A few things that bother me about communism

[Kingpin]

Hello this place seems interesting. I would like a point of view not from the dominating class of society.

I think that capitalism and communism have been equally evil in the 20th century. People advocating both caused millions of deaths, dictatorships, etc.

1. Capitalism merely came out on top at the end. I'm disillusioned with humanity, everyone seems so greedy(In the USA and the leadership in Red China and the Soviet Union). What do you think of that?

A few things:

2. How do you explain that my father came to the United States during the Reagan years with nothing but $600 and a bag of clothes and now he owns a big scrap metal transport company near one of the largest ports in the USA making over $250,000 annually? Perhaps he worked harder and sought the right opportunities? What do you think?

Is he an "evil capitalist" for wanting to escape the conditions of his native country caused by cold war and seek out a better life? He pays people wages in exchange for driving his trucks.


3. How do you justify taking away private property? (I know in Marxist terms that refers to the means of production).

For example, lets say that capitalists invest millions in a factory and oil rigs in a third world country, what right do the workers in the third world country have to nationalize the capitalist's private property? What causes poverty from communist POV?


4. I want to know exactly how the soviet economy worked, how it was developed, etc. Anything I can read online?

I find it interesting that they were able to develop and industrialize in such a short period of time. Does this mean that using the soviet model can develop other third world countries? How did they do it?

[Kingpin]

Btw I'm not a far right capitalist sympathizer, I can see why the Romanov Tsar family needed to go, same thing with the thug Batista.

I'm just not crazy about what followed them. Why is it that the govt. of Cuba chooses what to publish and not to publish, and censors information? Or is this capitalist disinformation?



I realize by looking at the big picture, there really isn't anything the soviets did that the United States isn't also guilty of, in terms of alleged crimes and human rights violations.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Hello this place seems interesting. I would like a point of view not from the dominating class of society.

I think that capitalism and communism have been equally evil in the 20th century. People advocating both caused millions of deaths, dictatorships, etc.

Communism has never existed, so I don't see how that is possible.

(Remember, Communism is a completely stateless and classless society. This has never been achieved before.)


1. Capitalism merely came out on top at the end. I'm disillusioned with humanity, everyone seems so greedy(In the USA and the leadership in Red China and the Soviet Union). What do you think of that?China and the Soviet Union are/were simply state capitalist, so that explains that.


A few things:

2. How do you explain that my father came to the United States during the Reagan years with nothing but $600 and a bag of clothes and now he owns a big scrap metal transport company near one of the largest ports in the USA making over $250,000 annually? Perhaps he worked harder and sought the right opportunities? What do you think?You said near one of the largest ports in the USA, so it sounds like he was more lucky than anything. Typically people who are successful in capitalism are that: lucky.


Is he an "evil capitalist" for wanting to escape the conditions of his native country caused by cold war and seek out a better life? He pays people wages in exchange for driving his trucks. If he pays people to work for him, and makes a profit off of their labor, then yes he is an "evil capitalist". All capitalism is, is making profit off the exploitation of others. Everyone who owns a business that employs other people fall under this category.



3. How do you justify taking away private property? (I know in Marxist terms that refers to the means of production). If the working class builds something, why should someone who had nothing to do with it's construction get to enjoy it while the working class is prohibited from it?

Or alternatively, if something exists naturally, like a forest: how do you justify a single person claiming it just because they have the money to do so? Shouldn't a forest be collectively enjoyed by anyone who wishes to enjoy it since it predates human civilization?


For example, lets say that capitalists invest millions in a factory and oil rigs in a third world country, what right do the workers in the third world country have to nationalize the capitalist's private property?Well, for one the workers wouldn't nationalize anything. Governments natonalize things, workers collectivize them. Big difference. Nationalized business are run by the government, businesses that are collectivized are under worker control.

But to answer the question: If workers build and operate a factory in their own country which uses their community's resources, why should anyone else other than those local workers be allowed to claim the benefits and profits of all that work? Just because something was built by capitalists doesn't mean they should have unbounded claim to an entire region's labor or resources. How can you possibly justify, say, an American profiting off the work of Iraqi's and Iraqi resources?


