COMMENTS:
Well, anyone with a remedial understanding of economics wouldn't even consider it as an option, assuming they wanted the best quality of life, that is.
Obviously my arguments in your other poll frightened you, so you decided to make a poll that only has options you aprrove of.
How many will capitalism sacrifice before it gets it right?
If you are going to talk about communism, at least have the integrity to argue about communism, and not your warped view of what you think it is.
Alright steel, how many people were rounded up into death camps, or starved to death, or shot because they didn't mesh with the states idea of capitalism? I eagerly await your answer.
And btw, how many would you be willing to sacrifice to get it right? I see my question frightened you into not answering and attempting a diversion.
Steel, if communism is such a grand idea, why not move to, say,.... wait, most have realized it is a terrible idea. North Korea and Cuba are always options, though.
Silly me, Steel would probably starve to death in North Korea, thus ending this argument.
As yet, not one person has been sacrificed... or did you not read my points in your other misjudged ballot?
You are still under the illusion that Russia was a communist state...
... I will try to speak VERY slowly for you.... IT WASNT.
Again! Silly me, in North Korea, civilians are NOT PERMITTED to leave the nation. The internet is severely restricted and TV is state-run. We'd never get to talk to Steel again even before he starved. Strange.
'You are still under the illusion that Russia was a communist state...
... I will try to speak VERY slowly for you.... IT WASNT.'
Actually it was. But had you bothered to read the ballot, you'd have noticed that I never said it was. It was certainly an attempt at communism, even an ideologue like you has to admit that. And in this attempt millions died.
I suggest you pause for a moment, reread my question, then come back and tell me how many women and children you'd gleefully throw on the fire to achieve your utopia.
NO communist state has ever existed!
NO communist state has ever existed!
NO communist state has ever existed!
NO communist state has ever existed!
NO communist state has ever existed!
I hate to keep repeating myself!
Now do you get it?
Steel: please, read the ballot question. You're looking rather crazy right now with your chanting and absurd claims.
Did I say in the ballot question that communism had been achieved? No, I made that quite clear (to avoid these arguments, I guess you can't make anything idiot proof). Did I say that it had been attempted. YES. And it has been attempted. So now, answer the question.
Your questions premise is flawed...
How can you answer a question on something that has not been attempted?
Its obvious to anyone with a modicum with intelligence that you only rail against communism, because you know as well as I do, that when the masses finally realise how long they have been lied to, by you and the corrupt system you support, you will be one of the losers.
^Then I'd become a resistance fighter. Seriously.
I'm glad that mad capitalism has won, the businessmen are running everything for us, it's soo different from communism, really, I mean *WHEW*.. what a releaf.
by Jyl on Sun Jun 26, 05 1:35pm
[+]
Steel: so now you're not only saying that communism has never existed, but that it's never even been attempted!?! You've lost it buddy.
relief even.. that's how this is :D joy joy
by Jyl on Sun Jun 26, 05 1:45pm
[+]
(and if you don't think money's controlling us :p then please please come to the big party I'm throwing, weiners abound!)
by Jyl on Sun Jun 26, 05 1:47pm
[+]
Herz: You get the feeling we don't have many "educated" individuals here?
I think I made my arguments succinctly, you have yet to prove any of your points...
What else can I say... I shall leave it to others to decide which of us has more credibility.
'I'm glad that mad capitalism has won, the businessmen are running everything for us, it's soo different from communism, really, I mean *WHEW*.. what a releaf.'
Well jyl, for one you just criticized the system in a way that can be traced back to you, and yet you won't be dragged off to the gulags. I'd say that's one difference. That and you can afford a computer. How many north koreans do we see on here?
Throw in the lack of death camps, lack of forced labor, and the millions of people not being murdered and capitalism doesn't look too bad now does it?
No steel, you never made a single rational argument.
So I'll lay the situation out for you.
1) whether communism has been achieved or not is not the question, reread the ballot.
2) communism has been attempted this is a fact.
3) these attempts have killed millions.
4) you think communism is a great system, which means you want to try for it again and again until it is 'done right'.
5) this means it is likely more people will die in subsequent attempts.
6) you refuse to acknowledge this.
Now steel, answer the question.
