often based on a sole leader (Stalin, Mao, Kim, Castro, etc.) bare no political resemblance to the communist ideal. Communism preaches power to the masses, not a single leader, and that is why I do not consider these countries to be communist.

---

The leaders of these countries which were dictatorships were communist, the problem was that the government system really gave the protleate (sp) any real say in the governance. Thus they had no checks and balances and everything was done according to their behest. Again, it was communist, just without any accountability for the leaders so they undertook projects and governance styles which were opressive by and large.

I touched on the issue of "the communist ideal" in my previous posts and why I deem it to be impossible. There have always been huge problems with a pure communist state or one that aspired to become that ideal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

On the idea that lack of competition stifles innovation or motivation to work, I say that it is necessity that drives these. Competition is only one form of necessity, in the past we have seen very innovative results from survival, warfare, etc. In communism, innovation and motivation would come from the necessity to keep the system healthy, as every person forms a cog in a very complex machine.

---

My point was that competition provides innovation in a way that a communist system doesn't. When you have multiple parties competing they can come up with something much better than just a group that has no one else to compete again. That's the difference between a monolithic team of researchers hired by the government and engineers and scientists under the employe of corporations. They have much more pressure to innovate and come up with something that can one up the competition. Invariably the competition is what provides the most innovation, not just merey neccesity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The problem with mixing capitalism with communism, is that whenever a society is predominately capitalist, the government will pay more attention to its industry-driving corporations instead of its social programs (since the corporations drive the economy and social programs exist for the "less fortunate"). For a socialized institution to truly thrive, it must have a monopoly. With a monopoly, the government is forced to provide the best quality services (assuming it wishes to take care of its people). It is a shame that many people have developed an "us vs them" approach to the government, seeing anything stemming from the state as untrustworthy and against the greater good. We could make a whole thread on how it got to that point...

---

Well, I think the opposite is true in many respects. Having lived in Canada the health-care system is not the best and to be honest, private practices can do things betters than government. But, I think you may have a good point here.

But what do you mean by the government paying more attention to the industries? The government wouldn't neccesarily run the industries, so besides regulations and taxation how would its attention be diverted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I live in the province of Quebec in Canada, probably the most heavily socialized area in North America. It is a thriving example of successful socialism, especially considering our proximity to extremely capitalist neighbors. Throughout our history, we have been culturally isolated from our English surroundings, and the people of Quebec have developed the notion of "Solidarity" to look after each other. Here healthcare is free, college is free and university is heavily subsidized, most city services are ran by the municipal government, television and radio stations are ran by the state, daycares are virtually free, the list goes on and on... One of the most successful examples of Quebec nationalization has been our electricity provider, a highly profitable state corporation responsible for some of the most complex civil engineering projects in North America. Frankly, we have come to expect a lot from our government and we wouldn't have it any other way.

---

I agree with this system, but let us not forget that capitalism plays a role in this as well. It is a finely tuned symbotic relationship between the two forces at play. One extreme over the other would fuck things up.

What are your problems with the state of things your home province of Quebec, that you think pure communism could fix? By the sound of it things seem pretty tight over there. You have both the benefits of capitalism and socialization (sp?). State control over all aspects of the economy would be a mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Don't worry, English isn't my first language :P...

---

Impressive. Too bad English Canadians don't show the same willingness to learn another language to such an advanced level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imran_p

Your missing something. Your "system works" because of the suffering of the global ultra poor. Capitalism was never meant to be an international thing, the majority of the goods and the natural resources that help our capitalist economies run come from countries where the ultra poor are being heavily exploited. Without the masses in absolute poverty around the world, your beloved system would collapse. your economic system is the only economic system that has had the chance to develop since the second world war. Since this point in history the United States has pursued a very aggressive foreign policy. Removing governments all over the world that attempted to delve into economic policies that weren't to your liking.

Shit Iran's nationalising its oil, we need that oil, let's replace the leader with a puppet.
Obviously the same all over the Americas.
Currently there is a nice little puppet government in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Capitalism "works" only because the rest of the world is forced to follow economic guidelines set out by the West, mainly the USA. In reality you've gone some way along the path to setting up your own world, just how you want it.
Capitalism isn't working outside of the developed world, it's been around for almost a century as the dominant economic system on our planet, and things are fucked up. More fucked up than they've ever been in so many ways. We just have our eyes closed for us by that lovely tool of the state, the media.

---

You mentioned Cold War actions. The idea that we were just after resources is conspiratorial jibber jabber that cannot be backed up.

What capitalist countries are fucked up? Can you give some examples?