What causes poverty from communist POV? Capital of course. The more capital a capitalist owns, the less there is for the workers.

the rest someone else can answer, as I don't have the time or interest.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

2. How do you explain that my father came to the United States during the Reagan years with nothing but $600 and a bag of clothes and now he owns a big scrap metal transport company near one of the largest ports in the USA making over $250,000 annually? Perhaps he worked harder and sought the right opportunities? What do you think? You're mistaken. Capitalism doesn't allocate wealth according to amount of work done. Your father acquired means of production by gaining access to capital. Perhaps he saved and invested his salary or wages over a long period of time. Perhaps he took out a loan. While your father may be a sensible entrepeneur, this doesn't justify his control of the labor force of others through his ownership of capital.


Is he an "evil capitalist" for wanting to escape the conditions of his native country caused by cold war and seek out a better life? He pays people wages in exchange for driving his trucks.No, he's not evil. I don't believe that individual capitalists are evil. The system is evil. Your dad isn't responsible for that just for participating in it.


3. How do you justify taking away private property? (I know in Marxist terms that refers to the means of production).

For example, lets say that capitalists invest millions in a factory and oil rigs in a third world country, what right do the workers in the third world country have to nationalize the capitalist's private property?To begin with, quite often the nationalizations of which you speak involve reimbursements.
If a regime wishes to ultimately sever its ties with capitalism and nationalize private means of production by force and without restitution, it is done so on the grounds that private capital is illegitimate.


What causes poverty from communist POV?many factors
contrary to what has been said in this thread, capital is not the only one

[Tatarin]

I think that capitalism and communism have been equally evil in the 20th century. People advocating both caused millions of deaths, dictatorships, etc.

As said above, you have to do away with the term "communism". Communism haven't done anything, except been used in rethoric.

Secondly, how can you define "dictatorship"? Yes, I understand what the meaning is, but dictatorship is just like "totalitarianism" a word with no meaning. The US seems pretty totalitarian - well, unless you're very rich - as does the EU. Yet, they call themselves democracies - not unlike the Democratic People's Republic of Korea...


1. Capitalism merely came out on top at the end. I'm disillusioned with humanity, everyone seems so greedy(In the USA and the leadership in Red China and the Soviet Union). What do you think of that?

Certainly. But capitalism were appealing for the people in power in the USSR and those that came after Mao in China. You'd think it would be hard for people who control everything through a government to later want people to have private property, no? Or how there were no bloody civil war, just some small one-day conflict, then we suddenly had capitalist Russia!

So the question needed to be asked is: how "communist" were these countries really?


2. How do you explain that my father came to the United States during the Reagan years with nothing but $600 and a bag of clothes and now he owns a big scrap metal transport company near one of the largest ports in the USA making over $250,000 annually? Perhaps he worked harder and sought the right opportunities? What do you think?

No one can deny that some people do "make it". If there were no successes, no lottery winners, then there would either be war or we would be living in a new society already.

However, for every such success there is 100,000 "failures", and in many cases, those "failures" are because those people were born in the wrong point in time or to the "wrong people", which in turn faced the same chances when they "started".


For example, lets say that capitalists invest millions in a factory and oil rigs in a third world country, what right do the workers in the third world country have to nationalize the capitalist's private property?

You have to remake the question first: why does the capitalist want to have a factory in another country?


Does this mean that using the soviet model can develop other third world countries?

It certainly can. The problem is that the more powerful countries do not want that for some reason...

[Kingpin]

So a few commie POV's are:

1. So obviously Red China and the Soviets never achieved world communism or an advanced level of communism in the regions they controlled. What I gather is that they started off working towards communism but somewhere along the line things went sour. It's not as easy as it looks. Especially with the forces of capitalism trying to stop you every step of the way.

In the future how do you plan to stop revisionists from seizing power? Or is the first priority to get rid of the capitalist influence that tried to stop you every step of the way?


