It's only a statistic

[Nyder]

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF



Communism is a form of socialism. It puts control of all property into the hands of the government directly. The results have been impressive: over 100 million people killed in the last century.

Communism is the bloodiest form of government ever conceived. It enslaves the entire population, and rules through fear. Because it destroys property rights, it makes the production of wealth almost impossible. Since the use of one's mind is no longer a method of creating wealth, communism has only one method of production: Through hard physical labor. But without the use of reason, even this is severely limited in its scope.

Since the population gets an equal share of the wealth produced, there is virtually no incentive to produce, since one's effort is of negligible benefit. To compensate for this, the government must intimidate and force the people into working hard. Since self-interest is eliminated as a motivation for production, it is replaced by its cruder sort of self-interest in the form of fear of death. The government slaughters citizens to keep the rest in line.

This is encouraged because the government policies are failures. Communism is supposed to produce limitless wealth, making all of its citizens happy and rich. But with the ability to produce impaired, the success never happens. To distract the population from its failure, the government must blame it on others. And anyone guilty enough of harming everyone in society should be killed of course. Communism lives on scapegoats.

Communism is a brutal system of government. It does not just fail to protect individual rights, it establishes a system of violence force. The results have been exactly what one would predict: starvation, poverty, and the slaughter of millions.

Copyright - link (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/index.html?http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_Main.html)

[Nyder]

To the communist advocates on this site - read carefully; and think about what you are advocating.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 01:19 PM
To the communist advocates on this site - read carefully; and think about what you are advocating.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You think communism caused all this deaths? You might as well say that fairy clinkerbell caused those deaths, has communism as a form of society has not existed yet.

I'd like to know how those deaths are caused 'by communism'

The only failure it points out is the failure of the Leninist paradigm.

[cubist]

yawns at the imperialist properganda, when you accept americas death count as real and true we will take this seriously

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 01:23 PM
I'd like to know how those deaths are caused 'by communism'

The only failure it points out is the failure of the Leninist paradigm.
...and failiure of the ability to respect individual rights, non-recognition of which are axiomatic to communism.


yawns at the imperialist properganda, when you accept americas death count as real and true we will take this seriously

Where does it advocate imperialism ?

[Daniel Karssenberg]

EIther it were Communist states or allegedly Communist states, it were states who used violence on behalf of itself or a certain "Workers" minority/majority. The Fascist deaths should certainly be added, these are just deaths fallen under a state with too much power of the individual being.

[cubist]

its funny

, stalin didn't kill 100 million people but millions died (most socialists have accepted this),

america is responsible for millions of deaths of innocent civillians, most americans haven't accepted this

[cubist]

PM, i thought you were better than that,

its properganda attempting to be against communism i can only think of one political ideal responsible for it

[Invader Zim]

I've just been reading your list and for some reason it has Ethiopia as communist.. well sorry mate but during 1974-1991 Ethiopia was run by a Junta, which never even claimed to be a communist or marxist government.

Another strage thing is the whole table only adds up to 106,267, yet magically the figure has been inflated to 169,199 an icrease of 62,932 which is about 59% of the origional figure. How did they reach this figure? Who knows its a mystery!

Dont you think that this one major flaw makes your list seam to be all wrong?

I am also intrigued to here how the USSR has been given such a large figure, of around 62 million, when any credible historian can tell you that this is not the case.

Of all the atrocitologists of note, only Rummel has produced a figure nearly that high, he actually puts it at 51,755,000 democides. All other note worthy statitics were taken over a large period of time which included the Nazi invasion, and as such are not the fault of communism. A more realistic figure is about 10,000,000 including the famine, especially as no mass graves suggesting these kinds of figues have ever been found in Russia, though extensive searchers have been carried out.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin

So already we have managed to get that magical figure of 169,199,000 down to about 56,000,000.

And I havent even looked at the others in great detail yet.

NOrth Korea, is another interesting example, again your table takes the figues given by Rummel, who is notoriously bad for inflating figures to suit his political views, and the famously inaccurate Le Livre Noir du Communism. However if we take another two sources: -

The Center for the Advancement of North Korean Human Rights estimates that some 400,000 prisoners have died in labor camps since 1972.

http://www.nkhumanrights.or.kr/oldnkhuman/...knews12_01.html (http://www.nkhumanrights.or.kr/oldnkhuman/eng/nk/nknews12_01.html)


In this case Rummel has actually doubled the figure and more!

Regarding China, as the tables lists these deaths as democides (mass murder and genocide), then the accidental famine of China can be removed, as it was not a democide, so at most for china, ignoring the famine you are looking at 10,000,000 again And that is an inflated figure on my part, as well. So we now remove a further 25 million from the already shrinking figure, and we get 31,000,000 million.

Now I could continue, and look into each individual case, but in truth Ibelieve that I have already done enough to sink this pack of lies, from good old R.J.Rummel, the most bias atrocitologist.

BTW you can see my sources at this particularly fine web site: -

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm

Good day to you sir.

PS, an insteresting statistic is that smoking has killed about 71,000,000 people in developed countries! Surley thats capitalist tabacco companies to blame for that one.

So smoking alone has killed more people than communism, apparently.


http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm#Smoking

[DaCuBaN]

Communism is a form of socialism. It puts control of all property into the hands of the government directly. The results have been impressive: over 100 million people killed in the last century

Under what circumstances? The statement of death is so amazingly vague it's unreal - this aside from the damning evidence provided in the post by Enigma


Communism is the bloodiest form of government ever conceived. It enslaves the entire population, and rules through fear. Because it destroys property rights, it makes the production of wealth almost impossible. Since the use of one's mind is no longer a method of creating wealth, communism has only one method of production: Through hard physical labor. But without the use of reason, even this is severely limited in its scope.


It is by no means the 'bloodiest' form of government ever created. It's not the ideology, but the people involved that create this problem. And these people are by no means all 'lefties'. Quite the opposite would seem to be true.

As for using the mind to create wealth, well this is absurd in the extreme. I suppose the thousands of scientists the USSR nurtured only knew physical labour? I think a more valid point would be that communism requires understanding of the fact that no real wealth can be created without labour, and that the labour is where the value should be defined, not through some imaginary 'market'


Since the population gets an equal share of the wealth produced, there is virtually no incentive to produce, since one's effort is of negligible benefit. To compensate for this, the government must intimidate and force the people into working hard. Since self-interest is eliminated as a motivation for production, it is replaced by its cruder sort of self-interest in the form of fear of death. The government slaughters citizens to keep the rest in line.

