This is just wrong!

[Dunkhan]

Now I'll make this as short as possible and I will emphasise if needed:

All attempts to communism have pitifully ended into ruthless dictatorships with millions of human casualties: USSR, China, Cuba, N Korea, etc. Why do you think none of those systems have really worked?? Because communism always leads to dictatorship and opression!

People cannot be equal! They are indeed born equal, or should be, but they cannot be a priori equal for the simple fact that some work harder than the others, some are more intelligent than the others, etc. Now if I wotk my butt off while my neighbour just sits and does nothing all day, why should he have same as I do?? This leads to the hard working people working and the lazy people just profiting out of the other people's work.

Now I don't think that capitalism in it's current form is a good political system. However, there is none better! This is the closest humanity came to a perfect society. While all attempts to create communism have ended in millions of human casualties, capitalism has still created SOME welfare.

End note:
I wonder, out of all posters on these boards, who has really experienced communism?? Well, I have. I live in an Eastern European country, and as such I have gone through the oppressive communist regime the soviets have imposed upon my people. I have stood for hours in line to buy bread, I have seen members of my family imprisoned just because they had different political views. Now, if you don't mind, I prefer the greedy capitalist society to what my people has endured for 45 years.

[Martin Blank]

I will also keep my comments short and to the point:


Originally posted by Dunkhan+Sep 26 2005, 08:55 AM--> (Dunkhan @ Sep 26 2005, 08:55 AM)All attempts to communism have pitifully ended into ruthless dictatorships with millions of human casualties: USSR, China, Cuba, N Korea, etc. Why do you think none of those systems have really worked?? Because communism always leads to dictatorship and opression![/b]

The USSR, China, N. Korea, etc., were/are to communism what the Bush regime is to democracy.


Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 08:55 AM
People cannot be equal! They are indeed born equal, or should be, but they cannot be a priori equal for the simple fact that some work harder than the others, some are more intelligent than the others, etc. Now if I wotk my butt off while my neighbour just sits and does nothing all day, why should he have same as I do?? This leads to the hard working people working and the lazy people just profiting out of the other people's work.

You think you're saying anything new?


But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! (K. Marx, "Part I", Critique of the Gotha Programme -- http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...gotha/ch01.htm) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm))


Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 08:55 AM
Now I don't think that capitalism in it's current form is a good political system. However, there is none better! This is the closest humanity came to a perfect society. While all attempts to create communism have ended in millions of human casualties, capitalism has still created SOME welfare.

You really don't know much about the history of capitalism on this planet, do you?


[email protected] 26 2005, 08:55 AM
End note:
I wonder, out of all posters on these boards, who has really experienced communism?? Well, I have. I live in an Eastern European country, and as such I have gone through the oppressive communist regime the soviets have imposed upon my people. I have stood for hours in line to buy bread, I have seen members of my family imprisoned just because they had different political views. Now, if you don't mind, I prefer the greedy capitalist society to what my people has endured for 45 years.

See above.

Miles

[No. 355728]

I think we disagree on most of the assumptions. I'll start to comment on your first paragraph (as well as your end note), that is, the fact that "All attempts to communism have pitifully ended into ruthless dictatorships". First of all this was not communism, nor socialism, it was state capitalism. Second of all these were implemented with a theory called marxist-lenninsm, that is based on the idea of dictatorship. The fact is that all attempts to create what you call 'communism', started with a dictatorship.


People cannot be equal! They are indeed born equal, or should be, but they cannot be a priori equal for the simple fact that some work harder than the others, some are more intelligent than the others, etc.

Right, they are unequal, but they should have the equal opportunity to develop their human creativity.


Now if I wotk my butt off while my neighbour just sits and does nothing all day, why should he have same as I do?? This leads to the hard working people working and the lazy people just profiting out of the other people's work.

Right, they should be paid through effort and sacrifice, combined with equity of circumstances.


Now I don't think that capitalism in it's current form is a good political system. However, there is none better! This is the closest humanity came to a perfect society. While all attempts to create communism have ended in millions of human casualties, capitalism has still created SOME welfare.

There are several other political theories, and you should to read them, and then make a statement. And your definition of Capitalism is to broad to make any comment on it. Coin it

[KC]

All attempts to communism have pitifully ended into ruthless dictatorships with millions of human casualties: USSR, China, Cuba, N Korea, etc. Why do you think none of those systems have really worked??

