China? Are they still communist?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

China? They are not communist. They have a Ferrari dealership. Or is OK for communist to own Ferraris?

Seriously? In a communist system, would people still own Ferraris?

[New Tolerance]

China is NOT communist. Are you trying a point of any sort?

[Maynard]

Are they still, would be to imply that China once was. It never has been but it seems the general rule today in the media, is when mentioning Chinas economic growth, not to mention "communism" or "communist party" but when it comes to human rights, those words are always linked in. The United Kingdom, Australia and Ireland all have more equal distribution of wealth, than China does, according to latest statistics, which admittedly could have changed in the meantime.
But those Ferraris won't be for any Communist and most likely not for a Chinese person either.
Whether Ferraris are produced. It is hard to tell, buying a luxury car is more a show of class now, more than anything else. If there is sufficient demand for some sort of fast or luxury cars, then they will be produced. I doubt there would be the as much demand for them in a communist system then in any sort of capitalist system.

[POFO_Communist]

China never has been and is not currently a communist country. It is a socialist one-party state run by the communist party. China practises a limited form of controlled capitalism. These free market capitalist enclaves in china are heavily regulated and manipulated by the central government. China is using her vast free market city economies to funnel wealth into the rest of the country from abroad.

In todays pre-dominantly agressive and hostile capitalist world (led by the US), china has no choice.

However, china's staggering economic development is not only due to it's free-market enclaves on the east coast, but is also due to a very effective and well run socialist system that is the backbone of it's expanding economy.

[LSD]

China was once briefly Agrarian Socialist, but Communist....never.

In fact China is one of the most fiercely Capitalistic states in the region, save maybe Japan. As for the "socialist backbone" that POFO_Communist talks about, I'm sorry to say it's pretty much vanished in the past few years. The so-called "no big bang" model or "no losers" model hasn't worked. Inequality is higher in China than it has every been, and in fact China's wealth inequlality is the fastest growing in the world. This means that every day China's poor are getting much poorer and her rich are getting much richer.

So we're left with a country that has the political freedom of Stalinist Russia and an economy like Laissez Fair America.

I couldn't imagine a worse mix!

[Fidelbrand]

I concur with most of the comrades' comments.

Hu isn't too strong a leader too. Incremntalism and conservativeness is generally practicised by the poliburo, not to say the whole of CCP. But I can assure you democracy is sprouting in China, maybe as a measure to adopt to the lassiez faire economics (?)

But since Deng has opened up the capitalist road, and since China is doing well (on the surface, not to metnion the diaprity of incomes.) , it is hard for it turn its way back.

Rather sad........... but I still have hope.... who knows~~ ^)^

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 10:05 AM
China never has been and is not currently a communist country. It is a socialist one-party state run by the communist party. China practises a limited form of controlled capitalism. These free market capitalist enclaves in china are heavily regulated and manipulated by the central government. China is using her vast free market city economies to funnel wealth into the rest of the country from abroad.

In todays pre-dominantly agressive and hostile capitalist world (led by the US), china has no choice.

However, china's staggering economic development is not only due to it's free-market enclaves on the east coast, but is also due to a very effective and well run socialist system that is the backbone of it's expanding economy.
I agree that China has never been and is not communist. I disagree, however, that it is a one- party state. It DOES have other parties except the Communist (some of them are in exile, but some are in the parliament!).

True, it is run by the Communist party, but if you think about the lack of differencies between the democrats and the republicans in the USA, you will understand that it's the same level of democracy.

If you compare the elections of the Chinese leader by the Central Committee and Bush election by the electoral colledge, you will also understand that the differences in the political systems of these two countries are not that great.

As for capitalism, you should keep in mind, that such means of production as land and buildings are owned by the government ( I am talking about big businesses, it IS possible to own an apartment, and most people do, while it is only possible to rent land).

China is also not socialist, as the rights to free education and free medicare are not executed. True, up to high school education is for free (although parents DO need to pay some $100-200 per semester), but it's the same as in the US, right? As for pensions, they are not totally non-existant, as some people believe. If you work for the government, you will receive your pension. However, if you decide to run a business, then it's up to you to take care of your own pension. Farmers are also considered business people, unless they work for the state farms (which I haven't seen but assume are around).

As far as I know, China is ALL free-market, not just some cities. Did you mean "free economic zones?" It's different from free market.

There are some socialist features that I noticed while comparing China to the Soviet Union.
1. Drugs are not a problem. They virtually don't exist, due to very harsh policies. These policies are justified as means of protecting the whole society from some of the individuals.

2. Crime is not a problem.

3. There is a very limited number of beggars (there were none in the USSR). There are very many of them in the-now capitalist Russia.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by Not Yet a [email protected] 22 2004, 09:19 PM
As far as I know, China is ALL free-market, not just some cities.
1) Wen Jiabao has enacted macro-economic measures to balance out the rocketing inflation for the sake of economic stability. It is working pretty well right now.

2) The current aim of PRC is to built a "小康社會 " ...(ahh... hard to translate this term , it means something like a " Healthy society aimed at fulfilling the people's felt needs" :P )

Can't agree that it is ALL-free market with these government interventions and directions.