The fear of death argument only applies to those who have no desire to labour for the good of others. It's selfishness - AND RIDICULOUS. After all, the harder you work, the more benefit EVERYONE receives. I've asked this before, but do you really only do something if you will benefit directly from it? are you that self-serving?


This is encouraged because the government policies are failures. Communism is supposed to produce limitless wealth, making all of its citizens happy and rich. But with the ability to produce impaired, the success never happens. To distract the population from its failure, the government must blame it on others. And anyone guilty enough of harming everyone in society should be killed of course. Communism lives on scapegoats.

Think how many people you know, left and right alike, that refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions and blame someone or something else when things go awry. This has no relation to the argument whatsoever. As for production being impaired, I would dearly love to see your evidence on this 'fact'


Communism is a brutal system of government. It does not just fail to protect individual rights, it establishes a system of violence force. The results have been exactly what one would predict: starvation, poverty, and the slaughter of millions.

Remove the phrase 'communism is a brutal system of government' and replace with 'Mankind:' - it makes much more sensible reading

What I want to know is when people will stop following each other round like sheep and start trying to think of solutions to age old problems. Capitalism and Communism alike suck. What else is there?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Daniel [email protected] 20 2004, 02:52 PM
The Fascist deaths should certainly be added, these are just deaths fallen under a state with too much power of the individual being.
It is already there. Germany 1933-1945 : 20,946,000 killed.


PS, an insteresting statistic is that smoking has killed about 71,000,000 people in developed countries! Surley thats capitalist tabacco companies to blame for that one.

So smoking alone has killed more people than communism, apparently.

There is quite a significant moral and conceptual difference between selling someone a cigarette and putting a bullet in their head.


Under what circumstances? The statement of death is so amazingly vague it's unreal - this aside from the damning evidence provided in the post by Enigma

Whether the figures are exaggerated or not, the point has been made, hasn't it ?


The fear of death argument only applies to those who have no desire to labour for the good of others. It's selfishness - AND RIDICULOUS.

Then your system is obviously as tyrannical as the text suggests.

[Invader Zim]

I've been browsing the web site that image has been taken from, and it is very flawed.

Take this image: -

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.2.1.GIF

They have completely failed to include the deaths occuring in the USA.

3,300,000 because of deap routed racism in the USA. Source (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm#Racism)

Deaths directly responcible from the US (WW1 is US deaths)

Philippines Insurgency = 300K
Lynchings = 2K
Mexican Revolution 2000K
WW1 = 50K
WW2 = 129K
Korean War (US invovment) = 2,950K
Vietnam = 1900K
Panama = 4K
Gulf War = 75K
Afganistan = 15K
Iraq = 20K

Now im not including anything, such as starvation caused by great depression, or sanctions, or globalisation, etc. Just military deaths etc, like that table did, fair is fair, after all. (I was also remarkably generous in WW2, I only included Hiroshima and Nagasaki)

The total comes to 7,445,000, now with the other stuff included, then your probably looking at well over 10,000,000. And thats only the US (who it pains too say are not that bad compaired to say the UK's sordid history), all the other capitalist countries, you are probably looking at 50-75 million. Add the starvation caused by capitalist economic policies, another 50-75 million. Lets just call it 100 million shall we, to communisms 50 million,(including China's famine).

It's only a statistic...

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 20 2004, 09:38 PM

PS, an insteresting statistic is that smoking has killed about 71,000,000 people in developed countries! Surley thats capitalist tabacco companies to blame for that one.

So smoking alone has killed more people than communism, apparently.

There is quite a significant moral and conceptual difference between selling someone a cigarette and putting a bullet in their head.


Under what circumstances? The statement of death is so amazingly vague it's unreal - this aside from the damning evidence provided in the post by Enigma

Whether the figures are exaggerated or not, the point has been made, hasn't it ?


There is quite a significant moral and conceptual difference between selling someone a cigarette and putting a bullet in their head.

Tell me would you sell a teenager a cyanide pill, or rope with a noose?

Whether the figures are exaggerated or not, the point has been made, hasn't it ?

No because your point is none existant, without the figures being ridiculously high. The point was that Communism was completely evil because its killed 160 million people... but it hasn't, at most its 35,000,000 which is far less than capitalism. So unless you are as evil as us, your point crashes and burns.

[Daniel Karssenberg]

Look whether someone died because of the torture by US soldiers or by the torture of Communist soldiers, the only conclusion is that a large and authoritarian government supported by die-hard fantici and an army who uses violence against its own or other people leads to murders. Let us stop those facts, I am getting very annoyed how simple people are talking about these deaths here just to support their Conservative or to support their Communist ideals.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 09:44 PM
Tell me would you sell a teenager a cyanide pill, or rope with a noose?



Are you not capable of telling the difference between me selling cyanide and ramming it down his throat ?

(Wait a minute...therefore you don't see any difference between someone working for money and someone working with a gun against his head. I can see a pattern beginning to form here...)


No because your point is none existant, without the figures being ridiculously high. The point was that Communism was completely evil because its killed 160 million people...

The point is, you don't get that kind of thing happening here; not in a country that (sort of) respects individual rights.


but it hasn't, at most its 35,000,000 which is far less than capitalism.

Cite. How is protecting the rights of individuals going to kill them ?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Daniel [email protected] 20 2004, 09:49 PM
Look whether someone died because of the torture by US soldiers or by the torture of Communist soldiers, the only conclusion is that a large and authoritarian government supported by die-hard fantici and an army who uses violence against its own or other people leads to murders. Let us stop those facts, I am getting very annoyed how simple people are talking about these deaths here just to support their Conservative or to support their Communist ideals.
hate to burst your bubble but i'm not a communist and have never claimed to be.

[Daniel Karssenberg]

Whatever ideology or views people stand for, tehy should not abuse the deaths of people who rather died for their principles than live under authoritarian regimes. Those people earn more respect than common Left VS. Right debates.

[DaCuBaN]

you don't see any difference between someone working for money and someone working with a gun against his head

The difference is academic - in both scenarios the average worker is only trying to proloing their life. Under capitalism they are required to earn to continue their survival, under communism they are required to work. Considering working=earning, where is the difference?

Someone said there are three kinds of lies - Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. How true is the latter :rolleyes: ;)

Remember history is written by the winners.

[Daniel Karssenberg]

**OOPS wrong topic***

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Daniel [email protected] 20 2004, 10:09 PM
Whatever ideology or views people stand for, tehy should not abuse the deaths of people who rather died for their principles than live under authoritarian regimes. Those people earn more respect than common Left VS. Right debates.
But i'm not doing it for any ideological gains, i'm doing it because multiplying a figure then adding a zero to the end of it, so you can say that commies are evil is stupid.