Capitalism does not create poverty. It creates wealth, and that wealth benefits the world. That is why our economic collapse in 1929 fucked up the rest of the world so much. By your reasoning, it should have helped the rest of the world. We are depended on big time because we are such an economic power house. That is why our current recession is hurting the global economy. We create business, which creates wealth, which gets people buying things, which builds and creates business, which creates wealth, which gets people buying things, etc. It is a self-perpetuating system of wealth creation. How is wealth created under socialism or communism? Those systems are inefficient and not better alternatives.

Imran, no socialist or communist in here has tackled the scenario I illlustrated in my first post in this thread. Will you read it and tell me what would happen in such a householed? I often see you dogging capitalism, but what I pretty much never see is a strong argument for socialism or communism. Dogging the alternative is not sufficient by itself. What is the driving force in socialism or communism? What has people wanting to work 40+ hours a week and do the best they can? Will you please explain it to me. Pretty much nobody ever does. Also, tell me what you think about this idea...

http://dreamviews.com/community/show...ibution+grades

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Capitalism does not create poverty. It creates wealth, and that wealth benefits the world.

---

I suppose this is why so many third world countries are so heavily indebted to the states they couldn't possibly ever hope to pay them back?

And what wealth are you talking about? If capitalism disappeared, guess what? All the natural resources would still be here. There would still be just as much wealth to go around, except maybe this time it will be equally distributed. Not amongst a handful of powerful elitists.

So please tell me about this "wealth" that capitalism creates, without making reference to natural resources, because it obviously has nothing to do with them, as I've already shown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

I suppose this is why so many third world countries are so heavily indebted to the states they couldn't possibly ever hope to pay them back?

And what wealth are you talking about? If capitalism disappeared, guess what? All the natural resources would still be here. There would still be just as much wealth to go around, except maybe this time it will be equally distributed. Not amongst a handful of powerful elitists.

So please tell me about this "wealth" that capitalism creates, without making reference to natural resources, because it obviously has nothing to do with them, as I've already shown.

---

How closely did you read my post? I explained all of that, except for the third world debt thing, which is a separate issue.

Speaking of third world nations, do you know which nation leads the world in foreign aid? Do you know why that nation is able to do that?

It would be great if you would answer the questions I asked Imran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkA_DaRk_Che

But then the issue of rewarding the good teachers with higher pay comes into the spot light, since i take it a communist system would want to pay everyone just enough to get by or at least enough to live a basic existence.

---

Why do you think this? If you live in a wealthy country, and all the wealth is spread out equally, then you're doing much better than living a basic existence. An executive who makes a million dollars per year can be spread out to give 30 people an average year's salary. Say America was suddenly communized, everybody that is middle class or lower (undoubtedly the majority of the country's population) would "move up". If you suddenly communized Zimbabwe or something, then yeah, the standard of living would be pretty low. A capitalist Zimbabwe isn't any better though, you'd have a few people doing better and the majority doing much, much worse. All countries have a given amount of wealth that is spread out in a certain manner.

Quote:

---

The leaders of these countries which were dictatorships were communist, the problem was that the government system really gave the protleate (sp) any real say in the governance. Thus they had no checks and balances and everything was done according to their behest. Again, it was communist, just without any accountability for the leaders so they undertook projects and governance styles which were opressive by and large.

---

Communism can be simplified to "rule of the masses", either economically or politically. So once again, how were these countries communist, you said so yourself that they didn't give their people any say in the governance. Would you call the Democratic Republic of the Congo or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea a democracy?

Quote:

---

But what do you mean by the government paying more attention to the industries? The government wouldn't neccesarily run the industries, so besides regulations and taxation how would its attention be diverted?

---

It's not so much that the government funds private corporations (although imagine how all those billions of dollars of bailout money lately could have been redirected), it's more that it neglects its own services. A capitalist government feels that it shouldn't provide any services to the population, therefore it taxes very little and minimizes expenditures. Therefore government services are often of the lowest quality. In a communist system, the state would be forced to fund its services appropriately, being the sole provider. This eliminates the different "tiers" of services in society which are the root of capitalism's problems and replaces them with a single, high quality service.

Quote:

---

What are your problems with the state of things your home province of Quebec, that you think pure communism could fix? By the sound of it things seem pretty tight over there. You have both the benefits of capitalism and socialization (sp?). State control over all aspects of the economy would be a mistake.

---

Good point, as an upper-middle class citizen I'd probably take a hit if communism was implemented here. While I am content with socialism, I do know that many people here have a much lower quality of life than I (even though they don't have to worry about any basic needs). In short, I believe that the more "classless" society becomes, the healthier it will be, and that I would benefit in the long run from a healthier society.


As for the rest I feel as if I have already covered in some degree, and that we'd just go around in circles if I readdressed it. It seems like every post we come closer and closer to compromising on a mix of the two systems. I do find this acceptable, and far more practical than attempting communism, but only so long as the state retains more power than private corporations. The blight known as corporate lobbying forces the government to enact laws and policies that look after corporations, not its people. Corporations exist to exploit, period. I also think that essential services, such as education and healthcare should be provided exclusively by the state.