The USSR was a product of a socialist revolution where Leninists (the Bolsheviks) seized power. They didn't have the majority of support from the people, and they kept power through terror and oppression. This was a Leninist flaw, not a Marxist one. China was a similar example, although with Maoism. Cuba is hardly oppressive, and if you believe it to be then talk to some Cubans (the ones that live in Cuba). North Korea is a joke.

The reason that most attempts at communism failed is because most of these attempts to hold power had to do with authoritarian rule; this obviously won't work, as proven repeatedly by history.


Because communism always leads to dictatorship and opression!

Leninism/Maoism/Stalinism always lead to dictatorship and oppression. Big difference. Communism has never existed, so it couldn't have ever led to anything.


People cannot be equal! They are indeed born equal, or should be, but they cannot be a priori equal for the simple fact that some work harder than the others, some are more intelligent than the others, etc.

Black people cannot be equal! They are indeed born equal, or should be, but they cannot be a priori equal for the simple fact that they do more drugs than white people, commit more crimes, etc.


Now if I wotk my butt off while my neighbour just sits and does nothing all day, why should he have same as I do??

1. If you like your work, why does it matter?
2. If he likes his work, why wouldn't he work?


This leads to the hard working people working and the lazy people just profiting out of the other people's work.

To answer this question, you have to ask why people are lazy in the first place. The answer is usually that they don't like their job.



Now I don't think that capitalism in it's current form is a good political system.

That's a step in the right direction.


This is the closest humanity came to a perfect society.

So far, yes. Society evolves. So far this is the closest we've come to a perfect society. The only way society evolves is by people fighting for its evolution.


While all attempts to create communism have ended in millions of human casualties, capitalism has still created SOME welfare.

To say that communism is a bad idea because of how people have tried to reach it is laughable. Capitalism has created some welfare; it has killed a lot more.



I wonder, out of all posters on these boards, who has really experienced communism??

Nobody has on this planet, genius.


Well, I have. I live in an Eastern European country, and as such I have gone through the oppressive communist regime the soviets have imposed upon my people.

1. They weren't a communist regime. There's no such thing.
2. If they were so oppressive then why do most Russians feel as though they were better off under communism?


I have stood for hours in line to buy bread, I have seen members of my family imprisoned just because they had different political views.

So why didn't you do something about it instead of complain, genius. Too afraid of getting killed to change the world?


Now, if you don't mind, I prefer the greedy capitalist society to what my people has endured for 45 years.

What your people has endured for 45 years is mostly state capitalism, or rather capitalism without government regulation (as the government makes the laws, they will never willingly declare any government actions illegal). What you should be against is free-market capitalism.

[Dunkhan]

The USSR, China, N. Korea, etc., were/are to communism what the Bush regime is to democracy.


First of all this was not communism, nor socialism, it was state capitalism. Second of all these are implemented with a theory called marxist-lenninsm, that is based on the idea of dictatorship. The fact is that all attempts to create what you call 'communism', started with a dictatorship.

Now, that is exactly the point! There is no practical experience of communism! And history proved there cannot be any, because all attempts started or degenerated into dictatorship. Therefore Communism is utopia.


Right, they should be paid through effort and sacrifice, combined with equity of circumstances.

How do you create equal circumstances? Well, the only way to do it seems to reverse history, since inequality appeared on the eve of mankind. Dictatorships saought to create equal circumstances by "nationalizing" all earnings, taking property away, abolishing property. Is that the way? Well.... there is no way to create equal circumstances, not on a large scale. Besides, our beloved planet contains unequal circumstances due to different conditions in different regions. It sure is easier to live and work in Germany than in the Saharian desert. Basic point: History and nature have created unequal circumstances and that cannot be overcome.


There are several other political theories, and you should to read them, and then make a statement. And your definition of Capitalism is to broad to make any comment on it. Coin it
There is a long way between theories and practical systems. I was merely stating that capitalism is the best existing system. When one of those theories will be succesfully applied, a statement about the viability can be made.

[No. 355728]

Now, that is exactly the point! There is no practical experience of communism! And history proved there cannot be any, because all attempts started or degenerated into dictatorship. Therefore Communism is utopia.