[Raisa]

Communism had never existed yet. So it is impossible that communism caused all of these deaths. Because it didnt. Only failed attempts in the wrong direction, or people who were infact not communist at all doing it "in the name of communism".
They may as well have been capitalists themselves!


And what of the wide spread poverty, murder, death, and starvation that happends with your system?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Once a month this topic appears. Coming up with the same statistic, then again the flaws are pointed out. Then a month later the whole scene starts again.

I don't even feel like debating in this topic. Just want to point out 2 things:

Most Communists on this board, are libertarian, disagreeing on almost everything with the former socialist countries.

Call me stupid, but my guess is that you don't care about human lives and you are merely abusing the deaths to shit of Communists. Very unrespectfull behavior and a very weak argument.

3 million people each year die of hunger. And yes these people work up to 18 hours a day and do all their life nothing else then working, they are living in the Capitalist countries and can't afford food. "What a lucky people."
Tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afgan civilians died in the past 3 years by Capitalist bombs.
Half million civilians died in Iraq in the first Gulf war thanks to Capitalist DU.
Billions of people live in extreme poverty, among them millions of people who live on garbage dumps, millions of people who don't even posses a name. Work, work, work and nothing more.

We as westerners, have the possibilites to help these people. To stop the system which is systematiclly destroying people's lives, to afford the boss "a new pool".

[Professor Moneybags]

3 million people each year die of hunger. And yes these people work up to 18 hours a day and do all their life nothing else then working, they are living in the Capitalist countries and can't afford food. "What a lucky people."

They're not capitalist.


Tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afgan civilians died in the past 3 years by Capitalist bombs.
Half million civilians died in Iraq in the first Gulf war thanks to Capitalist DU.

Capitalist bombs ? As opposed to what ? Socialist bombs ? Do they simultaneously redistribute wealth as well as blowing up its target ?


Billions of people live in extreme poverty, among them millions of people who live on garbage dumps, millions of people who don't even posses a name. Work, work, work and nothing more.

We as westerners, have the possibilites to help these people. To stop the system which is systematiclly destroying people's lives, to afford the boss "a new pool".

Don't make me post a link to that "disingenuous ethics" article again...

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 21 2004, 08:27 AM

3 million people each year die of hunger. And yes these people work up to 18 hours a day and do all their life nothing else then working, they are living in the Capitalist countries and can't afford food. "What a lucky people."

They're not capitalist.


Tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afgan civilians died in the past 3 years by Capitalist bombs.
Half million civilians died in Iraq in the first Gulf war thanks to Capitalist DU.

Capitalist bombs ? As opposed to what ? Socialist bombs ? Do they simultaneously redistribute wealth as well as blowing up its target ?


Billions of people live in extreme poverty, among them millions of people who live on garbage dumps, millions of people who don't even posses a name. Work, work, work and nothing more.

We as westerners, have the possibilites to help these people. To stop the system which is systematiclly destroying people's lives, to afford the boss "a new pool".

Don't make me post a link to that "disingenuous ethics" article again...
1. Capitalism is the persuit of capital, they most certainly are run by capitalists.

2. Their is no socialist country which bombs other countries, at this present time.

3. what artical?

[cubist]

3 million a year, thats 90,000 a day approx, thats alot,

and yeah what article?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 10:46 AM
1. Capitalism is the persuit of capital, they most certainly are run by capitalists.


"Persuit of capital" is and overly simplistic and contextless definition.


2. Their is no socialist country which bombs other countries, at this present time.

At this present time...


3. what artical?

This one. (copyright) (http://www.prometh.com/Radcap/Inserts/ins0012.asp)

[cubist]

oh look at the bottom it says AYN RAND, nuff said not to mention the title is it a good article i couldn't be arsed to read it it sounds like the sort of thing LUCID would read

[Misodoctakleidist]

Professor Moneybags, when are you going to accept that the word capitalism already had a definition before Ayn Rand usurped it?

Those countries are capitalist. Capitalism refers to social organisation based on ownership of the means of production and paid labour.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

The US isn't Capitalist. A very interresting thing to say, but extremely stupid too. Shallow guy, shallow statements.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 21 2004, 03:58 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 21 2004, 03:58 PM)
[email protected] 21 2004, 10:46 AM
1. Capitalism is the persuit of capital, they most certainly are run by capitalists.


"Persuit of capital" is and overly simplistic and contextless definition.


2. Their is no socialist country which bombs other countries, at this present time.

At this present time...


3. what artical?

This one. (copyright) (http://www.prometh.com/Radcap/Inserts/ins0012.asp) [/b]
capitalist

\Cap"i*tal*ist\, n. [Cf. F. capitaliste.] One who has capital; one who has money for investment, or money invested; esp. a person of large property, which is employed in business.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.



Seems to me that what said was quite accurate, the rulers of these countries support the private ownership of capital, because they are the ones who own it, they are usually very rich though their country is poor.

They are capitalist countires, or at least run by capitalists.

At this present time...

If you actually knew what socialism was you would realise that no socialist country ever has. Socialism is inherently pacafist, they will all tell you that the only war is the class war.


I fail to see any relevance to anything in your artical, except a few moral and ethical opinion's which are generally watered down and incorrect.

Take the opening idea regarding fishing, a socialist would give the man fish to releave his hunger, then teach him to fish, a capitalist would sell the fish and charge the poor bugger for lessons. Thats the differance between capitalism and socialism.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:36 PM
Professor Moneybags, when are you going to accept that the word capitalism already had a definition before Ayn Rand usurped it?


I'm not interested in who usurped what. Your attempt at creating a straw man argument is not going to work. You can call "capitalism" as myself and people like Hayek and von Mises define it whatever you like; it's arguments doesn't go away. Call it "Moneybagsism" if you like. Now you just have to try and criticise the ideas of "Moneybagsism".


Those countries are capitalist. Capitalism refers to social organisation based on ownership of the means of production and paid labour.

So I wouldn't find any nationalised industries and market regulations there ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 21 2004, 06:26 PM
The US isn't Capitalist. A very interresting thing to say, but extremely stupid too. Shallow guy, shallow statements.
Hey, smartarse, I'll do you a deal. I'll stop calling the USSR communist and you stop calling the US "capitalist".

The US is a mixed economy.


Seems to me that what said was quite accurate, the rulers of these countries support the private ownership of capital, because they are the ones who own it, they are usually very rich though their country is poor.

If any property rights do exist, they're probably defacto at best. I don't think their governments respect the property rights of their citizens, especially not the regime in Zimbabwe.

They are capitalist countires, or at least run by capitalists.


