Thread: Re-writing Communism

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 . 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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Invader

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.

First of all, although these countries implement some communist policies, I have already explained in previous posts why I wouldn't label them communist (mostly due to the lack of power to the masses, which is the purpose of communism). But just to humor you, you have to take a look at the big picture... Cuba is still under an archaic US trade embargo. It is not a nation rich in natural resources, yet its economy is still superior to neighboring capitalist Haiti, or Nicaragua, or Guatemala.

Vietnam is a third world nation, with an economy similar to the neighboring, capitalist, Philippines.

North Korea is riddled with international sanctions, it can't trade with anyone, and it doesn't have nearly enough resources to support itself.

By contrast, the socialist countries of Europe are doing quite well for themselves, not quite communism but it shows that capitalism isn't the only answer.

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

I got that from: "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."

Note that capitalist policies entail a lack of government regulation, it lets its corporations run rampant (huge growth at a social price).

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.

Please don't barge into the middle of a conversation with a bunch of assumptions. If you'd have read my previous posts, you'd have seen that I've explained numerous times how I believe that the government should take care of its people and that it's a shame that anything government comes with an untrustworthy connotation.

Anyways, any government intervention that limits the powers of private industries for the good of the people sounds an awful lot like socialism to me...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

Have you been reading my posts .

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.

I'd reconsider your use of the word "fascism". Look it up, it's on the far right of the "political spectrum", whereas communism is on the far left.

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.

I'd like to see you say that if you lived in the Bronx, or a favela in Brazil, or a shanty town in Nigeria, etc. I also agree that capitalism creates faster growth than socialism/communism, but the problem is that the wealth doesn't trickle down to the people.

Capitalists don't realize that by having a large lower class population in your country, the higher classes suffer.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The reason people talk about communism as a form of government is that communism always involves fascism.

Originally Posted by spockman

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.)

This guy said it best.

Originally Posted by imran_p

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.

Communism, by definition, gives power to the people.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I have already explained in previous posts why I wouldn't label them communist

I'm sorry Spart, but if the world recognizes those countries as communist, who am I most likely to side with? You can give me a little snippet of what you said all the same, or link the post in which you gave your description. I will still read it. I just don't think that any one person can redefine a term like that to suit their own purposes.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

By contrast, the socialist countries of Europe are doing quite well for themselves, not quite communism but it shows that capitalism isn't the only answer.

I never claimed it was the only answer, but Europe is nevertheless dominantly capitalist.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I got that from: "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."

Note that capitalist policies entail a lack of government regulation, it lets its corporations run rampant (huge growth at a social price).

I did not bash globalization there, as you had claimed.

The part in bold is significant because it reinforces what I think ought to change (at least to some degree) in order for things to work more effectively for everyone. Again, I had not claimed that pure capitalist dogma was the end-all to the world's problems. People can still be harmed through the reckless greed of others.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Please don't barge into the middle of a conversation with a bunch of assumptions.

Nothing more than observations, and then an opinion. Thanks for the warm welcome.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

If you'd have read my previous posts, you'd have seen that I've explained numerous times how I believe that the government should take care of its people and that it's a shame that anything government comes with an untrustworthy connotation.

Then why on Earth would you make it out to be such a negative thing in your response to my previous post, if you agreed?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Anyways, any government intervention that limits the powers of private industries for the good of the people sounds an awful lot like socialism to me...

Pure socialism does not include privatized business.
Pure capitalism does not include regulation. That is why, in my original post in the thread, I said that the system needed to be used responsibly. Being that it is a quality that's lacking on the larger scale of things, I introduced the proposition on regulations in place of trusting people to be responsible.


Communism doesn't work as effectively because people do not have the freedom to run their own enterprise at all.

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

You never explained what wealth. You just kept saying business creates wealth, business creates wealth, and business creates wealth.

If it is anything it must be an imaginary concept, because like I said before if capitalism disappeared all the natural wealth would still be here. So what wealth?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 , but thanks for the compliment.

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.

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.

...

Originally Posted by Spartiate

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.

I agree with most of that, except I believe that private enterprises and corporations have their place. I agree with your assessment on the nature of corporations and the futility of lobbying though.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

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?

That doesn't take away from the fact that they were communist economically. Though they do not conform to the ideal at a hundred percent they were clearly communist;although they never were 100% the ideal. But a country doesn't necessarily have to be the perfect model of a system to be a part of that system. There are plenty of nations out there will less than perfect democracies, yet they are still democracies although not perfect by any means. You do make a good point about rule of the masses as being a pillar of the communist ideal though. There is no doubt about that. However, these nations had Communist economic systems although usually based on the interpretations of their proponents (lenin, mao, etc) rather than just the original Marxism.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

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.

I agree to an extent here once again. However, I think in the past we have seen this happen in various countries with mixed success. I think we can agree on the need to have Universal healthcare in a country. Though I think that a private option should be afforded to those who want one. Especially if the system has shortcomings in certain places which it does. Even here in Canada, as good as the system is, and it is good, there are certain limitations.
Especially, in the realm of waiting times and bureaucracy. However, I do believe that it can and does meet the needs of 90% of the people. There are just the odd cases where someone needs to go through a private clinic rather than a public one. And that is why I believe that they have their place.