First of all you should read my quote again, history has not proven that it degenerates into a dictatorship, they started with a dictatorship. No one ever tried to implement communism in those examples you gave, they tried to implement dictatorial state capitalism, and they succeeded in it.
Second, there are experiences of relatively new stateless societies, none of them degenerated into dictatorships. (and comunism is based on a political analysis of on one of them.)


How do you create equal circumstances? Well, the only way to do it seems to reverse history, since inequality appeared on the eve of mankind. Dictatorships saought to create equal circumstances by "nationalizing" all earnings, taking property away, abolishing property. Is that the way? Well.... there is no way to create equal circumstances, not on a large scale. Besides, our beloved planet contains unequal circumstances due to different conditions in different regions. It sure is easier to live and work in Germany than in the Saharian desert. Basic point: History and nature have created unequal circumstances and that cannot be overcome.

If the circumstances are unequal, remuneration through effort and sacrifice makes up for inequity of circumstance. This is not rocket science.


There is a long way between theories and practical systems. I was merely stating that capitalism is the best existing system. When one of those theories will be successfully applied, a statement about the viability can be made.

Again, coint it. I could argue that 'Capitalism' has not been "successfully applied".

[Bugalu Shrimp]

Perhaps we could initiate a movement?

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 03:11 PM
Now I don't think that capitalism in it's current form is a good political system. However, there is none better!
Libertarian Socialism (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html) (also called anarchism (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/BasicAnarchy.html)) is. It avoids the dictatorship you rant about while bringing about the equaltiy communism is supposed to achieve.


There is no practical experience of communism!

Actually, there is. Hunter-gatherer societies were communist and quite egalitarian. There was no government, let alone dictatorship. You probably believe the development of the first agrarian societies was a big step forward, but for most it was a step backwards. See http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron...ondmistake.html (http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html)


And history proved there cannot be any, because all attempts started or degenerated into dictatorship.

That's not true. Even if we ignore what Marxists call "primitive communism" modern there have been modern non-dictatorial socialist states. Allende's Chille is an example. It is true that all socialist states have recreated the class system they claimed to abolish, but that's because the revolution that spawned them didn't destroy the state. The failure to smash the state at the same time as smashing capitalism lead government bureaucrats to become a new ruling class, which frequently instituted a dictatorship to prevent disillusioned workers & peasants from overthrowing them. The solution is to simply abolish the state at the same time we abolish capitalism. That is the root source of most of the problems relating to the USSR, China, & other socialist governments.


How do you create equal circumstances? Well, the only way to do it seems to reverse history, since inequality appeared on the eve of mankind.

It didn't. Humans have lived in primitive communism for 90% of our history, inequality is a recent and hopefully transitory thing. Before the agricultural revolution human societies were very egalitarian. Most of us don't advocate a return to a hunter-gatherer society even if it were possible, but the existence of primitive communism disproves all this crap about communism being "against human nature" that "history disproves it" and so on.

[Orthodox Marxist]

This is an Interesting topic thread

"All attempts to communism have pitifully ended into ruthless dictatorships with millions of human casualties: USSR, China, Cuba, N Korea, etc. Why do you think none of those systems have really worked?? Because communism always leads to dictatorship and opression!"

I would like to address this crude but accurate assesment of those communist systems.

Communism in its most simple form:

A classless society with no exploitation. No state machine used by one section of the population to oppress another section. No need for professional armies or police forces. No use of production for profit or exchange. Society runs in accord with the principle: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

however the so called communist states above can be defined as the Rule of society by a single party which maintains a monopoly of political power and suppresses all opposition. Control of the economy via centralized bureaucratic planning.

As you can see these countries while adopting some elements from the communist doctrine are clearly not "True Communist societies" meaning they manipulate the doctrine of Marx and Engels to their own advantage

should we ever see a true communist society one that is above all else for the people it would succeed and that country would be a shining example to the rest of the world what true communism can do

[Zingu]

Now, that is exactly the point! There is no practical experience of communism! And history proved there cannot be any, because all attempts started or degenerated into dictatorship. Therefore Communism is utopia.



You never had read a word of Marx in your live.

Ever.


If you did, you would know that Marx riled and critized the "Utopian Socialists" harshly, compared to us "Scientific Socialism" who see Communism as the result of inevitable clashes between class antagonisms, which prequesites are established by material reality.