Cletus; in terms of a real education, no it looks pretty bleak. In terms of indoctrination and route memorization, steels not doing too bad. He'd make any party official proud with the way he can wip out the same old tired lines over and over again. Odd isn't it that these people choose not to live in communist nations?
1. I answered you tired rhetoric
2. Communism has never been attempted - reread The Communist Maifesto and Das Kapital
3. What killed millions was something done under the name of communism, but it wasnt actually communism
4. I do believe true communism is great, and I would like to see it attempted for the first time
5. Given that people like you will probably oppose it, as it threatens your interests, no doubt some death may be involved on both sides.
6. I can only acknowledge something that is true, not the tired worn out anti red lie, you seem to be spewing.
And your nonsense about indoctrination may have carried some weight if you werent in awe of everything right wing.
I think I have said all I am going to and really cannot be bothered to correct you over and over again, so I shall draw a line under this ballot, as you failed to convince anyone other that you rabid neocon friends.
The major difference is the way in which people get sacrificed and the focus one takes on implementation.
Steel you have communism mixed up with Marxism. Marxism is as acheivable in this modern world as microwaved shit that tastes good.
Communism is a real world political manifestation of SOME Marxist ideals, and to state that communism never existed is frankly untrue.
You judge the faults of those who CLAIMED themself to be Socialist, yet you don't judge the faults of Capitalism.
Herzog: I suggest that you educate yourself on Socialism and Marxism before you make any more ballots about it on this site. In my opinion, Wikipedia does a great job.
No communist state will ever exist!
No communist state will ever exist!
No communist state will ever exist!
No communist state will ever exist!
No communist state will ever exist!
No communist state will ever exist!
BECAUSE COMMUNISM IS AGAINST HUMAN NATURE! SO IT WILL ALWAYS END UP IN MURDER!
^GREAT point. Lets take the advice of someone who lives in eastern Europe and has likely felt the effects of communism.
Well, someone who advocates socialism could post a ballot asking if the cost of democracy has been worth it. Just a thought.
And, frankly, I haven't run into anyone claiming to be a communist in fifteen years. The last person I saw advocating even socialism had a swastika on his armband. Isn't communism dead, or close to it?
Truth: democracy didn't take death camps to make it work.
Steel: you're embarassing yourself here. Communism has been tried. Communism is the state ownership of all means of production, that's the long and the short of it. And that most certainly has been done. The fact that you deny it only proves the lenghts you will go to defend your religion.
Besides which, you're a hypocrite. Capitalism in it's perfect, textbook state has never been achieved, and you still bitch about that (despite the higher standard of living and significantly smaller death toll).
^To add to that, take a look at North and South Korea, Japan and China...case closed.
What people like steel don't get is that communism doesn't work not because it hasn't been done properly, but because the whole idea is flawed. Communism does not work, not with people anyway. It works great for ants and bees, but I think even steel will acknowledge that people aren't ants, maybe, no matter how much he'd like us to be. A flawed theory won't work in practice, no matter how much you try to force it.
"What people like steel don't get is that communism doesn't work not because it hasn't been done properly, but because the whole idea is flawed." - herzog
Explain
It is not in a persons nature to slave away for the benefit of someone else. In that scenario they will labor just hard enough to not get punished, which isn't enough to sustain an economic system. In short, it ignores human nature. Which would be fine if they didn't try to apply it to people.
It'd be the equivalent of asking why ants to go out and live by themselves and work for their own benefit, it's not in their nature and if they tried it would fail.
"Which would be fine if they didn't try to apply it to people. " - herzog
Okay. What if a nation used automatic machinery to do manual labor, and took the human laborers and equally spread them amongst a nation to do work such as be a doctor, pharmacist, or civil official?
"It'd be the equivalent of asking why ants to go out and live by themselves and work for their own benefit, it's not in their nature and if they tried it would fail." - Herzog
Ants are run by a centralized Economy in which materials is not found for the good of the community (directly), but for the Queen to feed the offspring and such. The Ants have to find food on their owned, while on the job under the Ant laborers. In Communism there is not a centralized government to support one person, but a group of collective councils throughout the country that all cooperate for the good of the country. The only centralized thing is the head council which oversees which is best for the people of the country and runs the planned economy.