2. So luck and being a skilled businessmen might have something to do with it, but that doesn't justify his private ownership of capital.

For everyone that makes it thousands fail, not due to their lack of being able to work, but because of market forces and other factors. Not everyone can be a business owner because then there would be no one to work.

3. So when you collectivize a capitalist's private property, do you reimburse them or not? If you think their claim to the capital is illegitimate, why would you?

And since the capitalists have a monopoly over the means of production and the startup costs are huge to acquire capital and construct factories, would there be capital to invest in in the first place if the capitalists don't come and make people build stuff? Is this the logic behind "the revolution will happen in an industrialized country?"

4. I might have this backwards, since I was raised believing private property is sacred and anyone who tries to take it is a terrorist lol,

but how do you, as a communist, respond to the idea that without the capitalists the people wouldn't have wages or jobs to sustain themselves?

[danyboy27]

but how do you, as a communist, respond to the idea that without the capitalists the people wouldn't have wages or jobs to sustain themselves?

well, trought a certain democracy people could work with eachother without the need of capitalists.

we know how to work, we know how to do it right, and without capitalism the artificial scarcity of ressources will be gone.
cheap things will be cheap, costly things will be costly.

right now i wear 100 dollars worth of clothes on me, but it probably cost around 10 dollars to manufacture all that.

a strong democratic structure will give to everyone a voice and will coordinate people effort for bigger projects; bridges, road, space shuttle

i do believe that with the technology of the internet an efficient dirrect democracy is possible and will resuly in a more free society.

right now, the problem is the insane amount of bureaucracy, more technology can fix that.

[Kayser_Soso]

So a few commie POV's are:

1. So obviously Red China and the Soviets never achieved world communism or an advanced level of communism in the regions they controlled. What I gather is that they started off working towards communism but somewhere along the line things went sour. It's not as easy as it looks. Especially with the forces of capitalism trying to stop you every step of the way.

In the future how do you plan to stop revisionists from seizing power? Or is the first priority to get rid of the capitalist influence that tried to stop you every step of the way?

It is indeed harder than many here, who so quickly judge the USSR, would believe. Fighting revisionism is a serious issue, but we must remember that on one hand we know a lot more about how revisionism develops, and on the other we may face new forms in the future about which we don't know. I believe we have to study the manner in which capitalist society adapted to the threat of the USSR, culturally. How does the media machine cause people to identify with their masters, and how do we reverse the process. In revolutionary Russia, the most important thing was economic revolution first and foremost. The cultural revolution was something secondary. In the future, cultural revolution and economic revolution must be waged simultaneously.



3. So when you collectivize a capitalist's private property, do you reimburse them or not? If you think their claim to the capital is illegitimate, why would you?

It depends on the situation, and what capitalists we are talking about. The capitalists of modern Russia for example, should be compensated with lead. That will almost make up for the millions of lives they ruined.



And since the capitalists have a monopoly over the means of production and the startup costs are huge to acquire capital and construct factories, would there be capital to invest in in the first place if the capitalists don't come and make people build stuff? Is this the logic behind "the revolution will happen in an industrialized country?"

Their capital and the means of production are seized, so it is no longer up to them to invest in things.



4. I might have this backwards, since I was raised believing private property is sacred and anyone who tries to take it is a terrorist lol,

If private property were sacred, one would expect more people to have it. Then again, we don't believe in "sacred" things most of the time.



but how do you, as a communist, respond to the idea that without the capitalists the people wouldn't have wages or jobs to sustain themselves?

Aside from our arguments against wage labor in general- nobody needs capitalists to have work or produce things. The means are there, the resources exist, it's just a matter of people getting together and working.

[Pogue]

1. Capitalism merely came out on top at the end. I'm disillusioned with humanity, everyone seems so greedy(In the USA and the leadership in Red China and the Soviet Union). What do you think of that?


I think rich people tend to eb greedy. Also, consumerist culture tends to prize individual gain/lust over much else, which might create what you see as a 'greedy society'. I think capitalism and the ruling class is obviously greedy, yes.