[no_bourgeoisie_liberals]

Why does China want to be called "Communist" when they are capitalist?

Please give me some reasons. Why does'nt China get rid of all the Communist
stuff (the flag, the official name, the portraits of Mao etc..)?

What is the difference between agrarian socialism and Communism? Whatever they were the Joe McCarthy crowd and Nixon did'nt like them.

Also, another question. Is China less socialist than Sweden?

[New Tolerance]

Why does China want to be called "Communist" when they are capitalist?


The same reason why the United States is called "Capitalist" when it is still in some degree a mixed economy.


Please give me some reasons. Why does'nt China get rid of all the Communist
stuff (the flag, the official name, the portraits of Mao etc..)?

Because the Communist (capital "C") Party is still in charge and to get rid of such symbols would actually be a renouncation against themselves, which is a blow to their own creditablity.


Also, another question. Is China less socialist than Sweden?

I would say so. Educations is not free, nor are most (if not all) of the health services.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

OK China not communist.

Then who is and where?

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 04:50 PM
OK China not communist.

Then who is and where?
No China is not communist, and there has yet to be a truly communist nation. However, If you can show me a true democracy, I'll show you a compassionate conservative. ( in other words, there has never been a nation that is truely democratic)

[Kazdam]

No nation on earth has ever been communist. Nore have any claimed to be. the USSR was socialist, china under mao was socialist, eastern europe was socialist. Cuba and the DPRK are socialist. Vietnam= socialist. Mongolia was socialist. communism is the end goal. It can't exist that quickly.

[revolutionindia]

The Fact is irrespective of what you people think of
Russia,China,Cuba and N.Korea .The view held by the general population will be that they are communist

And this view of theirs will always stop them from ever supporting communism

Whether you like it not Stalin,Fidel,Mao will remain the face of communism for a long time to come

You cannot wash your hands of what happened in these countries on the way to achieving communism(As you put it)

They all set out to achieve the very ideals you people tom-tom in this forum and look at where they have all ended.

I think communism could do with some good PR :D

[LSD]

The Fact is irrespective of what you people think of
Russia,China,Cuba and N.Korea .The view held by the general population will be that they are communist

The popular view is often wrong.

Luckily it is also maleable. The majority might view these countries as communist, but mostly, they don't care.


And this view of theirs will always stop them from ever supporting communism

Hardly.

What's preventing most people from supporting communism, is faith in capitalism. Most people have been brought up to believe that capitalism is genuinely the best available option.

They don't oppose communism because they think of Mao. Hell, most Americans couldn't pick China out on a map. They oppose communism because they were told its bad.

This is a very flimsy basis of support, and ultimately, its a breachable one.


Whether you like it not Stalin,Fidel,Mao will remain the face of communism for a long time to come

Not nescessarily.

Napolean wsa the "face" of republicanism in the early 19th century...not so much anymore.

I think you overexagerate humanity's memory.


They all set out to achieve the very ideals you people tom-tom in this forum and look at where they have all ended.

The motives of Stalin, Mao, etc. are questionable.

We don't honestly know if they "set out to achieve" these ideals.

But regardless, failure is a part of social evolution. The examples of Russia and China and even Cuba provide exelent models of what not to do.

Although it would have been better if those revolutions had succeeded, their failure in no way reflects the ideology anymore than Sun Yat Sens failure reflects democracy.

[revolutionindia]

QUOTE
The Fact is irrespective of what you people think of
Russia,China,Cuba and N.Korea .The view held by the general population will be that they are communist

The popular view is often wrong.

Luckily it is also maleable. The majority might view these countries as communist, but mostly, they don't care.

I don't know if it is the education or the media but the images that communism conjures up in the common man is anything but pleasent-Gulags,oppression,sub ordination
The stigma associated with communism hardly brings any new converts


QUOTE
And this view of theirs will always stop them from ever supporting communism


Hardly.

What's preventing most people from supporting communism, is faith in capitalism. Most people have been brought up to believe that capitalism is genuinely the best available option.

They don't oppose communism because they think of Mao. Hell, most Americans couldn't pick China out on a map. They oppose communism because they were told its bad.

This is a very flimsy basis of support, and ultimately, its a breachable one.
Faith in capitalism ? or Is it lack of trust in communism?
People choose capitalism because they think communism has failed
As long as they think like this ,it 's gonna be capitalism all the way

Communism could do with a good public relations firm working for it :D

In the 1970's it looked like the whole world was going to be drenched in red
Yes its red today not with communism but with blood,we can say


QUOTE
Whether you like it not Stalin,Fidel,Mao will remain the face of communism for a long time to come
Not nescessarily.

Napolean wsa the "face" of republicanism in the early 19th century...not so much anymore.

I think you overexagerate humanity's memory.

Until better people show up it is these people who will be representative of communism by default and they ain't pulling the crowds that you will need for a revolution



QUOTE
They all set out to achieve the very ideals you people tom-tom in this forum and look at where they have all ended.



The motives of Stalin, Mao, etc. are questionable.

We don't honestly know if they "set out to achieve" these ideals.

But regardless, failure is a part of social evolution. The examples of Russia and China and even Cuba provide exelent models of what not to do.