Quote:

---

Impressive. Too bad English Canadians don't show the same willingness to learn another language to such an advanced level.

---

Yeah, I wish all French Canadians would be a bit more open to all things English too :P, but thanks for the compliment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What capitalist countries are fucked up? Can you give some examples?]

---

Mexico
Guatemala
Nicaragua
El Salvador
Brazil
Paraguay
Haiti
post-1991 Russia
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Mali
Senegal
South Africa
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Angola
Somalia
Nigeria
Bangladesh
Papua New Guinea

All these places have HUGE social issues that generally stem from very large class divisions, corruption and mass poverty. They are also generally on the wrong end of globalization.

Also in my opinion, the consumerist culture and way that products and brands are portrayed in the United States qualifies as "fucked up". I was recently in Times Square in New York and thought to myself "wow, this is pathetic".

Communism has already failed.

The failures that do stem from capitalism come from lack of regulation enforcement in the appropriate places. Even political corruption through bribes is capitalism; money changes hands for a service. Capitalism has nothing to do with what's legal and what is not. The large pieces of land that are bought in third world countries to grow luxury crops for export essentially starve the local people, but it's due solely to the fact that there are no regulations in place to help the people on the lower end of the social ladder; because money means more to those in higher positions than the well being of the people they allegedly govern.

Capitalism works. The lack of regulations, however, is allowing human greed to leverage the system in their favor at the expense of those without the resources to do anything for themselves.

It is a system that needs to be used responsibly in order for it to truly benefit all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Invader

Communism has already failed.

The failures that do stem from capitalism come from lack of regulation enforcement in the appropriate places. Even political corruption through bribes is capitalism; money changes hands for a service. Capitalism has nothing to do with what's legal and what is not. The large pieces of land that are bought in third world countries to grow luxury crops for export essentially starve the local people, but it's due solely to the fact that there are no regulations in place to help the people on the lower end of the social ladder; because money means more to those in higher positions than the well being of the people they allegedly govern.

Capitalism works. The lack of regulations, however, is allowing human greed to leverage the system in their favor at the expense of those without the resources to do anything for themselves.

It is a system that needs to be used responsibly in order for it to truly benefit all.

---

Dude that post doesn't make any sense. First you just claim "communism has failed" with no further discussion on that, then you bash globalization and say that the government should intervene to assist the lower classes.

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Dude that post doesn't make any sense. First you just claim "communism has failed" with no further discussion on that

---

Would "is still failing" be more correct? I thought the current real world examples (Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and North Korea) would suffice. Please remember that China is running on a mixed economy and is utilizing free market principles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

then you bash globalization and say that the government should intervene to assist the lower classes.

---

Did I really bash globalization? Can you please quote where I did that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

that the government should intervene to assist the lower classes.

---

More specifically: Prevent those in power from hurting those not in power. Yes. The government exists for the well being of its people.
I'm sorry if you find that concept difficult to swallow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imran_p

Like the other guy said, communism vs democracy isn't a reasonable debate since communism can exist alongside democracy, or it can exist within a dictatorship. One is the forms of government and the other is related to the economy. The idea that communism is anti democratic is really prevalent in the West. It helps explain not only why we wouldn't desire communism in place of the current system and why we have so aggressively opposed it internationally.

---

But communism still describes a form of government and capitalism
describes the markets. Communism does not describe the economy,
it would strongly influence it - free markets as such wouldn't quite
be possible I guess (which I don't think is neccessarily bad), but still,
communism = form of government.

UM the cycle you showed me for capitalism creates wealth is just capitalist propaganda. You don't create wealth, people in third world countries are dying you are not creating wealth for them. Quite the contrary, in fact your killing them by extracting natural resources from these countries at the expense of the countries' vast populations and at the benefit of small groups of powerful elite corporations that "own" these resources. Throughout modern history the USA has time and time again forced countries into adopting economic policies that are to its benefit. You have to remember all those things that you write off as Cold War actions need to be more closely evaluated. What the Cold War was, in reality, was the arrival of a opposing economic system in Eastern Europe. Why is this a problem? Because the kind of global capitalism that the USA was in the process of creating required huge, exploitable international markets. The idea that Russia would cause other countries to become communist and thus shrink the size of the "Free Market" was terrifying, so basically countries either did what your country told them to do or they were inevitably invaded. For instance, why was Vietnam invaded really? The Domino theory. These people were doing nothing inherently wrong expect not doing what you wanted them to do. When people come in this thread and say stuff like, "Communism failed," it really confuses me, from the moment of its conception it was doomed, since like capitalism it pretty much needs to be a global system. Since its conception in Russia the Western Powers made sure it didn't spread and did their best to strangle the life out of it. That's fair enough, I just see it as survival. Bunch of powerful moterfuckers exploiting the world, made sure that some other fuckers didn't take over and implement their way of exploiting the world. I don't argue that for a select few of us capitalism can work wonders, but when people try to justify it moralistically, or claim that it can create worldwide wealth, your just sadly mistaken.