I fail to see any relevance to anything in your artical,

N-S Bast. implied that the west is only rich because the third world isn't.


except a few moral and ethical opinion's which are generally watered down and incorrect.

Incorrect by what standard. Explain.


Take the opening idea regarding fishing, a socialist would give the man fish to releave his hunger, then teach him to fish, a capitalist would sell the fish and charge the poor bugger for lessons. Thats the differance between capitalism and socialism.

No, the socialist would probably enslave him by forcing him to fish for everyone who couldn't (or couldn't be bothered to) do it themselves. That's the real difference.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 21 2004, 10:35 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 21 2004, 10:35 PM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 21 2004, 06:26 PM
The US isn't Capitalist. A very interresting thing to say, but extremely stupid too. Shallow guy, shallow statements.
Hey, smartarse, I'll do you a deal. I'll stop calling the USSR communist and you stop calling the US "capitalist".

The US is a mixed economy.


Seems to me that what said was quite accurate, the rulers of these countries support the private ownership of capital, because they are the ones who own it, they are usually very rich though their country is poor.

If any property rights do exist, they're probably defacto at best. I don't think their governments respect the property rights of their citizens, especially not the regime in Zimbabwe.

They are capitalist countires, or at least run by capitalists.


I fail to see any relevance to anything in your artical,

N-S Bast. implied that the west is only rich because the third world isn't.


except a few moral and ethical opinion's which are generally watered down and incorrect.

Incorrect by what standard. Explain.


Take the opening idea regarding fishing, a socialist would give the man fish to releave his hunger, then teach him to fish, a capitalist would sell the fish and charge the poor bugger for lessons. Thats the differance between capitalism and socialism.

No, the socialist would probably enslave him by forcing him to fish for everyone who couldn't (or couldn't be bothered to) do it themselves. That's the real difference. [/b]
I don't think their governments respect the property rights of their citizens, especially not the regime in Zimbabwe.

the ultimate extream of capitalism.


Incorrect by what standard. Explain.

The thing which caut my eye mostly was this quote; -

"This is immoral. And it is immoral - not because you give prisoners water to drink, but because you have fashioned a way to make the fact of their thirst an excuse to ignore the cause of their thirst."

Which suggests that you should remove the cause of the problem, and completely ignore the actual problem. The logical and moral solution is to remove the cause of the problem, after actually addressing the issue at hand.

No, the socialist would probably enslave him by forcing him to fish for everyone who couldn't (or couldn't be bothered to) do it themselves.

Your logic is flawed as you have just described a capitalist society. A person produces goods to support the rest of society, if they do not then they starve.

In a socialist society it is exactly the same, comply with society or society fails and you starve, the differance is, people get paid the same amount. So that the real lazy people, the rich capitalists, can not profit by other peoples hard labour.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

It's not up to me to stop calling the US capitalist. The fact stays that the US called the USSR communist, but the USSR called themselves socialist. It's like people calling you Bob. The USSR didn't fit in the requirements for Communism. Communism is state and leaderless, the USSR is none of them.

The US is Capitalist. Those social laws, which can be counted on one hand, is nothing more then "a drop on a glowing plate" - a Dutch proverb. The US is Capitalist, just like LF is a form of Capitalism.

[Professor Moneybags]

I don't think their governments respect the property rights of their citizens, especially not the regime in Zimbabwe.

the ultimate extream of capitalism.

The ultimate extreme of capitalism is the violation of private property rights ?


Which suggests that you should remove the cause of the problem, and completely ignore the actual problem. The logical and moral solution is to remove the cause of the problem, after actually addressing the issue at hand.

What are you talking about ? Getting rid of the "cause" stops the "actual" problem.


No, the socialist would probably enslave him by forcing him to fish for everyone who couldn't (or couldn't be bothered to) do it themselves.

Your logic is flawed as you have just described a capitalist society. A person produces goods to support the rest of society, if they do not then they starve.

Are you having a laugh or just engaging in projection ?


In a socialist society it is exactly the same, comply with society or society fails and you starve,

I am at the mercy of eveyone else, in other words.


the differance is, people get paid the same amount. So that the real lazy people, the rich capitalists, can not profit by other peoples hard labour.

Economic equality only benefits the non-productive and penalises the productive. Why are you supporting it ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 21 2004, 11:05 PM
The US is Capitalist, just like LF is a form of Capitalism.
Then the USSR must have been communist then. Communist/socialist whatever. Same difference.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 21 2004, 11:22 PM

I don't think their governments respect the property rights of their citizens, especially not the regime in Zimbabwe.

the ultimate extream of capitalism.

The ultimate extreme of capitalism is the violation of private property rights ?


Which suggests that you should remove the cause of the problem, and completely ignore the actual problem. The logical and moral solution is to remove the cause of the problem, after actually addressing the issue at hand.

What are you talking about ? Getting rid of the "cause" stops the "actual" problem.


No, the socialist would probably enslave him by forcing him to fish for everyone who couldn't (or couldn't be bothered to) do it themselves.

Your logic is flawed as you have just described a capitalist society. A person produces goods to support the rest of society, if they do not then they starve.

Are you having a laugh or just engaging in projection ?


In a socialist society it is exactly the same, comply with society or society fails and you starve,

I am at the mercy of eveyone else, in other words.


the differance is, people get paid the same amount. So that the real lazy people, the rich capitalists, can not profit by other peoples hard labour.

Economic equality only benefits the non-productive and penalises the productive. Why are you supporting it ?

The ultimate extreme of capitalism is the violation of private property rights ?

No the open and blatant exploitation of others because all laws and barriers have been removed. the ultimate aim of any Laissez faire government.

What are you talking about ? Getting rid of the "cause" stops the "actual" problem.

Your logic appears to be none existant.

if you have a man dying of thirst, you spend three weeks digging him a well to provide clean water, You remove the cause of the problem.. ohh look he's died, in the time waiting for you to finish.

The logical solution is to give him water, while at the same time digging the well.


Are you having a laugh or just engaging in projection ?

Consider my point, you will notice it is accurate, if you do not work then you are forced to live on the street, and beg for money... or starve. Now answer your own question after reviewing the accuraacy of my statement.


I am at the mercy of eveyone else, in other words.

You are at the mercy of every one else in capitalism. If people deside to stop woking then you starve. Its no different. Or do you actually produce your own electricity, grow your own food, and live a completely self sufficent life style?

Economic equality only benefits the non-productive and penalises the productive.