Although it would have been better if those revolutions had succeeded, their failure in no way reflects the ideology anymore than Sun Yat Sens failure reflects democracy.

How many more times before you guys get it right?
You just can't afford to get it wrong again
Where do you then think the next big communist experiment going to take place Nepal ?

[LSD]

Until better people show up it is these people who will be representative of communism by default and they ain't pulling the crowds that you will need for a revolution

People are already forgetting Mao and Stalin. The "emotions" you seem to feel people associate with them is fading. Sure people will probably remember those names for a long time to come, but this association with communism is esasily broken.


faith in capitalism ? or Is it lack of trust in communism?

The former.


How many more times before you guys get it right?

I don't know.

But does that mean we shouldn't try?
Should we just accept the status quo no matter how bad it is?

[revolutionindia]

QUOTE
How many more times before you guys get it right?

I don't know.

But does that mean we shouldn't try?
Should we just accept the status quo no matter how bad it is?

Why not experiment with capitalism ? Who know's the communists nirvana will be capitalism.

[LSD]

Why not experiment with capitalism ?

Because capitalism is inherently unequal. No "eperminentation" can elminate that fundamental flaw with the ideology.


Who know's the communists nirvana will be capitalism.

I have no idea what that means....

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How many more times before you guys get it right?
You just can't afford to get it wrong again
Where do you then think the next big communist experiment going to take place Nepal ?

The past 150 years has consistently shown that authoritarian variants of the marxist paradigm (Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism, etc.) have failed miserably.

Libertarian communism and anarchism have yet to prove themselves and as such are 'untested hypotheses'

[revolutionindia]

Because capitalism is inherently unequal. No "experminentation" can elminate that fundamental flaw with the ideology.

Yes, but this is your opinion and your are entitled to it
However I must say there is a significant majority out there who
would disagree strongly with you

They don't claim capitalism to be perfect but they say they are getting there
Just like you guys

Also sometimes they say communism is inherently flawed and will never succed
But then thats a opinion again.

But the facts are today capitalism has spread to every nook and corner
Its become the default way of life while communism is restricted to a handful of nations.

People today look upto capitalistic icons and try to emulate them
People today want to pick stocks like Warren Buffet ,start businesses like Richard Branson and take home a retirement package like Dick Grasso

While the above aspirations may be confined
to the burgeoise classes the proteleriat are just busy trying to
emulate the burgeoise and indirectly these capitlalistic icons

People are very guilible I must say or are they wise ?
But this is definately a Hobson's choice ;)

QUOTE
Who know's the communists nirvana will be capitalism.

I have no idea what that means....

Sorry :lol:

[revolutionindia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 04:33 AM

How many more times before you guys get it right?
You just can't afford to get it wrong again
Where do you then think the next big communist experiment going to take place Nepal ?

The past 150 years has consistently shown that authoritarian variants of the marxist paradigm (Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism, etc.) have failed miserably.

Libertarian communism and anarchism have yet to prove themselves and as such are 'untested hypotheses'

Yes , we still have to see the wonders of an anarchist state

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

OK there is no communist country.


Would it be illegal to have really expensive things in a real communist country?

[LSD]

Yes, but this is your opinion and your are entitled to it
However I must say there is a significant majority out there who
would disagree strongly with you

Appeal to popularity?

Come now, I'm sure you're above that.


ut the facts are today capitalism has spread to every nook and corner
Its become the default way of life while communism is restricted to a handful of nations.

Feudalism was very wide spread as well, so was slavery.

So what?


Yes , we still have to see the wonders of an anarchist state

Do I detect a hint of irony in that statement?


OK there is no communist country.

Indeed.


Would it be illegal to have really expensive things in a real communist country?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

In a true communist society, there wouldn't be such a thing as "expensive things" as market valuations won't exit any more. If you mean excessive luxury items that no one needs and waste significant resources, then such items would most likely no longer be produced.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 11:50 AM
But I can assure you democracy is sprouting in China,
And what democracy is that, sweetie?

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 02:42 AM
OK there is no communist country.


Would it be illegal to have really expensive things in a real communist country?
In communist society, things are not really expensive.
Things are different when it comes to all of that.

Ferrari only really matters today because of capitalist hype.
" youve wasted your life if you dont drive a ferrari"

In communism people treat each other equal. If there is something great and comfortable the objective will be for all the people to be able to enjoy it, so there will be no "expensive".

[Osman Ghazi]

In communist society, things are not really expensive.


That's not really true. There are things which take either a lot of resources or a lot of labour to produce and these things could be termed 'expensive'.

[LSD]

That's not really true. There are things which take either a lot of resources or a lot of labour to produce and these things could be termed 'expensive'.

True enough, but in the context of his question, "expensive things" won't exist.

That is while some products will be harder/longer/take more resources, the fractional distribution of said products will not be based on it.

A product can't really be "expensive" if there's no market to judge it, but, moreover, his question was about "having expensive things" which certainly is a meaningless concept in communism.

[RedAnarchist]

There is no true democracy without Communism, Fidel - and i dont see any Revolution happening any time soon in China.

[revolutionindia]

QUOTE
ut the facts are today capitalism has spread to every nook and corner
Its become the default way of life while communism is restricted to a handful of nations.

Feudalism was very wide spread as well, so was slavery.