First of all, don't try to pull that "humanity doesn't work that way" shit here." If cultural, racial, and social boundaries did not exist, then humanity would very easily be able to cooperate and work with eachother in harmony. And if there is a will there is a way. Cultural, racial, and social boundaries can be eliminated.
The true idea of Communism is that government is not needed, and the people work together simply to live peacefully. However this, (Which some people get confused about) is the perfect world that cannot exist. Thus there is something called "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat", which is the idea of a temporary Socialist rulling system by electives of the people. This is what I explained before, the collective councils that work together under the main council to do what is best for the people, and to oversee the planned economy.
FIRST POINT:
Herzog, the Soviets didn't even try to make Communism work. They used it as a cover up to install opressive regimes across the globe. Same way Osama and his boys are using Islam as a cover up to install their opressive regimes across the globe. Read anything that Karl Marx has written and tell me if it had any correlation to what the Soviets had.
NEXT POINT: Politics=death. You can't blame everything on communism. You want a stat chart of the number of people Democratic Capitalist countries have killed? Like it or hate it, that's what politics is all about.
WHY COMMUNISM IS UNFIT FOR HUMANS (I'm doing herzog's job with this comment).
Because both communism and fascism have this idea, that people, all of them, like living in a communist/fascist state. In order to have a "proper" communist state/society, all people living in that state/society must live under the guidance of the communist ideas or even more, they have to embrace those ideals. But I will never embrace the ideals of communism, and there are millions of people like me; so, as a result the communist society has only two choices: dictatorship/totalitarianism or to disappear. I think the second choice is wiser. That's the problem with having a totalitarian ideology, an ideology that excludes any alternatives. And there are other problems that appear once communism becomes reality, problems concerning the economy (caused by the lack of competition), culture (derived from the rejection of alternative thinking systems and social leveling), etc. But to talk about those it would take to much time and I think the first part is demonstration enough.
Death: I'll solve this issue right now. Would you toil night and day out in the fields for my benefit? Didn't think so. That is why communism will fail. Besides which it deals with government allocation of resources, which means that everyones values need to be the same. That won't work. Look at the people who spend their meager paycheck on a new set of rims, and those who save everything they have, and those who spend it on a new vacation. People value different things, this much should be obvious. In a communist stated they'd have to value the same things, this isn't a good thing. And no, people won't magically work together as brothers no matter how much they are indoctrinated. People aren't like that. As I said, communism ignores human nature. Had marx actually dealt with people, rather than being a spoiled and isolated aristocrat, I doubt he'd have come to the same conclusions.
LD: in the soviet union was property state owned or privately held? That is the defining characterstic of a communist state. That it turned out horribly wrong is simply proof that communism doesn't work with people. Why people take that as proof that communism will work, it just wasn't quite right doesn't make any sense to me.
Johan: good post.
herzog- Was it the collective economy that killed those people- or was it the military autocracy? There are FOUR main types of government you can have: 1) Autocratic captialism 2) Democratic capitalism 3) Autocratic socialism or 4) Democratic socialism...
of course advocates of 1) and 2) would like to make people think that 4) doesn't even exist.
Of course most people are fed the binary nonsense of 2) and 3) being the only ones that exist. ALSO How many people have been killed by autocratic capitalist governments (that is dictators that support free marketeering)?
Of course you'll have trouble finding THOSE statistics BECAUSE THOSE dictators were pro-West and most of them were supported by the West in return.
I would also like to add there's also option 5) anarchism. Even the four polar system that I showed can be deceptive. Always try to think outside the cube.
A lot of people still don't know what capitalism is. I'll give you a hint, the US isn't really capitalist. Hong Kong comes close but they're certainly not libertarian.
thc2883- you mean democratic capitalism (Economically 'true' free-market, politically democratic)?
"NO COMMUNIST STATE EXISTED!"
Because you never got it right?
"LD: in the soviet union was property state owned or privately held? That is the defining characterstic of a communist state. That it turned out horribly wrong is simply proof that communism doesn't work with people. Why people take that as proof that communism will work, it just wasn't quite right doesn't make any sense to me."