All society has been ruled by dictatorships, class dictatorship, now we live in the Dictatorship of the Burgeoisie, take away all the parlimentary facade and propgandistic values, and you'll get what every state has ever been; established on the rule of organised violence.

Similary, Socialism will the dictatorship of the proletariat; or the working class. A great example of such a system, allthough it was not perfect; which lead to its downfall would be the Paris Commune.

States will not always exist, the state, all it really is the product of class antagonisms as an organ of rule by the ruling class, and when classes cease to, so will the state.

[Zingu]

Dictatorships saought to create equal circumstances by "nationalizing" all earnings, taking property away, abolishing property. Is that the way? Well.... there is no way to create equal circumstances, not on a large scale. Besides, our beloved planet contains unequal circumstances due to different conditions in different regions. It sure is easier to live and work in Germany than in the Saharian desert. Basic point: History and nature have created unequal circumstances and that cannot be overcome.


Communist Revolution is about socializing the means of production, not nationalizing them.

All we wish to do is smash the division of labor.


And you just came to a conclusion Marx did, socialism is only possible when the material conditions make it possible for the working class to substain Socialism to transition into a Communist society; there is nothing idealistic about us! Marx himself said that Socialist revolution would break out in industrialized countries first. Lenin rather depended on the "test of will" which succumbed to the laws that Marx had discovered himself.


There is a long way between theories and practical systems. I was merely stating that capitalism is the best existing system. When one of those theories will be succesfully applied, a statement about the viability can be made.


Its not a matter of which one is "best", its a matter of where society is going and evolving, which is what Marxism is all about.

[Dark Exodus]

End note:
I wonder, out of all posters on these boards, who has really experienced communism?? Well, I have. I live in an Eastern European country, and as such I have gone through the oppressive communist regime the soviets have imposed upon my people. I have stood for hours in line to buy bread, I have seen members of my family imprisoned just because they had different political views. Now, if you don't mind, I prefer the greedy capitalist society to what my people has endured for 45 years.

Tell that to the millions of starving Africans.

[Freedom Works]

They are starving because of Statism, not Capitalism.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 4 2005, 07:00 PM
They are starving because of Statism, not Capitalism.
Perhaps, and whilst I agree it wasn't capitalism as you propose, it was term used by Marx. Communsm was also used with him, to play on semantics it is communism that has had its name bastardised, and capitalism's who endured an angelic re-classification.

Whats he is essentially saying is that he believes a stateless idea is utopian. That includes your ideal world also. No matter what terms he used, the economics were off on both sides, he can only be seen as dismissing lack of rule.

[quincunx5]

Tell that to the millions of starving Africans.


Population of Africa has nearly quadrupled in the last 60 years. That is why there are starving Africans. Population growth exceeding economic growth (low, due to statism) will result in starvation.

Thanks for playing the 'look, capitalism is not working here' game where it doesn't apply.

[Master Che]

They were starving before and are still starving today.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 08:48 PM


Tell that to the millions of starving Africans.


Population of Africa has nearly quadrupled in the last 60 years. That is why there are starving Africans. Population growth exceeding economic growth (low, due to statism) will result in starvation.

Thanks for playing the 'look, capitalism is not working here' game where it doesn't apply.
Are Somalia's problems due to their state?

[Dark Exodus]

Thanks for playing the 'look, capitalism is not working here' game where it doesn't apply.

What about playing the 'look, communism is not working here' game where it doesn't apply?


oppressive communist regime the soviets have imposed upon my people.

Good Day.

[Anarchist Freedom]

No offense but I honestly dont believe that your from eastern europe. Why? because many members just like you have made claims of being from such and such countries but when we ran an IP check you werent anywhere near where you claimed you where.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 10:40 AM
Are Somalia's problems due to their state?
No the economic system, also known as Capitalism.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Oct 5 2005, 12:32 PM--> (Additives Free @ Oct 5 2005, 12:32 PM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 10:40 AM
Are Somalia's problems due to their state?
No the economic system, also known as Capitalism. [/b]
Better yet "Anarcho"- capitalism.

[Freedom Works]

Somalia is not anarcho-capitalist.

Anarcho-capitalism is about capitalism, not anarchism.

"Anarcho"-communism: what sillyness!

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 5 2005, 07:37 PM
Somalia is not anarcho-capitalist.