So what?
Yes , that's a valid point I can't possibly say anything to that


QUOTE
Yes , we still have to see the wonders of an anarchist state

Do I detect a hint of irony in that statement?
Just a hint of sarcasm.I have nothing against anarchism and would surely
love to see one in existence but as of know it stands pretty far-faetched
without a state,police ete .It will truly be a headless wonder

Well a lot of far-fetched things of the past are reality today
So all I can do is wish you guys luck and hope for the best

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 25 2004, 01:23 PM

That's not really true. There are things which take either a lot of resources or a lot of labour to produce and these things could be termed 'expensive'.

True enough, but in the context of his question, "expensive things" won't exist.

That is while some products will be harder/longer/take more resources, the fractional distribution of said products will not be based on it.

A product can't really be "expensive" if there's no market to judge it, but, moreover, his question was about "having expensive things" which certainly is a meaningless concept in communism.
No luxury items?

What a sad life.

I would not want to live in a world or a system with some comfort, some entertainment, and some 'nice' things.

[komon]

well if you think putin is still a communist than is china too and vice versa
but if you think putin is playing capitalism than is china too and vice versa
a strange poker game is going on and bush is the one without hand that's why he is takin initiative.......

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by Raisa+Nov 25 2004, 12:23 PM--> (Raisa @ Nov 25 2004, 12:23 PM)
[email protected] 22 2004, 11:50 AM
But I can assure you democracy is sprouting in China,
And what democracy is that, sweetie? [/b]
if you look at the 2nd sentence of your quoted sentence, then u will know what kind of notorious democracy i am speaking of, s.w.e.e.t.i.e.~ :ph34r:

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 11:13 PM
Fidel - and i dont see any Revolution happening any time soon in China.
I sadly agree.

CCP is now less authoritarian but still assuming great power. I do not oppose to a one-party system, but Hu Jintao seems to me a timid , kind and courteous little socialible "politician". He has no vivid directions; he listens to his former superiors constantly, but does not seem to aspire anything for the sake of buttressing more "communist" ideologies. He is a good chairman, but he is made chairman because he is famous for being "attentive" to superior's directives, not because of his competence.

I wonder what will happen if Jiang Zemin (his mentor) passes away.

With its progressing success in the capitalist world, the citizens themselves (the elements of building a true "people's gov't" ) are pacified by the materialistic modus vivendi, it will be a long haul before China turns its head to the correct direction.

[LSD]

No luxury items?

What a sad life.

I would not want to live in a world or a system with some comfort, some entertainment, and some 'nice' things.

There will be "comfort," there will be "entertainment", and there will be "nice things". They will just be available to everyone and not the select few.

See? No need to be sad. :)

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Nov 28 2004, 03:58 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Nov 28 2004, 03:58 AM)
Lysergic Acid [email protected] 25 2004, 01:23 PM

That's not really true. There are things which take either a lot of resources or a lot of labour to produce and these things could be termed 'expensive'.

True enough, but in the context of his question, "expensive things" won't exist.

That is while some products will be harder/longer/take more resources, the fractional distribution of said products will not be based on it.

A product can't really be "expensive" if there's no market to judge it, but, moreover, his question was about "having expensive things" which certainly is a meaningless concept in communism.
No luxury items?

What a sad life.

I would not want to live in a world or a system with some comfort, some entertainment, and some 'nice' things. [/b]
Luxury equates to every comfort, every entertainment and every "nice things"?

Certified - entrenchedly hacked by the system.

May the mentality be with you, Amen.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2004, 07:25 PM

No luxury items?

What a sad life.

I would not want to live in a world or a system with some comfort, some entertainment, and some 'nice' things.

There will be "comfort," there will be "entertainment", and there will be "nice things". They will just be available to everyone and not the select few.

See? No need to be sad. :)
How about a Ferrari?

Does everyone who wants one get one? If 'expensive' things require more labor, material, etc. Would those items be rare?

Available to everyone? That is not what I have seen in the countries with revolutions. Party members seem to get the best 'nice' things.

I'm not saying there will be zero nice things in a communist revolution. I'm just questioning the availability in quantity and quality. The controlled economices that have self-destructed seem to have a real problem with delivering 'stuff' people want and need.

[1949]

Perhaps this will be out of place now, but...

On the original subject, China was a socialist society from the establishment of the People's Republic in 1949 to the arrest of the Gang of Four in 1976. Revolutionary Worker has countless good articles, both on socialist China and capitalist China.

On socialist China, I suggest:

Social and Economic Achievements Under Mao (http://rwor.org/a/1248/mao_china_setting_record_straight.htm)

The Truth About the Cultural Revolution (http://rwor.org/a/1251/communism_socialism_mao_china_facts.htm)

Breaking All Tradition's Chains (http://rwor.org/a/v21/1040-049/1045/mlg.htm)

On capitalist China, I suggest:

Revolt in China: Crisis of Revisionism, or Why Mao Tsetung Was Right (http://rwor.org/a/china/revolt.htm)

The End of Deng Xiaoping: Enemy of the People (http://rwor.org/a/firstvol/890-899/896/deng.htm)

There is no such thing as a "communist country", because communism is a classless, stateless society that can only exist on a worldwide basis. Communism has not existed since the emergence of worldwide class society.