You are suggesting that only the productive get rewarded in a capitalist society, and only the unproductive get little. This is not true, many personal fortunes are made by those who contribute nothing to society and only manipulate money. Where as the very people who society is absolutly dependant on, get next to nothing, though they may put in considerably more work than the rich person.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 21 2004, 11:25 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 21 2004, 11:25 PM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 21 2004, 11:05 PM
The US is Capitalist, just like LF is a form of Capitalism.
Then the USSR must have been communist then. Communist/socialist whatever. Same difference. [/b]
USSR doesn't fit in the description of Communism. The USA does in the description of Capitalism. The road to Communism is called Socialism, it's not Communism!

Socialism will never reach the goal that it's intended to do; Communism. We as the people should never give the power away.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 01:18 PM
Communism is the bloodiest form of government ever conceived.

Communism is a brutal system of government. It does not just fail to protect individual rights, it establishes a system of violence force. The results have been exactly what one would predict: starvation, poverty, and the slaughter of millions.
Communism never existed. Period!


[font=Times]Communism is a form of socialism. It puts control of all property into the hands of the government directly. The results have been impressive: over 100 million people killed in the last century.

Blah blah blah. Exaggerating such numbers makes you look like a "freedom lover". "Communism" (a stateless, classless society by original definition) as an "ideology" couldnt have killed 100 million of people, especially considering that it never existed. Maybe you should blame politicians and reactionaries that caused many of those deaths.


It enslaves the entire population, and rules through fear.

So did most fascist and conservative dictatorships. But no "exceptional successful entrepeneur" ever complained.


Because it destroys property rights, it makes the production of wealth almost impossible.

Because it destroys the idea that "I am a great man who was born to own all those sheeps and you are a loser and must work for me" it wont destroy wealth. You are too much into all those nice Ayn Rand fairytales.


Since the use of one's mind is no longer a method of creating wealth, communism has only one method of production: Through hard physical labor. But without the use of reason, even this is severely limited in its scope.

By the time when we will have true Communism we will hardly ever have to do "hard physical labor". At least people will have more time to actually think, as they wont be enslaved by all that "buy buy buy" propaganda or cleaning rich people's toilets.


Since the population gets an equal share of the wealth produced, there is virtually no incentive to produce, since one's effort is of negligible benefit.

Blame the leninists.


To compensate for this, the government must intimidate and force the people into working hard.

You mean, like when a boss says "work harder and come early or i fire you you lazy bastard"???? :rolleyes:


Since self-interest is eliminated as a motivation for production, it is replaced by its cruder sort of self-interest in the form of fear of death.

In a true Communist society (that means, without "people's representatives") people will surely try to get things or produce them, and as things will be a bit more locally based, they will suffer more if they are lazy. And if you are not happy, maybe you should join with other people to produce what you want or need.


The government slaughters citizens to keep the rest in line.

Governments always do that, both directly and indirectly.


This is encouraged because the government policies are failures.

Governments are usually useless.


Communism is supposed to produce limitless wealth, making all of its citizens happy and rich.

Most economical systems promise that.


But with the ability to produce impaired, the success never happens. To distract the population from its failure, the government must blame it on others.

Like when cappies blame "socialist policies", I guess.


And anyone guilty enough of harming everyone in society should be killed of course. Communism lives on scapegoats.

Most non-anarchist systems do simmilar things. They always find a scapegoat, either jews, "niggers", foreigners, poor people, socialist politicians, ex-capitalists, counter-revolutionaries, etc.

[DaCuBaN]

The ultimate extreme of capitalism is the violation of private property rights ?


It's irrelevant to political and economic ideology. Theives exist in all cultures - these people are simply large-scale theives. The difference between what have been termed the capitalist and communist states in history is that under the former it's quite difficult to get into a position whereby you can become a 'land grabber' and the latter allows anyone the oppertunity. With this given, the former allows a good mix of the cream and the cheese, whereas the latter allows the cheese to firmly take the top.

It rewards those who are cunning.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I think we should make a distinction between capitalism and LF capitalism, the USA is capitalist but i think most of us agree that it isn't LF capitalist.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I agree but "Professor" Moneybags thinks that he can deal with me about this :lol:

The US is Capitalist
The US isn't LF Capitalist
The USSR wasn't Communist
The USSR was Socialist

[Professor Moneybags]

No the open and blatant exploitation of others because all laws and barriers have been removed. the ultimate aim of any Laissez faire government.

"Exploitation" is meaningless buzzword.


Your logic appears to be none existant.

if you have a man dying of thirst, you spend three weeks digging him a well to provide clean water, You remove the cause of the problem.. ohh look he's died, in the time waiting for you to finish.

The logical solution is to give him water, while at the same time digging the well.

Socialists aren't interested in making people self-sufficient; a self-sufficient person does not need help and would not advocate socialism, hence their mission to have everyone dependent on everyone else. Misery is their power-base which they use to buy votes.


Consider my point, you will notice it is accurate, if you do not work then you are forced to live on the street, and beg for money... or starve.

If you don't work to sustain yourself, you die. That's not called capitalism; that's called reality. And under socialism, if you don't do the work, someone has to be forced to it for you.


You are at the mercy of every one else in capitalism. If people deside to stop woking then you starve. Its no different.

Non sequitur. I am free to grow my own food and work for others in exchange for it. It's not likely that under capitalism, I would have food stolen from me and goven to others. It's highly likely under socialism.


Or do you actually produce your own electricity, grow your own food, and live a completely self sufficent life style?

I could do if I wanted, but that doesn't mean I can simply demand free electricity, food etc. off people who are expected to work to provide these things.


The USA does in the description of Capitalism.

It fits the description of a mixed economy.


Blah blah blah. Exaggerating such numbers makes you look like a "freedom lover". "Communism" (a stateless, classless society by original definition) as an "ideology" couldnt have killed 100 million of people, especially considering that it never existed. Maybe you should blame politicians and reactionaries that caused many of those deaths.

Funny how that happend every time someone tried to implement it. Maybe it's just a coincidence... :rolleyes:


So did most fascist and conservative dictatorships. But no "exceptional successful entrepeneur" ever complained.

They weren't allowed to.


Because it destroys the idea that "I am a great man who was born to own all those sheeps and you are a loser and must work for me" it wont destroy wealth. You are too much into all those nice Ayn Rand fairytales.

Making silly characatures and strawman arguments won't help the fact that destroying property rights does actually make the production of wealth almost impossible.


By the time when we will have true Communism we will hardly ever have to do "hard physical labor". At least people will have more time to actually think, as they wont be enslaved by all that "buy buy buy" propaganda or cleaning rich people's toilets.

Why will no one have to do "hard physical labor" ? How can you be enslaved by propaganda ?


Blame the leninists.

No, blame communism; there is no point earning or inventing anything if it just gets stolen away to benefit someone else.