2. How do you explain that my father came to the United States during the Reagan years with nothing but $600 and a bag of clothes and now he owns a big scrap metal transport company near one of the largest ports in the USA making over $250,000 annually? Perhaps he worked harder and sought the right opportunities? What do you think?

It's never impossible to do this. Capitalism will accomodate some individuals 'climbing the ladder'. But it will also prevent millions (biillions?) of people from being able to do this. Its logically impossible under capitalism too, which is why we hate it so much. Maybe your dad did work hard, maybe he got lucky - millions of people work hard and don't get lucky, your dad is one example, an anomaly.


Is he an "evil capitalist" for wanting to escape the conditions of his native country caused by cold war and seek out a better life? He pays people wages in exchange for driving his trucks.

No, he is not evil, he is simply trying to better himself and no doubt his family. No one would think your dad is evil, although I would say many of the rich do have sadistic tendencies.


3. How do you justify taking away private property? (I know in Marxist terms that refers to the means of production).

For example, lets say that capitalists invest millions in a factory and oil rigs in a third world country, what right do the workers in the third world country have to nationalize the capitalist's private property? What causes poverty from communist POV?


Private Property was gaiend by force in the first place. Its also criminally insane for one person to control and generate the wealth from something, especially when that individual is reliant on the working class to generate the wealth in the first place. So we support it logically, and also because we feel that if everyone is needed and neccesary to generate the wealth, they should all get an equal share in it and control the society (workplace) they are active in.

We think poverty is caused by exploitation, massiv einequalities and the fact that capitalism needs a pool of incredibly poor and desperate people to exploit or cast away in order to make capitalist society function.



4. I want to know exactly how the soviet economy worked, how it was developed, etc. Anything I can read online?

I find it interesting that they were able to develop and industrialize in such a short period of time. Does this mean that using the soviet model can develop other third world countries? How did they do it?


Planned production, quotas, producing for need, etc. A repressive state was very efficient in forcing people to work, too. Its not really a model most of us want to emulate.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

So a few commie POV's are:

1. So obviously Red China and the Soviets never achieved world communism or an advanced level of communism in the regions they controlled. What I gather is that they started off working towards communism but somewhere along the line things went sour. It's not as easy as it looks. Especially with the forces of capitalism trying to stop you every step of the way.

In the future how do you plan to stop revisionists from seizing power? Or is the first priority to get rid of the capitalist influence that tried to stop you every step of the way?

This is where you'll find the split occurs in all the different revolutionary leftist ideologies. Each disagrees with each other on what actions should be taken to achieve true communism, and where past revolutions went wrong.

For examples, Stalinists will say Trotskyist reformers reintroduced capitalism and killed the revolution, and Anarchists will say the Bolsheviks hijacked the revolution and became a new repressive state. (The Bolsheviks murdered the Anarchists who helped them win the war)

China is pretty much the prime example of the natural progression that has occurred in all of these "communist" countries from highly centralized and bureaucratic deformed workers states to highly regulated neo-liberal states where the governments allowed a reintroduction of the free market and all the effects that comes with it.

The only difference really between the Chinese and Russian experiences is that the Communist Party still retains power in China and the reason for that is pretty obvious.



4. I might have this backwards, since I was raised believing private property is sacred and anyone who tries to take it is a terrorist lol,

but how do you, as a communist, respond to the idea that without the capitalists the people wouldn't have wages or jobs to sustain themselves?Jobs and wages shouldn't be the important things though. They are only important under capitalism because they are what we need to survive. Everyone should have the right to survive and there's no reason we can't work together to make things better for all of us.

When the workers control the jobs and the wages, they will be able to sustain themselves rather than beg for handouts from the fat capitalists.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

everyone seems so greedy

Yes and?
Society tells you to be greedy, so your greedy.


Perhaps he worked harder and sought the right opportunities? What do you think?