On another point:

Someone earlier in this thread asked if China is "less socialist than Sweden", or something.

I don't think there is such a thing as "more" or "less" socialist.

Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat. As the first mode of production in history that is not based on exploitation, socialism is unlike the modes of production before it that thrived on exploitation in that it cannot grow within the shell, so to speak, of what preceded it.

It is possible for capitalist elements to exist within a socialist society, such as in the Soviet Union during the New Economic Policy of 1921-1928. But socialist elements cannot exist within a capitalist society and still be called "socialist".

Since the state in class society is the organ by which one class exercises dictatorship over the others, it is impossible to introduce “socialist” elements to a capitalist society, because the bourgeoisie will never let the people it exploits “share” state power with them.

Free education, free health care, and all that stuff we think of as “socialist”, when it is introduced into a capitalist society, will thus only serve to strengthen capitalism, based on the unique conditions facing the bourgeoisie in that particular society. And so, in their content they will be elements of capitalism, even if in their form they could be considered socialist.

[Fidelbrand]

The Truth About the Cultural Revolution (http://rwor.org/a/1251/communism_socialism_mao_china_facts.htm)


"Artists, intellectuals, and professionals were not targeted as a social group or stratum. Artists were encouraged to engage in the revolutionary movement. "

sad to say, they were. :(

Maybe try see the movie "Farewell My Concubine" (1993, it's a GREAT movie, one of my favorites.) or look into some Chinese books that has more genuine a/c of what happened to this genre of people.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 01:53 AM

The Truth About the Cultural Revolution (http://rwor.org/a/1251/communism_socialism_mao_china_facts.htm)


"Artists, intellectuals, and professionals were not targeted as a social group or stratum. Artists were encouraged to engage in the revolutionary movement. "

sad to say, they were. :(

Maybe try see the movie "Farewell My Concubine" (1993, it's a GREAT movie, one of my favorites.) or look into some Chinese books that has more genuine a/c of what happened to this genre of people.
One problem with communism I see, is that a major shift in ideas and education must almost happen world wide and very quickly.

Kind of pie in the sky goal don't you think?

But I digress. My point? The artist, intellectuals, etc...

Seems like they don't do very well in a revolution. Seems like these people get rounded up and put into secret graves. Thus in effect killing the people needed to make this shift in ideas. This in engineering is called a feed back mechanism. It is a highly destructive and unstable state, it basically self-destructs all the time.

So then if this is what happens all the time, then isn't communist doomed to never happen or even get close to happening? It is always going to self-destruct and destroy the people needed the most?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 05:58 PM

QUOTE
How many more times before you guys get it right?

I don't know.

But does that mean we shouldn't try?
Should we just accept the status quo no matter how bad it is?

Why not experiment with capitalism ? Who know's the communists nirvana will be capitalism.
I know for a fact communism works. There are lots of experiments that have succeeded. There are lots of hippie, artist, and farm communes. They are quite stable. But as far as large geograpic and national models? They seem to self-destruct. There are several experiments that have proven so.

If that is going to be the micro model for the world, then I don't want to live in a communist world. Those successful people work too hard.

[LSD]

Seems like they don't do very well in a revolution. Seems like these people get rounded up and put into secret graves. Thus in effect killing the people needed to make this shift in ideas. This in engineering is called a feed back mechanism. It is a highly destructive and unstable state, it basically self-destructs all the time.

On what are you basing this?

There is nothing about communism that requires the murder of artists or intellectuals.

Perhaps you are thinking of Cambodia or China or North Korea and the like, I would remind you that these states are no more examples of communism then Iraq was an example of democracy.


Available to everyone? That is not what I have seen in the countries with revolutions. Party members seem to get the best 'nice' things.

Again, in a true communist society there would be no "Party".


The controlled economices that have self-destructed seem to have a real problem with delivering 'stuff' people want and need

You're right.

Centralization doesn't work, neither does state-capitalism.

I'm glad we agree on this. :) :wub: :)


How about a Ferrari?

Does everyone who wants one get one? If 'expensive' things require more labor, material, etc. Would those items be rare?

Those items are rare.

They are practically unavaillable to everyone. The number of people who can afford a Ferrari is so small as to be negligable. Pragmatically speaking, no one can have a Ferrari!

With this in mind, would the distribution of Ferraris go up under communism, probably not, amost certainly not in fact, but then since it's virtually zero now, no one is really any worse off.

In fact, people are generally better off because the resources that were going to the production of an item that no one could have can go to items that everyone can have.


I'm not saying there will be zero nice things in a communist revolution. I'm just questioning the availability in quantity and quality.

The quantity will certainly be increased, as will the quality.

The number of "super-luxury" items will certainly be significantly decreased, but since practically no one has access to those items anyways, it hardly matters.

What will matter is that the quality of luxury items can be improved by the reallocation of resources and labour.

[leftist resistance]

China is not communist.In fact,it is now becoming capitalist.The people in the city areas seem to be more well off then those in the rural areas

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2004, 02:51 AM

Seems like they don't do very well in a revolution. Seems like these people get rounded up and put into secret graves. Thus in effect killing the people needed to make this shift in ideas. This in engineering is called a feed back mechanism. It is a highly destructive and unstable state, it basically self-destructs all the time.