It was government owned. If you claim that the Soviet Union was really communist then how come it violated so many laws or beleifs of Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto? According to Karl Marx and the communist manifesto free trade internationally is required and necessary. The Soviet Union never did that because they believed it was a western custom. The Communist Manifesto also said that you shouldn't predict the amount of products you need for the year. The Soviets for example made 100 of something when they really needed 70 of it and had a surplus that went to waste. The other thing that Soviets did that violated Marxism is they engaged in total dictatorship and killed anyone in their way. Marxism doesn't teach that.
With all that being said I still think that in this unideal world, a capitalist democracy with a smudge of socialism (like the US under Clinton) is a better place than anything pure. 100% Communism WILL always fail as so will a 100% Capitalist country. I simply defended it because you made false claims about it.
LD: you're arguing details, they got the main thing right (as right as it gets). Abolishment of private property. Do you think they would have succeeded with free trade and no predictions about the future?
I highly doubt it.
"LD: in the soviet union was property state owned or privately held? That is the defining characterstic of a communist state." - herzog
What the hell is this. The idea of no private property held does not define shit. Communism cannot be underlined with one statement. I am not sure any government can. If you take France for example, and say that no one in France can own private property, and it belongs to the French public, that does not make France a Socialist Country. The fact that Russia adopted the policy of did not make that country a Socialist state. It was a dictatorship at best. From the exile of Leon Trotsky, all the way to the fall in 1990.
"Herzog, the Soviets didn't even try to make Communism work. They used it as a cover up to install opressive regimes across the globe. Same way Osama and his boys are using Islam as a cover up to install their opressive regimes across the globe." - LD
It is best said there.
The truth about private property is that the costs of defending it, are higher than the revenue collected from it. Then the owner losing out, even if he decides to put it to use. He will not put it to use for the good of the country, but for his own will. Of course this is specifically talking about countries not in the western world.
"And there are other problems that appear once communism becomes reality, problems concerning the economy (caused by the lack of competition), culture (derived from the rejection of alternative thinking systems and social leveling), " - Johan
For some reason many think that a lack of competition caused failures in the government. My friend this is not always true. The entire reason Socialism was created, was not too help the oppressing bourgeoisie and their economy, but the suffereing working class of the country. When Socialism is first put in motion by the people of a country, then yes the economy takes a blow. But that happens with every country going through a political change. It isn't until after the land has been redistributed that work is done to prove the economy. Socialist countries have superior workers to Capitalist countries, simply because the government represents everything they work for.
Herzog, once again. Educate yourself on Socialism before you post here again. Wikipedia does a great job. And when you are looking for evidence (if you do) for you claims on Socialism; instead of getting these wild atrocities commited by The USSR, look at real Socialist countries, like Cuba.
"
With all that being said I still think that in this unideal world, a capitalist democracy with a smudge of socialism (like the US under Clinton) is a better place than anything pure." - LD
Fa sho. A government of eclecticism is the best government you could have. Only I believe the best would be a Democratic Socialist country, with a smudge of American Liberty.
"LD: you're arguing details, they got the main thing right (as right as it gets). Abolishment of private property. Do you think they would have succeeded with free trade and no predictions about the future?"
I think that not allowing foreign influence and big business was what took them out so quickly, same with bad predictions for the future when it came to manufacturing. REASONS TO WHY IT TOOK THEM OUT SO QUICKLY:
1)Their workforce was severly unemployed 2)starvation was at its highest.
Those 2 things that I put up can easily be said to why the Soviet Union collapsed. Those 2 things were a problem because outside influence was banned and business' weren't allowed to make decisions. Take a look at China for example. During Mao, the Chinese people were starved, had no money, and were unemployed (atleast the majority). As soon as they allowed foreign business' in, that all changed. Now anyone over there can get a job, food is affordable as so are many luxeries, and I'd say it's worked for them.
Wouldn't you agree that if Russia had allowed foreign influence that poverty/unemployment wouldn't have been such a problem?