You mean, like when a boss says "work harder and come early or i fire you you lazy bastard"????

Is your boss the government ? What if you don't work hard, does he fire you or put you in a gulag ?


Governments always do that, both directly and indirectly.

Not if it's a civilised one.


It's irrelevant to political and economic ideology. Theives exist in all cultures - these people are simply large-scale theives. The difference between what have been termed the capitalist and communist states in history is that under the former it's quite difficult to get into a position whereby you can become a 'land grabber' and the latter allows anyone the oppertunity. With this given, the former allows a good mix of the cream and the cheese, whereas the latter allows the cheese to firmly take the top.

It rewards those who are cunning.

You've just described anarchy, not capitalism.


The US is Capitalist
The US isn't LF Capitalist

Explain the difference between the two.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 22 2004, 01:07 PM

No the open and blatant exploitation of others because all laws and barriers have been removed. the ultimate aim of any Laissez faire government.

"Exploitation" is meaningless buzzword.


Your logic appears to be none existant.

if you have a man dying of thirst, you spend three weeks digging him a well to provide clean water, You remove the cause of the problem.. ohh look he's died, in the time waiting for you to finish.

The logical solution is to give him water, while at the same time digging the well.

Socialists aren't interested in making people self-sufficient; a self-sufficient person does not need help and would not advocate socialism, hence their mission to have everyone dependent on everyone else. Misery is their power-base which they use to buy votes.


Consider my point, you will notice it is accurate, if you do not work then you are forced to live on the street, and beg for money... or starve.

If you don't work to sustain yourself, you die. That's not called capitalism; that's called reality. And under socialism, if you don't do the work, someone has to be forced to it for you.


You are at the mercy of every one else in capitalism. If people deside to stop woking then you starve. Its no different.

Non sequitur. I am free to grow my own food and work for others in exchange for it. It's not likely that under capitalism, I would have food stolen from me and goven to others. It's highly likely under socialism.


Or do you actually produce your own electricity, grow your own food, and live a completely self sufficent life style?

I could do if I wanted, but that doesn't mean I can simply demand free electricity, food etc. off people who are expected to work to provide these things.


"Exploitation" is meaningless buzzword.

Well done, you completely evaded the point.

Socialists aren't interested in making people self-sufficient; a self-sufficient person does not need help and would not advocate socialism,

Inacurate, and irrelevenat, what does that statment have to do with the scenario at hand? Nothing, cease evading the issue.

Misery is their power-base which they use to buy votes.

Boring rhetoric.

That's not called capitalism; that's called reality.

Exactly, the same goes for both capitalist and socialist societies, your point is therefor invalid.

And under socialism, if you don't do the work, someone has to be forced to it for you.

as I pointed out earlier it is the exact same situation as in capitalism, your point remains invalid.

I am free to grow my own food and work for others in exchange for it.
And why weould you be unable to in a socialist system?


It's not likely that under capitalism, I would have food stolen from me and goven to others.

No because they will rip you off and not give you a reasonable wage, you will have nothing to steal.

It's highly likely under socialism.

And what do you base this fale assumption on what? Name me one socialist philosopher who has advocated this.

The only time you will have your income inpart removed is when it is grossley higher than that of the majority of society, which is unlikley.



You are very naive.

[b]but that doesn't mean I can simply demand free electricity, food etc.

If you are contributing to society, is it unreasonable to ask society to contribute to your survival?

off people who are expected to work to provide these things.

As I recall the unemplyment rate is about 3%, so that means that 97% of people do provide the income for these things them selves. You dont appear to have a point, when your scenario is placed into a realistic context.

[Professor Moneybags]

Inacurate, and irrelevenat, what does that statment have to do with the scenario at hand? Nothing, cease evading the issue.

I'm not. It's very relevent.


Boring rhetoric.

True, though.


Exactly, the same goes for both capitalist and socialist societies, your point is therefor invalid.

No it isn't. You don't get to loaf off other people under capitalism.


And under socialism, if you don't do the work, someone has to be forced to it for you.

as I pointed out earlier it is the exact same situation as in capitalism, your point remains invalid.

See above.


And why weould you be unable to in a socialist system?

It would get either stolen or redistributed away.


No because they will rip you off and not give you a reasonable wage, you will have nothing to steal.

I grew it myself, remember ? How can I rip myself off ?


It's highly likely under socialism.

And what do you base this fale assumption on what? Name me one socialist philosopher who has advocated this.

All of them. They do not recognise private property rights therefore they believe than eveything and anything is there for the taking.


The only time you will have your income inpart removed is when it is grossley higher than that of the majority of society, which is unlikley.

That doesn't matter; it's the principle. They shouldn't be forcing money off anyone.


You are very naive.

I'm very right.


If you are contributing to society, is it unreasonable to ask society to contribute to your survival?

You're not asking though, you're demanding.


As I recall the unemplyment rate is about 3%, so that means that 97% of people do provide the income for these things them selves.

What's that got to do with anything ? They could do it privately without the need for taxation.

[Osman Ghazi]

Funny how that happend every time someone tried to implement it. Maybe it's just a coincidence...


It is funny that you should say that. Every time capitalism has been implemented, it inevitably brings with it minimum wage laws, child labour laws and other impediments to LF capitlaism and yet you still seem to think that the workers will accept LF. Dream on you utopian bastard.

Man it feels good to say that. ;)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I ddin't read the whole thread, but what's a democide?

[Nyder]

To the people who criticise the figures of communist mass murder:

There are a lot of estimates of the numbers killed. Of course the exact figure is impossible to get considering the parameters (and these figures don't have anything to do with those killed in wars).

Nevertheless the consensus is that the figure is extraordinarily high and easily runs into the tetra millions.

To the people who claim that the USA is also responsible for many deaths:

I acknowledge that the US military is also responsible for many war deaths. But these statistics measure Governments killing their own people.

To the people who criticise the notion that these states were 'communist':

I already explained this on the first page of this thread. It is taken from the website; www.importanceofphilosophy.com. Here it is again:


Communism is the bloodiest form of government ever conceived. It enslaves the entire population, and rules through fear. Because it destroys property rights, it makes the production of wealth almost impossible. Since the use of one's mind is no longer a method of creating wealth, communism has only one method of production: Through hard physical labor. But without the use of reason, even this is severely limited in its scope.

Since the population gets an equal share of the wealth produced, there is virtually no incentive to produce, since one's effort is of negligible benefit. To compensate for this, the government must intimidate and force the people into working hard. Since self-interest is eliminated as a motivation for production, it is replaced by its cruder sort of self-interest in the form of fear of death. The government slaughters citizens to keep the rest in line.