On what are you basing this?

There is nothing about communism that requires the murder of artists or intellectuals.

Perhaps you are thinking of Cambodia or China or North Korea and the like, I would remind you that these states are no more examples of communism then Iraq was an example of democracy.


Available to everyone? That is not what I have seen in the countries with revolutions. Party members seem to get the best 'nice' things.

Again, in a true communist society there would be no "Party".


The controlled economices that have self-destructed seem to have a real problem with delivering 'stuff' people want and need

You're right.

Centralization doesn't work, neither does state-capitalism.

I'm glad we agree on this. :) :wub: :)


How about a Ferrari?

Does everyone who wants one get one? If 'expensive' things require more labor, material, etc. Would those items be rare?

Those items are rare.

They are practically unavaillable to everyone. The number of people who can afford a Ferrari is so small as to be negligable. Pragmatically speaking, no one can have a Ferrari!

With this in mind, would the distribution of Ferraris go up under communism, probably not, amost certainly not in fact, but then since it's virtually zero now, no one is really any worse off.

In fact, people are generally better off because the resources that were going to the production of an item that no one could have can go to items that everyone can have.


I'm not saying there will be zero nice things in a communist revolution. I'm just questioning the availability in quantity and quality.

The quantity will certainly be increased, as will the quality.

The number of "super-luxury" items will certainly be significantly decreased, but since practically no one has access to those items anyways, it hardly matters.

What will matter is that the quality of luxury items can be improved by the reallocation of resources and labour.
You are right that communist idealism does not require mass graves for intellectuals and artist; but the communist revolutions seem to do a good job of making mass graves for intellectuals and artist. You are right that the tyranical states are NOT communist, nor did they end up that way, but the revolution that always begins at these tyranical states start with a 'communist revolution' that goes amok.

I disagree with your opinion that capitalism does NOT provide more stuff. After all you can not even make that comparison, after all there is NO communism right? So the comparison has never been done, since there is no communism to baseline against capitialism to see which system can make more stuff.

Again. Quanity and quality increasing?

Has anyone done a measurement? To compare two baselines between the two systems?

[LSD]

Has anyone done a measurement? To compare two baselines between the two systems?

You are right that the tyranical states are NOT communist, nor did they end up that way

So you admit that no communist society has ever existed .... but you want a comparative study?

How exactly does that work?


I disagree with your opinion that capitalism does NOT provide more stuff. After all you can not even make that comparison, after all there is NO communism right? So the comparison has never been done, since there is no communism to baseline against capitialism to see which system can make more stuff.

The amount of resources that are wasted in capitalism is staggering.

The amount of capital and labour tied up in "greasing the wheels" as it were, advertising, promotion, marketing, packaging, "super-luxuries", "designer clothing", events, acoutrements....

Are you honestly unable to believe that with all those resources going to production of needed and universally accessable items, there wouldn't be more of them?

[Spartacus2002]

china is not communist because they have an elite privilidged ruling calss

[mysticofthewest]

fuk it we need curfew!! damn kidz and shit walkin' da streetz sellin' drugz needa chop they hand off & let me fuk all them communist *****ez!! i'll nutt in all y'allz non communist muthafukkaz

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2004, 06:07 AM

Has anyone done a measurement? To compare two baselines between the two systems?

You are right that the tyranical states are NOT communist, nor did they end up that way

So you admit that no communist society has ever existed .... but you want a comparative study?

How exactly does that work?


I disagree with your opinion that capitalism does NOT provide more stuff. After all you can not even make that comparison, after all there is NO communism right? So the comparison has never been done, since there is no communism to baseline against capitialism to see which system can make more stuff.

The amount of resources that are wasted in capitalism is staggering.

The amount of capital and labour tied up in "greasing the wheels" as it were, advertising, promotion, marketing, packaging, "super-luxuries", "designer clothing", events, acoutrements....

Are you honestly unable to believe that with all those resources going to production of needed and universally accessable items, there wouldn't be more of them?
Resources wasted? Compared to what? Maybe capitalism is really efficient and it is just your perception that it is wasteful?

Resources wasted? Sounds like you describe a system efficient at making 'stuff'. Plus stuff that makes people happy. Isn't that what we are talking about? Making more stuff that will make lots of people happy? Being able to make stuff that will make more people happy?

Unable to believe? I don't believe in anything. I am saying you don't have the tools to even make the comparison. Plus all I see by communist is conjucture that communism is better than capitalism, when the reality is no one really knows. I am I right? Plus what is frightening is the conjecture is 'obvious' and accepted as written in stone and not questioned. Just like a flat earth argument.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2004, 02:51 AM

The quantity will certainly be increased, as will the quality.

The number of "super-luxury" items will certainly be significantly decreased, but since practically no one has access to those items anyways, it hardly matters.

What will matter is that the quality of luxury items can be improved by the reallocation of resources and labour.
This is what I'm talking about. Conjecture.

You are standing on this idea and it is something you can not even prove. I'm I right? There is no base line to see what and how a communist system will be better than capitialism in regards to more and better production. It is just a paper model. I'm a right?