No he was lucky. The only way to acquire wealth is pure blind luck, because there's people who worked much harder(of course working hard doesn't actually help one bit in our system) and having opportunities are by definition being lucky.


3. How do you justify taking away private property?

How do you justify murdering your neighbors to protect it? Property by definition all boils down to a guy with a gun saying "Get off my lawn or I'll kill you."


For example, lets say that capitalists invest millions in a factory and oil rigs in a third world country, what right do the workers in the third world country have to nationalize the capitalist's private property?

Rights do not exist unless society gives them, if society ceases to enforce property rights then by definition they do not exist.

[Green Dragon]

Aside from our arguments against wage labor in general- nobody needs capitalists to have work or produce things. The means are there, the resources exist, it's just a matter of people getting together and working.

And of course its more than saying people should be "getting together." The socialist sort of has to be prepared to explain HOW people are "getting together" and what they are doing "together."

[Green Dragon]

1

. So obviously Red China and the Soviets never achieved world communism or an advanced level of communism in the regions they controlled. What I gather is that they started off working towards communism but somewhere along the line things went sour. It's not as easy as it looks. Especially with the forces of capitalism trying to stop you every step of the way.

In the future how do you plan to stop revisionists from seizing power? Or is the first priority to get rid of the capitalist influence that tried to stop you every step of the way?


The problem the socialists face on this score, though they never seem to want to admit it, is how to do the above, while maintaining their desires for greater freedom for all, and their belief that theirs are morally superior.



2. So luck and being a skilled businessmen might have something to do with it, but that doesn't justify his private ownership of capital.


Your old man created something that did not previously exist, and that benefits people, but it is claimed that is no justification for it.

Sounds a bit weird, does it not?



For everyone that makes it thousands fail, not due to their lack of being able to work, but because of market forces and other factors. Not everyone can be a business owner because then there would be no one to work.


Your father created something that other people wished to utilise. I would dare say that he too would have failed had he created something that nobody wished to utilise. The criticism is that that is unfair, or wrong. But such criticism doesn't explain the sense of equating failure and success.



And since the capitalists have a monopoly over the means of production and the startup costs are huge

How "huge" was your father's startup costs?
Just another socialist myth.




4. I might have this backwards, since I was raised believing private property is sacred and anyone who tries to take it is a terrorist lol,

but how do you, as a communist, respond to the idea that without the capitalists the people wouldn't have wages or jobs to sustain themselves?


As has been stated earlier, the socialist would say they are not neccessary. The "people" will decide.
But then the question becomes "decide how?" Using what knowledge in that decision?
And that is when socialism begins to fall apart.

[scarletghoul]

In the future how do you plan to stop revisionists from seizing power?This is the key question, as its the reason the communist movement of the last century failed, and it's also where Maoism shows its face as a fresh and more developed form of Marxism-Leninism. The answer lies in the Cultural Revolution of China from 1966 to 1976. This was a huge mass movement of the Chinese people to try and renew the revolution and stop revisionists/capitalist-roaders from steering China in the direction of bureaucratic dictatorship, like the USSR had become. To stop the new bourgeoisie arising within the Party. It involved things like people criticising and disciplining bad party members, workers seizing direct control of the means of production, thorough attempts to eradicate bourgeois ideology in all aspects of culture, etc. In other words, the answer to your question is to continue class struggle even within the workers' state. Of course, the Cultural Revolution was quite disorganised and ultimately failed (it was after all the first proper attempt at this in history), but I think the essence of it is an invaluable development and an extremely important part of communist theory/practice. Perhaps mechanisms for this kind of struggle could be put in place within the machinery of future workers' states, the Cultural Revolution institutionalised. But yeah, this is the answer.

[Kayser_Soso]

And of course its more than saying people should be "getting together." The socialist sort of has to be prepared to explain HOW people are "getting together" and what they are doing "together."

How? It's simple, they organize into parties and organizations with the aim of overthrowing the existing order, and replace the old institutions with their own. Why is this so hard to understand? This is more or less what the bourgeoisie did to the old feudal order.