This is encouraged because the government policies are failures. Communism is supposed to produce limitless wealth, making all of its citizens happy and rich. But with the ability to produce impaired, the success never happens. To distract the population from its failure, the government must blame it on others. And anyone guilty enough of harming everyone in society should be killed of course. Communism lives on scapegoats.

Communism isn't supposed to work like this in your theoritical fantasy world, but this is how it works in reality. If you don't believe me then name one 'communist' state which hasn't gone down this path.

My point is proven - now bring on the usual rhetoric.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 11:10 AM
To the people who criticise the figures of communist mass murder:

There are a lot of estimates of the numbers killed. Of course the exact figure is impossible to get considering the parameters (and these figures don't have anything to do with those killed in wars).

Nevertheless the consensus is that the figure is extraordinarily high and easily runs into the tetra millions.

To the people who claim that the USA is also responsible for many deaths:

I acknowledge that the US military is also responsible for many war deaths. But these statistics measure Governments killing their own people.

To the people who criticise the notion that these states were 'communist':

I already explained this on the first page of this thread. It is taken from the website; www.importanceofphilosophy.com. Here it is again:


Communism is the bloodiest form of government ever conceived. It enslaves the entire population, and rules through fear. Because it destroys property rights, it makes the production of wealth almost impossible. Since the use of one's mind is no longer a method of creating wealth, communism has only one method of production: Through hard physical labor. But without the use of reason, even this is severely limited in its scope.

Since the population gets an equal share of the wealth produced, there is virtually no incentive to produce, since one's effort is of negligible benefit. To compensate for this, the government must intimidate and force the people into working hard. Since self-interest is eliminated as a motivation for production, it is replaced by its cruder sort of self-interest in the form of fear of death. The government slaughters citizens to keep the rest in line.

This is encouraged because the government policies are failures. Communism is supposed to produce limitless wealth, making all of its citizens happy and rich. But with the ability to produce impaired, the success never happens. To distract the population from its failure, the government must blame it on others. And anyone guilty enough of harming everyone in society should be killed of course. Communism lives on scapegoats.

Communism isn't supposed to work like this in your theoritical fantasy world, but this is how it works in reality. If you don't believe me then name one 'communist' state which hasn't gone down this path.

My point is proven - now bring on the usual rhetoric.
If i try to make a cake and accidentaly make pastry that doesn't mean that pastry is the same thing as cake.

[Nyder]

If i try to make a cake and accidentaly make pastry that doesn't mean that pastry is the same thing as cake.


Fallacy: inappropriate analogy.

Plus you have yet to delineate the theoretical, 'fantasy' communism with the practical application of communism.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 11:10 AM
To the people who criticise the figures of communist mass murder:

There are a lot of estimates of the numbers killed. Of course the exact figure is impossible to get considering the parameters (and these figures don't have anything to do with those killed in wars).

Nevertheless the consensus is that the figure is extraordinarily high and easily runs into the tetra millions.

To the people who claim that the USA is also responsible for many deaths:

I acknowledge that the US military is also responsible for many war deaths. But these statistics measure Governments killing their own people.

To the people who criticise the notion that these states were 'communist':

I already explained this on the first page of this thread. It is taken from the website; www.importanceofphilosophy.com. Here it is again:


Communism is the bloodiest form of government ever conceived. It enslaves the entire population, and rules through fear. Because it destroys property rights, it makes the production of wealth almost impossible. Since the use of one's mind is no longer a method of creating wealth, communism has only one method of production: Through hard physical labor. But without the use of reason, even this is severely limited in its scope.

Since the population gets an equal share of the wealth produced, there is virtually no incentive to produce, since one's effort is of negligible benefit. To compensate for this, the government must intimidate and force the people into working hard. Since self-interest is eliminated as a motivation for production, it is replaced by its cruder sort of self-interest in the form of fear of death. The government slaughters citizens to keep the rest in line.

This is encouraged because the government policies are failures. Communism is supposed to produce limitless wealth, making all of its citizens happy and rich. But with the ability to produce impaired, the success never happens. To distract the population from its failure, the government must blame it on others. And anyone guilty enough of harming everyone in society should be killed of course. Communism lives on scapegoats.

Communism isn't supposed to work like this in your theoritical fantasy world, but this is how it works in reality. If you don't believe me then name one 'communist' state which hasn't gone down this path.

My point is proven - now bring on the usual rhetoric.
Listen boy, ive already sat down and ahnialated your figures, your entire tables is based around the views of Rummel, and he has been widley critisised for allowing his political views dictate his results.

I have alread sat down and proven to you that his results are completely inaccurate.

Now fuck off.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 22 2004, 11:06 PM
It is funny that you should say that. Every time capitalism has been implemented, it inevitably brings with it minimum wage laws, child labour laws and other impediments to LF capitlaism and yet you still seem to think that the workers will accept LF.
You mean the ones that socialist politicians put there ?

[Osman Ghazi]

edit: Double post

[Osman Ghazi]

Only when these movements and especially the final, total collectivization of the peasants and "Great Leap Forward" destroyed the agricultural system, causing the world's greatest recorded famine--27,000,000 starved too death9--did the communist begin to draw back from or slacken their drives.

So of the 35 million deaths by the Chinese communists, 27 million was from the famine caused by the gret leap forward, which although it was partially the fault of the poor system of agriculture, it was also related to natural disasters.

The same sit also said that of the Soviet dead, 26% was in wars, 10% was from famine. 5% died during deportation. 10% was from "terror" and 49% died in gulags.

R.J. Rommel's webpage (http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/rummel/list.htm)

[Osman Ghazi]

[/QUOTE]You mean the ones that socialist politicians put there ? [QUOTE]

Yes, actually. The people voted for those politicians in every country. Therefore it would be reasonable to assume that they would do so again, no?

So, either you can have democracy or you can have laissez-faire capitalism. But not both.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 22 2004, 10:42 PM

Inacurate, and irrelevenat, what does that statment have to do with the scenario at hand? Nothing, cease evading the issue.

I'm not. It's very relevent.


Boring rhetoric.

True, though.


Exactly, the same goes for both capitalist and socialist societies, your point is therefor invalid.

No it isn't. You don't get to loaf off other people under capitalism.


And under socialism, if you don't do the work, someone has to be forced to it for you.

as I pointed out earlier it is the exact same situation as in capitalism, your point remains invalid.

See above.


And why weould you be unable to in a socialist system?

It would get either stolen or redistributed away.


No because they will rip you off and not give you a reasonable wage, you will have nothing to steal.

I grew it myself, remember ? How can I rip myself off ?


It's highly likely under socialism.