There are mico/sub-systems of capitialism all around me that I point to and examine. I can measure worker out put, worker production, worker effeciency, etc.

There is no such thing for communism is there? And if you can't baseline it, then you really don't know if production is more and better?

[Osman Ghazi]

There are several experiments that have proven so.

Umm, I don't know if you are familiar with the concept of an experiment, but they usually have 'constants' and 'variables'. You are claiming that the experiments proved that communism doesn't work in large states, but it is impossible to know if that is true, because a nation is not an experiment in the way I explained. Without constants, you cannot measure the variables, because in truth, there is no real way to determine the cause of their downfall.

In short, it is, if not impossible, then at least highly implausable that an accurate experiment can be conducted a human population of more than a million, let alone 200 million like the USSR or 1 billion like the PRC.

[LSD]

Unable to believe? I don't believe in anything. I am saying you don't have the tools to even make the comparison. Plus all I see by communist is conjucture that communism is better than capitalism, when the reality is no one really knows. I am I right?

No, it's not "conjecture", it's theory.

It's deduction made upon careful examination, which is pretty much all you can do in the "real world".

Sorry, but you can't perform "experiments" on entire countries! :lol:


You are standing on this idea and it is something you can not even prove. I'm I right? There is no base line to see what and how a communist system will be better than capitialism in regards to more and better production. It is just a paper model. I'm a right?

So was capitalism when Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations.

So what?

Everything starts as a theory.


There are mico/sub-systems of capitialism all around me that I point to and examine. I can measure worker out put, worker production, worker effeciency, etc.

There is no such thing for communism is there? And if you can't baseline it, then you really don't know if production is more and better?

Look, by that reasoning anything new should be rejected, as if it isn't here now, you can't perform a "baseline comparison"!


Resources wasted? Sounds like you describe a system efficient at making 'stuff'. Plus stuff that makes people happy. Isn't that what we are talking about? Making more stuff that will make lots of people happy? Being able to make stuff that will make more people happy?

Sure, some people, a few people.

No one denies that Capitalism is wonderful for the rulling classes, its just that it sucks for everyone else.

And as for "making stuff", capitalism is actually rather inefficient at that. All the resources that go into the promotion and advertising and packaging of said "Stuff" or the redundencies of having multiple firms producing the same "stuff" or the amount of resources diverted to "management"...

yes, capitalism "makes stuff", but it doesn't do it "efficiently".

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 2 2004, 12:59 PM

There are several experiments that have proven so.

Umm, I don't know if you are familiar with the concept of an experiment, but they usually have 'constants' and 'variables'. You are claiming that the experiments proved that communism doesn't work in large states, but it is impossible to know if that is true, because a nation is not an experiment in the way I explained. Without constants, you cannot measure the variables, because in truth, there is no real way to determine the cause of their downfall.

In short, it is, if not impossible, then at least highly implausable that an accurate experiment can be conducted a human population of more than a million, let alone 200 million like the USSR or 1 billion like the PRC.
That is not what I'm trying to say.

Right now I can go to any factory in the USA. I can measure productivity, quality, capacity, and effecinecy, in lets say a shovel factory.

There exists tools and benchmarks right now and I can do it right now.

You can not do the same for communism, yet I see all these claims like:

Production is more and better. Effecency is more and better.

The fact is none of you commies really know if this is true. It is all just a paper model isn't it?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 2 2004, 02:42 PM

Unable to believe? I don't believe in anything. I am saying you don't have the tools to even make the comparison. Plus all I see by communist is conjucture that communism is better than capitalism, when the reality is no one really knows. I am I right?

No, it's not "conjecture", it's theory.

It's deduction made upon careful examination, which is pretty much all you can do in the "real world".

Sorry, but you can't perform "experiments" on entire countries! :lol:


You are standing on this idea and it is something you can not even prove. I'm I right? There is no base line to see what and how a communist system will be better than capitialism in regards to more and better production. It is just a paper model. I'm a right?

So was capitalism when Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations.

So what?

Everything starts as a theory.


There are mico/sub-systems of capitialism all around me that I point to and examine. I can measure worker out put, worker production, worker effeciency, etc.

There is no such thing for communism is there? And if you can't baseline it, then you really don't know if production is more and better?

Look, by that reasoning anything new should be rejected, as if it isn't here now, you can't perform a "baseline comparison"!


Resources wasted? Sounds like you describe a system efficient at making 'stuff'. Plus stuff that makes people happy. Isn't that what we are talking about? Making more stuff that will make lots of people happy? Being able to make stuff that will make more people happy?

Sure, some people, a few people.

No one denies that Capitalism is wonderful for the rulling classes, its just that it sucks for everyone else.

And as for "making stuff", capitalism is actually rather inefficient at that. All the resources that go into the promotion and advertising and packaging of said "Stuff" or the redundencies of having multiple firms producing the same "stuff" or the amount of resources diverted to "management"...

yes, capitalism "makes stuff", but it doesn't do it "efficiently".
OK I'll call it theory. It is just as good.

Experiments?

I can measure right now at any US factory production rates, man hours in, raw materials in, finished goods out, and defects.

I can say for sure what a free market factory is doing today and what is happening today in that factory.