Anarcho-capitalism is about capitalism, not anarchism.

"Anarcho"-communism: what sillyness!
It certainly isn't anarchist. Communism has Cuba, anarcho-capitalism has Somalia.

Anarcho communism is logical, communism does not exist with a state, just like a free market. Capitalism requires a state.

[Freedom Works]

It certainly isn't anarchist. Communism has Cuba, anarcho-capitalism has Somalia.
Anarcho-capitalism is capitalism without a state.


Anarcho communism is logical, communism does not exist with a state, just like a free market.
Guess Cuba isn't communist then.


Capitalism requires a state.
In your dreams.

[quincunx5]

Are Somalia's problems due to their state?


Yes. South Somalia is still healing from the state. Starvation is closest to the capital, Mogadishu.

Do you know why this is?

Socialialist Democracy 1960-70 channeled Somalia's money into the capital. Somalia artificially urbanized. With collapse of the government the failed public works left people starving.
The same problem never occured in the northern portion of Somalia.

[quincunx5]

Are Somalia's problems due to their state?


Yes. South Somalia is still healing from the state. Starvation is closest to the capital, Mogadishu.

Do you know why this is?

Socialist Democracy 1960-70 channeled Somalia's money into the capital. Somalia artificially urbanized. With collapse of the government the failed public works left people starving.
The same problem never occured in the northern portion of Somalia.

[Axel1917]

To the thread starter:

Read up on at least Marx and Engels, and follow up with Lenin and Trotsky.

To the anti-Leninists:

Read up on Lenin and Trotsky.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 02:51 PM
To the thread starter:

Read up on at least Marx and Engels, and follow up with Lenin and Trotsky.

To the anti-Leninists:

Read up on Lenin and Trotsky.
To the Leninists read up on Bakunin. :P

Read up on whatever, and everythng, especially capitalism, and free market anarcho-capitalism. Knowing your enemy is as important as knowing who you are yourself.

I may have misunderstood you, but it appears that you assume because people are anti-Lenin they haven't read him. I know that I disagreed with what I and what I later found to be Marx percieve as capitalism. I disagreed with Smith, Hayeck and Mises. I continue to disagree whilst learning more. Perhaps you should not halt your learning here? That s if you have done.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+Oct 6 2005, 04:21 PM--> (Hegemonicretribution @ Oct 6 2005, 04:21 PM)
[email protected] 6 2005, 02:51 PM
To the thread starter:

Read up on at least Marx and Engels, and follow up with Lenin and Trotsky.

To the anti-Leninists:

Read up on Lenin and Trotsky.
To the Leninists read up on Bakunin. :P

Read up on whatever, and everythng, especially capitalism, and free market anarcho-capitalism. Knowing your enemy is as important as knowing who you are yourself.

I may have misunderstood you, but it appears that you assume because people are anti-Lenin they haven't read him. I know that I disagreed with what I and what I later found to be Marx percieve as capitalism. I disagreed with Smith, Hayeck and Mises. I continue to disagree whilst learning more. Perhaps you should not halt your learning here? That s if you have done. [/b]
Reading up on Lenin will show just where Anarchism has gone-nowhere! :P

Also, a lot of the anti-Leninists have not really undersood much of his writings, nor have they gotten past the Bourgeois lies about him being an "evil dictator." Ted Grant's work,
Russia, From Revolution to Counterrevolution (http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/index.asp) totally destroys that smoke screen.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Going through high-school shows you why communism is bad :P

Many people nowadays choose ideology for just that purpose. The means to the end are discussed often, and I can see the pro-active aproach of Lenin to have achieved more than many of the disagreements of much of the anarcho-left.

It is reading that should be undertaken, just a study of history should include that of so called "communist" countries. It is not as essential as Marx, or Smith come that matter.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 02:33 AM

Actually, there is. Hunter-gatherer societies were communist and quite egalitarian. There was no government, let alone dictatorship. You probably believe the development of the first agrarian societies was a big step forward, but for most it was a step backwards. See http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron...ondmistake.html (http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html)
Don't tell me you buy into that primitivism nonsense, Morpheus. I thought you were better than that.

[KC]

I think he was just pointing out the fact that communism has existed, and worked, before the dawn of civilization.

[Freedom Works]

No one denys that. They deny that it can work on a large scale.