Dajo, I'm a bit confused. Communism isn't really a form of government, communism is more about the means of production and ownership. This could effectively be implemented in a democracy or any other number of types of government. Communism vs Democracy cannot really be a debate since communism isn't in its nature non-democratic.
I'm not sure at all what you mean by this.
"Communism does not describe the economy,
it would strongly influence it - free markets as such wouldn't quite
be possible I guess (which I don't think is neccessarily bad), but still,
communism = form of government."
That's just simply not true.

Imran, just saying that my reasoning is propaganda does not counter it. I gave you a very detailed argument about the effectiveness of wealth creation in capitalism. Please counter it. Please also address my point about how we lead the world in foreign aid and the questions I asked you, particularly the one about the driving force in communism or socialism (a question nobody ever answers) and what you think about the equal distribution of grades idea I linked. I will say it again... dogging capitalism can never be a sufficient method alone for arguing for communism or socialism, but that is all communists and socialists really ever do in these debates.

Also, I will always support taking down fascism, which is something every communist government in the history of the world has engaged in on a major level. They do that because there is no economic driving force in communism other than fear, and even that is not enough to make it a success.


Spartiate, class division is not fucked up. It is the natural way of things in a free society. There are skill divisions on a sports team. There are grade level divisions in a classroom. There are talent level divisions in a music or film industry. It is how things work, and trying to force it not to is disastrous. Some of those countries you listed, like South Africa, are very new to democracy. The changes do not happen over night.

@imran
The market system in communistic societies is usually called a planned
market, is it not? I mean, that's what I learned at school at least.

The opposite of a planned economy would be (pure form of) capitalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Karl Marx never provided a detailed description as to how communism would
function as an economic system, but it is understood that a communist
economy would consist of common ownership of the means of production,
culminating in the negation of the concept of private ownership of capital,
which referred to the means of production in Marxian terminology.

---

But it should be noted that, when talking about communism, some people
refer to the theoretical concepts of Marx and some refer to the policies of
those countries with a communistic government. Whch are two different
things, in my opinion. (centralization of state vs centralization of democratic
institutions)

I realize, though that it is more complex than this.
But it would be differently organized than the party-system we have now, wouldn't it?

The reason people talk about communism as a form of government is that communism always involves fascism. There is a way all communist governments are run, and people are talking about that when they speak of communism as a government form. Communism does not exist in democracies because there are never enough people wanting it. So communist governments and democracies are naturally at opposite ends of the spectrum from each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The reason people talk about communism as a form of government is that communism always involves fascism. There is a way all communist governments are run, and people are talking about that when they speak of communism as a government form. Communism does not exist in democracies because there are never enough people wanting it. So communist governments and democracies are naturally at opposite ends of the spectrum from each other.

---

Even if a democratic country was, (without propaganda,) highly in favor of communism- a democratic communism still couldn't play at the same park. Sure, theoretically they could go together.

But communism puts the reigns in the hands of the government whereas free trade puts it in the hands of the people, (whether or not the reigns are held by a small upper class.)

Because in communism, where everyone has the same standard of living, money and goods are distributed by the people in power. They have to be. Free enterprise is the only way to keep a reasonable balance of power between the citizens and establishment. Money is authority.

Granted, Karl Marx wasn't wrong when he effectively stated in his manifesto, (screw it if I can remember the exact qoute,) that Capitalism is similar to Feudalism- except pens and contracts are the deciding factors on which families are in power rather that swords and warfare.

So pick your poison. Should the masters of the world be civilians or dictators? Someone has and always will sit in the high seat. Even the USSR had distinctions. Huge ones. And China isn't even a real commie state anymore.

I guess what I'm saying has mostly been stated if my main point is that communism will put a minority in a position of absolute control, (only a fool would trust said minority to indefinitely rule peaceably and morally.)

Back to the originial question. How could an ethical communism work? First, you would have to find some incentive or else brainwash the crap out of everyone, (this point has been hammered already.) Second you would have to find some way to make sure that the government couldn't abuse their control over goods and use that control to become fascist. (Checks and balances in a system where democracy is futile is not an aswer.) And third you would have to start with a country that is rich in the first place. (Where does socialism work best? Smaller, wealthy nations.)

So, yeah. Those three things I would think are the BIGGEST, (not all,) of the problems.