You can't not do the same for a communist factory. Yet I see soooo many people here who just accept the communist theory as fact, as something that really happens without question. The fact is this thoery has NEVER happened anywhere. The theories have never been used or put into practice in a form that can be benched marked in a factory. Yet I continually see things like 'production is more and better' 'quality is better' 'effiencey is better'. Well says who? Where is the data. Has anyone ever done a baseline for a communist factory? Of course not, yet so many people here accept these theorys as something that really happens. The best you can say is, I don't know if it will work.

Effeciently? Compared to what? You don't know. You are making a prejudiced comparision vs what? I don't know? Maybe a free market is really effecient. I don't know. Compared to what? I can say for sure a free market system based on money is more effecient use of manpower vs an aggrian economy based on barter. That I can say for sure, but YOU can not say Communist factories can produce more and better 'stuff' because really you don't know.

[LSD]

That's where the theory part comes in.

We theorize that communism would be better.

Ultimately it is all we can do! If you reject any theoretical model for social change, than how do expect social change to occur?

A society which doesn't presently exist cannot be measured because it doesn't presently exist. By definition any previously untested paradigm is theoretical because it's untested.

All things start as theory.

So what?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 3 2004, 11:07 AM
That's where the theory part comes in.

We theorize that communism would be better.

Ultimately it is all we can do! If you reject any theoretical model for social change, than how do expect social change to occur?

A society which doesn't presently exist cannot be measured because it doesn't presently exist. By definition any previously untested paradigm is theoretical because it's untested.

All things start as theory.

So what?
Ok now were getting somewhere. Were talking about the same semantics and on the same frequency.

Yes I agree with you. It is all a model/theory/best-guess.

But.

Look around this board. The theory is being thrown around as fact. It is accepted as fact that it does happen and will happen; and that is totally wrong. If you talking about 'just talking and musing', OK. But that is not what is going on in this board. What is happening is 'the best guess' is being used as fact and proof. Which is totally wrong. It is not a proof, it is a thoery; and it is a theory that has to stand on it's own merits not the lack of merits of other theories.

That is the big deal about 'so what'.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I think China might have been a pretty good place to live in the 1950s. However Deng Xiaoping ripped apart much of the socialist system in China.

[Guerrilla22]

China never was communist in the first place, therefore it can't be still communist.

[Osman Ghazi]

Look around this board. The theory is being thrown around as fact.

Yes, unfortunately many people 'believe' in communism, the same way zealots believe in religion.

I think it is a fact that communism, through the fact that it eliminates many redundancies increases the amount of essential goods (food, water, shelter) and decreases non-essential goods (luxuries, commercials, etc.) I suppose the main thing that is unknown is whether or not a communist society would develop faster than a capitalist society.

Personally, I think that it would or at least could, by maximizing each human's ability to work. Everyone knows that money, while an okay motivator is far inferior to simply wanting to do something. I would work much harder at something I wanted to do than at something that would get me money.


think China might have been a pretty good place to live in the 1950s.

:lol: :lol: Sorry. :lol: :lol: No, I'm not, that's just stupid. Yeah, I think I'm gonna head over to Somalia, it seems like a pretty good place to live! :lol: :lol:

[thorgar]

Communism is a theory. Theoreticians sit around and theorize. Theories are expounded by theorizing theoreticians. Sam I Am theorized green eggs and ham.
Sam I Am cannot eat theories of green eggs and ham. When Sam I Am theorizes green eggs and ham Sam I Am is a hungry man. And thats more than I can stand. :huh: ;) <_< :) :P :D :lol:

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 05:04 AM
Communism is a theory. Theoreticians sit around and theorize. Theories are expounded by theorizing theoreticians. Sam I Am theorized green eggs and ham.
Sam I Am cannot eat theories of green eggs and ham. When Sam I Am theorizes green eggs and ham Sam I Am is a hungry man. And thats more than I can stand. :huh: ;) <_< :) :P :D :lol:
Believing in a thoery without proof is religion, it is not science, nor is it rational.

[BuyOurEverything]

I agree with you in some respects, amic. Many people do believe in communism like Jesus groupies believe in god, but I also think you&#39;re misinterpereting the word &#39;theory&#39;. Bare in mind that relativity (E=MC2) is just a theory, yet much of modern physics has been based on it. Some things are extremely difficult, if not immpossible, to empirically test in a controlled environment. Because a theory has not been exhaustively and empirically tested does not mean that it is on the same level as something that the crack addicted panhandler on the street said to you. Humans have a capacity for rationality and we can observe things and come up with solutions. If you walked into a feudalist society and saw an entire society run by a &#39;divinely-chosen&#39; family which kept the vast majority of society powerless and impoverished, you would doubtlessly think that you could come up with a better way. Would you really feel the need to set up another country to &#39;objectively test&#39; your &#39;conjecture&#39;?


Believing in a thoery without proof is religion, it is not science, nor is it rational.

Theories by definition have no &#39;proof&#39;, though one could argue for days about what constitutes proof. What you need is evidence that supports your theory. That is science. If scientists ignored every theory that they couldn&#39;t see &#39;proven&#39;, we would still be living in caves. Religion is believing in an idea without any evidence or despite evidence to the contrary.