repetition of history?

[pravyj]

Why do I get the feeling when I'm reading this forum that you guys want to revive the USSR model and socialism that fell in Eastern Europe? Have you spoken to anybody from Eastern Europe or Russia? Have you ever been to Eastern and Western Germany? Why do you think people in Eastern Europe ditched socialism and embraced capitalism? They have experience from both systems now, why if socialism is so much better they don't elect the communist party?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by pravyj+--> (pravyj)Why do I get the feeling when I'm reading this forum that you guys want to revive the USSR model and socialism that fell in Eastern Europe?[/b]

Well the funny thing about "feelings", is that they have no relation to reality. You will likely find very few members (5, maybe 10% of the overall membership) that wishes to "revive" thirties Russia.


Originally posted by pravyj+--> (pravyj)Have you spoken to anybody from Eastern Europe or Russia?[/b]

Yes.

Funnily enough, around 30% of Georgia want Stalin back and over 50% of Russia thinks Stalin had a "positive" influence on Russian history. Doubt they'd say the same about Gorbachev or Yeltsin. :lol:


Originally posted by pravyj
Have you ever been to Eastern and Western Germany?

Yes.

Plus my mother spent every summer of her childhood in "Communist" Poland.


[email protected]
Why do you think people in Eastern Europe ditched socialism and embraced capitalism?

They didn't.

Technically, they went from State Monopoly Capitalism to "Free-Market" Capitalism. Plus, the majority of Russian's thought they would get "Western" standard Capitalism, instead they got 19th century Gangster Capitalism.


pravyj
They have experience from both systems now, why if socialism is so much better they don't elect the communist party?

Well, Vladimir Putin (an ex-KGB official) certainly has some of Stalin's traits, and the Russian's love him.

Tell me, why do you think there is big support for re-nationalisation of certain industries in Russia?

[pravyj]

If you don't want the Russian model of socialism, what sort of socialism do you regard to be ideal for as a transition to communism?
Do you think communism can work with the current negative human traits? Hasn't communism already existed in human population few million years ago?

If you have really been to Eastern Germany, you must agree that free market economy is superior to central planned economy. Eastern Germany is a perfect example how communists can devastate economy and human minds. Even the unreformed czech communist party admits it's good that free market economy has been given a chance.

What existed in Eastern Europe was socialism with central planned economy even if some of you western communists may not like it. It fell because the rulling parties gave up after support from USSR was gone.

I would send those 30% of Georgians to North Korea.
Russians regard Stalin to be a complicated matter. He had positive influence on Russia but also lot of negative.

People of the Eastern Europe have had 17 years of experience of capitalism since the revolution took place in 1989. Why aren't they longing for socialism? I'm not speaking about Russia here, but eastern europe in general - Poland, Czech republic, Hungary, Slovakia, former Jugoslavia, Baltic states, why they don't elect the communist party back into power?

Do not mistake Putin for a communist, he is not.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by pravyj+--> (pravyj)If you don't want the Russian model of socialism, what sort of socialism do you regard to be ideal for as a transition to communism?[/b]

Dictionary definition of Socialism....


Originally posted by dictionary.com+--> (dictionary.com)socialism.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.[/b]

Link (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism).

Like Marx, I advocate the democratic control of the means of production, collective ownership.


Originally posted by pravyj
Do you think communism can work with the current negative human traits?

Yes.


Originally posted by pravyj
Hasn't communism already existed in human population few milion years ago?

Debatable.

Some would call early societies "primitive-communist". However, from my understanding, not enough is known about those societies to make a judgement and anyway it wouldn't much matter, an advanced Communist society would be completely different.


Originally posted by pravyj
If you have really been to Eastern Germany, you must agree that free market economy is superior to central planned economy.

I haven't spent a lot of time there and therefore I am not qualified to answer questions on what East Germany is now like.

However, as I understand it, there is still a very high level of unemployment, quite a bit of poverty etc.

Also, this is a debate about what works best, State Monopoly Capitalism or "Free-Market" Capitalism (note: East Germany did have a "market economy"). Needless to say, I am not terribly interested in debating the "pros and cons" of different Capitalist economies.


Originally posted by pravyj
Eastern Germany is a perfect example how communists can devastate economy and human minds.

I presume you are referring to Stalin taking "reparations" for the Second World War? ....it was a brutal (and stupid) act. However I doubt the Iraqi's, Nicaraguans, Chileans etc. are that happy with the effect Capitalism has had on their economy and their minds.


Originally posted by pravyj
Even the unreformed czech communist party admits it's good that free market economy has been given a chance.

So what? ....I don't look to them for advice, the same way I would take advice from any of the Social Democratic Parties in Western Europe.


Originally posted by pravyj
What existed in Eastern Europe was socialism with central planned economy even if some of you western communists may not like it.

You want to call it "Socialism", fine. I'm a Communist.

However careful investigation will show that it was State Monopoly Capitalism in these countries.


Originally posted by pravyj
It fell because the rulling parties gave up after support from USSR was gone.

The same could be said of a number of countries. What do you think would have happened in South America or the Middle East if America stopped funding the dictators there? ....every Empire (American or Russian) supports "neo-colonies", it's what Empires do.


Originally posted by pravyj
I would send those 30% of Georgians to North Korea.

Nice bloke aren't you. :lol:


Originally posted by pravyj
Russians regard Stalin to be a complicated matter. He had positive influence on Russia but also lot of negative.

So? ....they still like him, especially poor Russian's and Russian Nationalists.


Originally posted by pravyj
People of the Eastern Europe have had 17 years of experience of capitalism since the revolution took place in 1989.