[mikelepore]

3. How do you justify taking away private property? (I know in Marxist terms that refers to the means of production).

A century and a half ago in the U.S., the version of this "moral" concern had to do with slavery. Some people said things like this: "Slavery is a very bad institution, the most horrible degradation ever experienced. Unfortunately, we will have to keep slavery around forever, because there would be no possible way to get rid of it .... without taking away some individuals' hard-earned investments .... which would be wrong .... that would be robbery. They can show their receipts for payment in full at the slave auctions, which settles the whole matter, since we don't want to become robbers. But it's such a shame. It is really too bad that we will have to keep such a horrible institution as slavery forever."

[mikelepore]

What causes poverty from communist POV?

Poverty is caused by the fact that the price that workers fetch on the labor market is not in any way linked to the continuously growing productivity of their labor.

If the workers get paid one-sixth of the equivalent of what they produce, or one-tenth, or some other small fraction, it should be no surprise, because capitalism never did have any mechanism to link the price of the commodity labor-power in its own marketplace to the exchange values of the vast wealth that labor generates.

In Marx model, the thing that a price on the labor market correlates with is, not the productivity of labor, but the cost of production of the commodities who are selling themselves on that labor market. Just as the price of a sack of potatoes tracks with the cost of production of potatoes, the price of a worker on the labor market tracks with his or her cost of production. That means a continuous gravitation of wages back toward a bare subsistence level, like the return of a pendulum to its equilibrium position.

So, then, what is the cause of poverty? Its cause is capitalism functioning normally.

[mikelepore]

1. Capitalism merely came out on top at the end.

What end? Is history all finished? History began millennia ago and it comes to an end today?

[graffic]

What end? Is history all finished? History began millennia ago and it comes to an end today?

But after the french revolution they returned to monarch rule, after USSR they returned to capitalism, China is a very strange country in terms of politics but they are no longer communist. I guess thats why there is a saying that a violent or forceful revolution is as problematic as capitalism because it's only thinking about the here and now. People want what they want now. There is no future vision and it's bound to piss a lot of people off, just like capitalism. I'm talking bollocks so I will stop now

[Conquer or Die]

So a few commie POV's are:

1. So obviously Red China and the Soviets never achieved world communism or an advanced level of communism in the regions they controlled. What I gather is that they started off working towards communism but somewhere along the line things went sour. It's not as easy as it looks. Especially with the forces of capitalism trying to stop you every step of the way.

Vanguard party leadership was short sighted. The critical error in both states was the supreme authority given to the party that lead to character flawed individuals abusing their own power for personal gain.

Truth be told, if Lin Biao wasn't so sycophantic and hung Mao and Xiaopeng from a tree he might've converted the whole world to class revolution.


In the future how do you plan to stop revisionists from seizing power? Or is the first priority to get rid of the capitalist influence that tried to stop you every step of the way?

When the system experiences more detrimental crashes and wars then a revolutionary situation is created. If a situation is overtly fascist in nature then total war is the only option.



2. So luck and being a skilled businessmen might have something to do with it, but that doesn't justify his private ownership of capital.

For everyone that makes it thousands fail, not due to their lack of being able to work, but because of market forces and other factors. Not everyone can be a business owner because then there would be no one to work.

It's really besides the point. Your father may have been the greatest, most hard working port business owner in the history of the world but it wouldn't matter a dime in the context of the whole species. A certain "conservative" viewpoint is equality of opportunity. This is only possible in a needs based democratic system. Millions of people each year die of starvation due to neo-colonialism and thusly have no opportunity. "Fair, just, equal" are all just buzzwords. What's important is the truth, and the truth is best achieved when all parties have the means to pursue it.


3. So when you collectivize a capitalist's private property, do you reimburse them or not? If you think their claim to the capital is illegitimate, why would you?

There is nothing sacrosanct about private property. There is no country anywhere that has a concrete protection of private property. It was only after 1897 that the United States supreme court decided that states were compelled to follow the reimbursement clause of the fifth amendment for "coercing" people out of their private property. Moreover, as imminent domain happens it usually occurs to promote commerce and tax revenue by destroying neighborhoods and taking granny's home and not taking over the means of production, but rather propping up large corporations and small businesses.