And what do you base this fale assumption on what? Name me one socialist philosopher who has advocated this.

All of them. They do not recognise private property rights therefore they believe than eveything and anything is there for the taking.


The only time you will have your income inpart removed is when it is grossley higher than that of the majority of society, which is unlikley.

That doesn't matter; it's the principle. They shouldn't be forcing money off anyone.


You are very naive.

I'm very right.


If you are contributing to society, is it unreasonable to ask society to contribute to your survival?

You're not asking though, you're demanding.


As I recall the unemplyment rate is about 3%, so that means that 97% of people do provide the income for these things them selves.

What's that got to do with anything ? They could do it privately without the need for taxation.
I'm not. It's very relevent.

no its completely irelevant, what does the question of self sufficency have to do with the moral question at hand? Absolutly nothing, its completely irrelevant.

True, though.

As no communist government has ever actually existed, from what do you base these assumptions?

[You don't get to loaf off other people under capitalism.

actually yeah you do, its called social security, a similar system would exist in socialism, where people are given just enough to survive on, but no luxuries at all. Your point remains invalid.


See above.

see above.

It would get either stolen or redistributed away.

And how do you work that out, as you clearly have never read any material from a socialist philosopher? not to mention that no socialist stste has ever done that.

I grew it myself, remember ? How can I rip myself off ?

it has already been established that self sufficency is next to impossible in a capitalist society. Also farmers are ripped off in capitalism, or is the massive problems, declines and depressions in farming passing you by?

All of them.

No name one, and I want you to quote them for me.

They do not recognise private property rights therefore they believe than eveything and anything is there for the taking.

Actually they dont.

That doesn't matter; it's the principle. They shouldn't be forcing money off anyone.

Theft from workers should not be punished with repayment?

I'm very right.

No your not, how many completely self sufficent people live down your street? Its impossible in capitalism.


You're not asking though, you're demanding.

What are you talking about? fine, if the state demands stuff from you, then you can demand stuff from the state.

In capitalism, people demand as well,they demand off other people, just not the state.

What's that got to do with anything ?

It proves your point to be invalid, that the jobless people demand subsidising, and would lead to collapse, I was pointing that 3% is not likley to be the huge burning weight on society you are suggesting. Not to mention these people usually live in depressed area's, and if they could work then they would.

[The idealist]

Communism isn't supposed to work like this in your theoritical fantasy world, but this is how it works in reality. If you don't believe me then name one 'communist' state which hasn't gone down this path.

This is not communisme at work. This is what you get if one man gets to the top and decides he likes it there. As has been said tons of times before, Communisme has never been fully successful.
Greedy people always take advantage of a country undergoing progress.
Just because we have failed to acheive our goals, should we be blamed? Should we give up? Should we be identified as those people who prevented progress from being made? NO!!! :hammer:



If i try to make a cake and accidentaly make pastry that doesn't mean that pastry is the same thing as cake.


Fallacy: inappropriate analogy.

Plus you have yet to delineate the theoretical, 'fantasy' communism with the practical application of communism.

One should rather say: If you try to make a cake and somebody gives you anthrax instead of flour, does not mean that your recipe book is wrong.

Again, communisme is not wrong. we have simply failed due to greedy people.

MB, I think you have a misguided idea of the term communisme.

In a communist state (or world as it is), the worker will do as much as he sustainably can and get as much as is neccesary.
The person who does not work is not given as much food as he who does (if any). People who cannot work (elderly and disabled) will get a fair share.

If the government has more mony than it needs, bonus money can be given to workers.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 12:03 PM

If i try to make a cake and accidentaly make pastry that doesn't mean that pastry is the same thing as cake.


Fallacy: inappropriate analogy.

Plus you have yet to delineate the theoretical, 'fantasy' communism with the practical application of communism.
It was a perfect analogy;

Lenin tried to make communism (cake) but created the USSR (pastry) becuase he followed the procedures (recipe) that create totalitarian socialism (pastry).

If I my cook book on the wrong page and make pastry instead of cake that doesn't mean that pastry is cake just as socialism isn't communism.

[Professor Moneybags]

Lenin tried to make communism

I jumped off a cliff and flapped my arms, thinking I could fly.
(My wishes and premises had no basis in reality).


becuase he followed the procedures (recipe) that create totalitarian socialism

But gravity (reality) wouldn't let me, so I plummeted to my death.
(The philosophy of collectivism results in totalitarinism, not freedom.)

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 23 2004, 05:20 PM

Lenin tried to make communism

I jumped off a cliff and flapped my arms, thinking I could fly.
(My wishes and premises had no basis in reality).


becuase he followed the procedures (recipe) that create totalitarian socialism

But gravity (reality) wouldn't let me, so I plummeted to my death.
(The philosophy of collectivism results in totalitarinism, not freedom.)
Well done, you completely missed the point of my post, idiot.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 22 2004, 01:07 PM
Funny how that happend every time someone tried to implement it. Maybe it's just a coincidence... :rolleyes:
Yeah, as it happened in Spain during the Civil War, in the Paris Commune, and in other smaller "experiments" I suppose :lol:
(Unless you mean those who crushed them)


They weren't allowed to.

Why would they?

It's funny because most of them seem to support such regimes, and they always justifiy them in many ways. "It was necessary", "there was no other choice", "He was a patriot", "we had to kill all that leftist scum", etc.


Making silly characatures and strawman arguments won't help the fact that destroying property rights does actually make the production of wealth almost impossible.

How does claiming "this is mine" create wealth?


Why will no one have to do "hard physical labor" ? How can you be enslaved by propaganda ?

Technology would probably make things easier by then. Even if it doesnt there would still be incentive to create new ways of doing things to make one's job easier.


No, blame communism; there is no point earning or inventing anything if it just gets stolen away to benefit someone else.

So if I make something and then I sell it I'm getting stolen? I don't think so. Such a society will consider that a job, and you are not forced into sharing it, unless that's part of the agreement you have with those who control what you used. The only difference is that there won't be money (I hope so for many reasons).


Is your boss the government ?

Considering the time people spends on their jobs, how authoritarian most businesses (the big ones especially) are, and the income inequality that exists just because one "owns" and the other "works", and the influence the economy has in most aspects of people's lives, it is a form of government to me.


What if you don't work hard, does he fire you or put you in a gulag ?

They fire you, but for many people unemployment is like a gulag. Not everyone has a rich daddy.


Not if it's a civilised one.

Governments are not "civilized". I can imagine the cappietopia: a place where large corporations bribe politicians to get "benefits", and where those politicians justify it saying "Ayn Rand taught us that we must always act on our self-interest". What a piece of shit.