I have nothing against socialism as adjective. What scares me is when socialist becomes substantive. I am influenced by many socialist ideas (even if, I have to admit, I "took" those ideas through the fascist ideology) In fact I think many of the socialist ideas should be used in order to counter the problems posed by capitalism. Personally I am not trying to defend capitalism, but I reject communism as a system. Because, I have to repeat myself, communism is a totalitarian ideology; generous, but totalitarian non the less. Lately I have studied the portuguese fascism. I find it to be an extraordinary ideology, incredible generous and, surprisingly for fascism, very humane. Portuguese fascism managed to do an unbelievable thing: to bind christianity with humanism. But guess what, once they've put this otherwise beautiful idea in practice, it failed. Because the portuguese fascism was a totalitarian ideology. Salazar rejected with all his hart the supremacy of state over individual, but the state he created ended up as an oppressive state. And this is one thing history teaches us: totalitarian ideologies end up in oppression or even worst, a totalitarian state. So even if I can support some marxist ideas, I have to reject marxism as a whole.
And to answer to your statements: "For some reason many think that a lack of competition caused failures in the government. My friend this is not always true." Well, I don't think it deserves to risk trying that again. I think competition is a very important aspect of our daily lives, not only of the economy.
"Socialist countries have superior workers to Capitalist countries, simply because the government represents everything they work for." This is one place where nazism, fascism and communism meet: government above people. I don't think people should work for their government. In fact, in my view, state should be reduced, in time, to an arbiter role. Sorry if I won't going to give more details, but this is a thing I haven't fully elaborated. Right now is more a thought than an idea.
"Wouldn't you agree that if Russia had allowed foreign influence that poverty/unemployment wouldn't have been such a problem?"
Maybe, but that would've mean to accept the fact that a communist society, in order to survive, need help from existing capitalist states; as a result they would've undermind the very idea of communism by accepting that capitalism must exist.
^this is adressed to L_D^
Euro
I define a libertarian society as allowing each individual to exercise all their human rights. Do what they want with their property and their body without any interference from the government. How the government is elected is really irrelevant to that definition but most libertarians prefer constitutional democracy.
thc2883- and what if the individuals in the society want their country's assets to be nationalised?
And what if the majority voted that they wanted to be collectivist? Or that they want to nationalise their country's assets? Can their government then tell them that they have no right to do such??? If that is what the people want, can the government then block their way and tell them that they are intrinsically wrong and that the governments interpretation of 'property' are correct? That doesn't sound like freedom to me- not when the people are told what they supposedly want.
thc2883- that would also nean no tax? then how would militaries and police be funded? Or is libertarianism pacifist? OR is the military and police privatised?!?
In direct response to the ballot question- NO it relates nothing to me, I am a democratic socialist.
This ballot is extremely dumb.
EURO
Most hardcore libertarians are anti-war but I wouldn't call them pacifists. They favor constitutional democracy because the constitution would prevent the majority from socializing the assets of the minority. If everyone in a particular town wants to be collectivist they are allowed to but if one person objects, that person cannot be forced to give up their property to the others. A voluntary socialist commune would be allowed under a libertarian government, those people would be the joint owners of the land and they could decide the rules on their own property. But they are not allowed to decide the neighboring widget factory belongs to them if another person owns it, they could purchase it for any mutually agreed upon price, even free if the owners wishes. The "ideal" level of government varies from one libertarian to another. I am a minarchist; I believe the state is inevitable but would prefer a small government that only takes care of things like police, military, etc. and is supported by small taxes. The communes of course could provide their own police.
Zerhog,
If you hate communism so much, maybe you could join the military and go fight the communists.
" I am a minarchist; I believe the state is inevitable but would prefer a small government that only takes care of things like police, military, etc. and is supported by small taxes." - thc2883
A government as such borders on a Communist society. That government would fail, maybe if the entire world was under it, but if it was just a single nation with that government it would either have to revise, or become occupied by a neighbooring superior country.
"Maybe, but that would've mean to accept the fact that a communist society, in order to survive, need help from existing capitalist states; as a result they would've undermind the very idea of communism by accepting that capitalism must exist."
Which proves my second point: The Soviet Union was too hardheaded and "proud" to accept foreign help. If they had just traded with other facist governments things wouldn't have been problems. I said this before and I'll say it again. Pure Communism doesn't work, neither does pure Capitalism. You need to shuffle it up a little like Clinton did. Look how much he accomplished. I don't know if you lived in the US during Clinton's time, Johann, but things then were 100X times better than now, including the economy & social services.