And since the capitalists have a monopoly over the means of production and the startup costs are huge to acquire capital and construct factories, would there be capital to invest in in the first place if the capitalists don't come and make people build stuff? Is this the logic behind "the revolution will happen in an industrialized country?"

The argument is that people will naturally build stuff, and do so in an egalitarian or democratic way. The apple in front of the horse is no longer short sighted satisfaction, but long term species survival and happiness.


4. I might have this backwards, since I was raised believing private property is sacred and anyone who tries to take it is a terrorist lol,

but how do you, as a communist, respond to the idea that without the capitalists the people wouldn't have wages or jobs to sustain themselves?

Many young conservative children who aren't of the religious type have fantastical notions about being able to keep their "own" money and to own things. It's bullshit.

Private property does not exist. There is no grand law protecting private property. Private property is not private. Private property means little to nothing when it deals with people's homes, but is all the world when it comes to means of production; i.e. liberal communists do not care about folks on the farm in missouri; but wish to fully destroy large private interests in the farming industry.

[Bankotsu]

A few things that bother me about communism

Try this:

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/08.html

[4 Leaf Clover]

Hello this place seems interesting. I would like a point of view not from the dominating class of society.

I think that capitalism and communism have been equally evil in the 20th century. People advocating both caused millions of deaths, dictatorships, etc.

1. Capitalism merely came out on top at the end. I'm disillusioned with humanity, everyone seems so greedy(In the USA and the leadership in Red China and the Soviet Union). What do you think of that?

A few things:

2. How do you explain that my father came to the United States during the Reagan years with nothing but $600 and a bag of clothes and now he owns a big scrap metal transport company near one of the largest ports in the USA making over $250,000 annually? Perhaps he worked harder and sought the right opportunities? What do you think?

Is he an "evil capitalist" for wanting to escape the conditions of his native country caused by cold war and seek out a better life? He pays people wages in exchange for driving his trucks.


3. How do you justify taking away private property? (I know in Marxist terms that refers to the means of production).

For example, lets say that capitalists invest millions in a factory and oil rigs in a third world country, what right do the workers in the third world country have to nationalize the capitalist's private property? What causes poverty from communist POV?


4. I want to know exactly how the soviet economy worked, how it was developed, etc. Anything I can read online?

I find it interesting that they were able to develop and industrialize in such a short period of time. Does this mean that using the soviet model can develop other third world countries? How did they do it?
In the further text when people use term "state capitalist" use this translation : state capitalist----->socialist

[Comrade B]

1. Capitalism merely came out on top at the end. I'm disillusioned with humanity, everyone seems so greedy(In the USA and the leadership in Red China and the Soviet Union). What do you think of that?
Centralized leadership is not true communism nor what Lenin intended to come upon the Soviet Union.


2. How do you explain that my father came to the United States during the Reagan years with nothing but $600 and a bag of clothes and now he owns a big scrap metal transport company near one of the largest ports in the USA making over $250,000 annually? Perhaps he worked harder and sought the right opportunities? What do you think?
Congrats, you are the lucky few.
My grandfather died of cancer (which he got from being exposed to a chemical negligently exposed by the company owner to his workers) after fighting in 2 wars for the US and working all life long. He lived in Nebo Missouri and Ozone Park NY for nearly the entirety of his life (poor rural community, mob run NYC shit hole)
His son who was working with him also has cancer from the same chemical, but fared better. Two of his other sons also were emotionallly wrecked by Vietnam.
They all worked all their lives, 1 son is flat broke, 1 daughter is quickly realizing that she is financially screwed, 1 son has cancer, 1 still suffers from PTSD.


Is he an "evil capitalist" for wanting to escape the conditions of his native country caused by cold war and seek out a better life? He pays people wages in exchange for driving his trucks.
It depends on how he treats his workers.

3. How do you justify taking away private property? (I know in Marxist terms that refers to the means of production).


For example, lets say that capitalists invest millions in a factory and oil rigs in a third world country, what right do the workers in the third world country have to nationalize the capitalist's private property? What causes poverty from communist POV?
We make it, we take it.
Everything is run by the workers.
How do capitalists justify letting people starve while ass holes like the Hiltons by multi-thousand dollar dog houses?

Doesn't even take a Marxist to explain poverty
Freidman, I think it is, (an economic liberal) talks about how nations should specialize their production, so countries with large numbers of people and little in terms of modern production tools (think Vietnam or Mexico) should make basic things, like textiles, (thus condemning the majority of their people to poverty, but hey! It makes the business leaders a bigger profit!... which makes democracy and shit... according to liberalism....) countries with large amounts of land (Think poor rural America or some parts of the middle east and Latin America) should make natural goods (condemning, once again, a large portion of the population to poverty, so long as there is someone wanting to make a profit off of labor (capitalism) rather than to provide for society (communism)) and countries with technology and little land (think Switzerland) should focus on trained labor and technology goods (banks and pharmaceuticals) (this leaves them as the wealthiest, supported by the production of the other countries, which don't make a dime off of shit)
Of course not the entire nation suffers... but no one makes a profit unless someone does. (may have gotten a few things wrong in Freidman's stuff, read it a bit long ago, but should be pretty close to his argument)

[greymatter]

Doesn't even take a Marxist to explain poverty
Freidman, I think it is, (an economic liberal) talks about how nations should specialize their production, so countries with large numbers of people and little in terms of modern production tools (think Vietnam or Mexico) should make basic things, like textiles, (thus condemning the majority of their people to poverty, but hey! It makes the business leaders a bigger profit!... which makes democracy and shit... according to liberalism....) countries with large amounts of land (Think poor rural America or some parts of the middle east and Latin America) should make natural goods (condemning, once again, a large portion of the population to poverty, so long as there is someone wanting to make a profit off of labor (capitalism) rather than to provide for society (communism)) and countries with technology and little land (think Switzerland) should focus on trained labor and technology goods (banks and pharmaceuticals) (this leaves them as the wealthiest, supported by the production of the other countries, which don't make a dime off of shit)
I know it's ugly, but you have to think long-term on this. Countries that are poor trade their cheap goods for technologies which enable them to become less and less poor. This is precisely how the US evolved from an agricultural colony to a sweatshop to manufacturing and now a technological economy. See China. Eventually, the rich countries will have completely mechanized manufacturing and the poorest countries will have much more than they do now.

Marx's idea that humans will eventually become egalitarian again like we were in the paleolithic is as yet unproven. If his teleological analysis of history is correct, then capitalism is good because of the technological innovation that takes place in capitalist economies. If Marx was incorrect, then the availability of cheap goods is going to increase anyway, so thank your lucky stars you don't have a dirt floor and you're not going to die of typhus anytime soon.

[RGacky3]

Centralized leadership is not true communism nor what Lenin intended to come upon the Soviet Union.


Nor what Lenin intended??? Lenin was the one that centralized power to the point to where it could no longer really be called socialism, you've got to be kidding me. Lenin and the Bolshevik leadership centralized ALL the power.


We make it, we take it.
Everything is run by the workers.


Probably the best explination of revolution yet.

[mel]

Nor what Lenin intended??? Lenin was the one that centralized power to the point to where it could no longer really be called socialism, you've got to be kidding me. Lenin and the Bolshevik leadership centralized ALL the power.

For a really really really interesting definition of "Centralize", for fuck's sake. Lenin died before there was honestly a completely functional state at all in the USSR, the entire place was a barely strung together war government, haphazardly thrown together with relatively little communication between the government and the party. Tracing out the actual power structure is quite literally impossible at this point, our records are nowhere near complete enough. Ultimately, part of the problem with the soviet union in these early years is this complete lack of structure (understandable after the civil war), but the image of central control from above is just naive and historically inaccurate.