'If you hate communism so much, maybe you could join the military and go fight the communists.'
You seem unaware of this fact so I'll let you in on a little secret; we aren't at war with any communist nations, and it's doubtful we will be in the near future.
LD: capitalism can survive just fine on it's own, communism must be propped up by capitalist nations, what does that tell you?
DeathMetal_101- actually I like thc's ideas of more power to local government.
L_D"I said this before and I'll say it again. Pure Communism doesn't work, neither does pure Capitalism."
The difference between capitalism and communism is that capitalism actually has allot more space to maneuver. I don't even think that there is such a thing as pure capitalism, since capitalism is an economical doctrine (so, by definition adaptable to changes that appear in society), while communism is a political ideology who claims itself to be perfect and wants to "freeze" the dynamic of social relations in a certain point. So with some socialist style reforms capitalism can last virtually for ever.
"I don't even think that there is such a thing as pure capitalism, since capitalism is an economical doctrine (so, by definition adaptable to changes that appear in society), while communism is a political ideology who claims itself to be perfect and wants to "freeze" the dynamic of social relations in a certain point." - johan
That is because Communism is based on a global view, whereas Capitalism is only based on a national view. If you look through history Capitalism has led so Imperialism. And the problem with Imperialism, is that the Imperialist government makes a shit sandwich, and everyone has to take a bite out of it. Open minded Socialist countries can adapt to many different situations as well as Capitalism. It is just the 100% Marxist/Communist nations that have problems (Like LD said). But no matter what economic superiorities Capitalism seems to have, the bottom line is it exploits the common people of a state, making thier lives much harder.
And the only reason Capitalist states seems to have these so called "advantages" over Socialism is because (as you said) Socialism is based on a political ideology.
"The difference between capitalism and communism is that capitalism actually has allot more space to maneuver. I don't even think that there is such a thing as pure capitalism, since capitalism is an economical doctrine (so, by definition adaptable to changes that appear in society), while communism is a political ideology who claims itself to be perfect and wants to "freeze" the dynamic of social relations in a certain point. So with some socialist style reforms capitalism can last virtually for ever."
You can't have a pure communist state either. If anyone had a pure Capitalist state then you'd have feudalism with very little improvement in the lower classes. Or, better yet, you'd have industrial age/style (late 1800s, early 1900s) economy which would easily lead to revolution. When you have CEOs profiting from public health and poverty then for me that draws the line. At that point Capitalism is no better than Soviet Communism, or as bad, agree?
Well, DeathMetal_101 I do agree with your last statements. That's why I said that I have nothing against socialist ideas, I even support some of them, until socialism turns into a communist system of government. A "healthy" state should be a mixture between socialism and capitalism. Neither of the extremes works.
To L_D: "You can't have a pure communist state either. " Not only that I agree, but that's what I am trying to say. Communism, as ideology, should be abandoned, because once you try to put it in practice it fails. Not because of some people with bad intentions, but because as a system communism is flawed. As a result I think we should concentrate our attention towards recovering the viable parts of marxism and use that to fix the problems capitalism causes. I also agree with your last statement, but I don't have all the necessary information to say if what you are saying is happening or not.
If communsim is so wonderful, why them did Tinnamen Square happen? Why are the Chinese people now very pro western? Hell facsism works better than communsim.
"If communsim is so wonderful, why them did Tinnamen Square happen? Why are the Chinese people now very pro western? Hell facsism works better than communsim." - Republican_RightWing
Communism failed in China because their failure of a government. Instead of installing a government in the name of the people, they installed one in the name of the state. Which goes against the main idea of Communism. However this might have been one of their only options due to their current circumstance in China. This is largely due to Mao Zedong, with his Political Ideology of a Dictatorship of the State, instead of the Dicatorship of the Proletariat. It is a fundamental principle in the Maoist Ideology. However this is what led China to failure. Like many have said before me. Countries like post-Lenin Russia, and China did not profess true Socialism, but a brutal totalitarian Socialism due to the circumstance of their country.
The acts of Tinnamen Square is a perfect example of China's flaws.
Today China isn't so bad as it was before. But this is largely due to accepting Western Capitalism. If China would have given human rights, and democracy right after the revolution, then maybey things would have beeb better for China.
|