Firstly, there was no revolution. The "Communists" just "changed their flags". Lots of top Party Officials ended up as powerful businessmen. That's not a revolution.

Secondly, most of these countries have around 80 years experience of Capitalism.


Originally posted by pravyj
Why aren't they longing for socialism?

How do you know they're not? ....as I understand it, there is plenty of "longing" (at least at the bottom of society) for the old way, or at least parts of it.


[email protected]
I'm not speaking about Russia here, but eastern europe in general - Poland, Czech republic, Hungary, Slovakia, former Jugoslavia, Baltic states, why they don't elect the communist party back into power?

Most of those countries have (some form) of pseudo-Socialist/Communist party which gets a large amount of votes. Many of these (Poland for instance) did spend time in office.


pravyj
Do not mistake Putin for a communist, he is not.

I didn't, nor would I want him in the "Communist camp". I said he "has some of Stalin's traits".

[More Fire for the People]

Do you think communism can work with the current negative human traits? Hasn't communism already existed in human population few milion years ago?
Humans are thrown into existence without any prior essence. Habitual traits such as greed are a result of life experiences, they are not a permanent feature of human society.


What existed in Eastern Europe was socialism with central planned economy even if some of you western communists may not like it. It fell because the rulling parties gave up after support from USSR was gone.
Socialism is a society in which the means of production are owned by the working class. What existed in the pre-Krushev Soviet Union was a degenerated form of socialism in which the working class “owned” the means of production through a series of bureaus.


I would send those 30% of Georgians to North Korea.
I was not aware that North Korea was socialist.


People of the Eastern Europe ... Poland, Czech republic, Hungary, Slovakia, former Jugoslavia, Baltic states, why they don't elect the communist party back into power?
In these countries on average about 20% of the population wants the good old days of degenerated socialism and even more want the “good aspects” — housing, work, welfare — back.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 09:31 PM
Hasn't communism already existed in human population few milion years ago?

Million, huh? :lol:

---

As for the original question, real, scientific socialism-communism never existed. Certain governments proclaimed its existence, but this was an ideological illusion which was far from reality.

What you call socialism is actually state-capitalism (or so-called state-socialism).


...why they don't elect the communist party back into power?

Do not mistake Putin for a communist, he is not.

Most of "communists" are not communists.

There is no such thing as a communist party, although there are allot of "communist" parties.

Get it?

[pravyj]

Most of "communists" are not communists.
Really? So which ones are real? :o


Humans are thrown into existence without any prior essence. Habitual traits such as greed are a result of life experiences, they are not a permanent feature of human society.
I beg to differ on the point of greed. I'm convinced greed is our strength if it is curbed by law and should not be eradicated. Humans have evolved from primitive animals. Animals existing today show signs of primitive private ownership. Some of them are teritorial, and most of them will not share their prey with anybody except maybe their family or herd. They regard the prey to be theirs. It is possible that greed and private ownership are a part of human nature. Are you prepared to accept that possibility? In the case this is true communism would be doomed from the beginning.

Even if you succeeded with eradication of greed, what about other negative human traits like jealousy? There will always be something to be jealous of - neighbours wife, his house, his "luck" and achievements etc.


In these countries on average about 20% of the population wants the good old days of degenerated socialism and even more want the “good aspects” — housing, work, welfare — back.
Those 20% are the loosers who expect the state to cater for them. They are mainly uneducated and rarely vote in elections. They are easily manipulated so their opinion should be ignored.
Fortunately socialism cannot offer much to successful people and is therefore doomed.


However, as I understand it, there is still a very high level of unemployment, quite a bit of poverty etc.
Why there is so high unemployment in eastern germany and not in western? Doesn't it have something to do with low competitiveness of former state run industry in eastern germany?


So what? ....I don't look to them for advice, the same way I would take advice from any of the Social Democratic Parties in Western Europe.
They have achieved more than any western commies could ever dream of. They have more experience than you yet you are not interested in their advice. They have given up after 40 years. You're not interested why?


The same could be said of a number of countries. What do you think would have happened in South America or the Middle East if America stopped funding the dictators there?
I know what would have happened, and I'm thankful to americans for what they have done for us.


How do you know they're not? ....as I understand it, there is plenty of "longing" (at least at the bottom of society) for the old way, or at least parts of it.
I know because I come from one of those countries. In democracy, it's important what majority wants. And the majority doesn't want socialism back. The opinion of minority can be ignored.


Most of those countries have (some form) of pseudo-Socialist/Communist party which gets a large amount of votes. Many of these (Poland for instance) did spend time in office.
Communist parties are not very popular in eastern europe. They usually only get about 5% of votes which is negligible and corresponds to the average amount of poor wanting to be fed by the working ones. The only difference is Czech republic where communist party gets 12~14% but the average age of their electorate is 70 years so they do not have a bright future ;)
Socialist parties are another matter, they are not a threat to capitalism.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 11:13 PM
Really? So which ones are real? :o
Those that actually advocate Communism as a revolutionary self-emancipation of proletariat.

Those that come into contradiction with the science of social transformation cease to be real communists, and thus they become "communists", because those that get to contradict reality are in potentiality to contradict the proletarian revolution itself in its full dynamics.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by pravyj+--> (pravyj)I'm convinced greed is our strength if it is curbed by law and should not be eradicated.[/b]

Contry to what some "Communists" assert about creating a "New Man" etc. Communism requires "super-abundance" and therefore a Communist society can't arise in a technologically backward country.


Originally posted by pravyj+--> (pravyj)It is possible that greed and private ownership are a part of human nature.[/b]

Now you're speaking out of your arse.

First, you'd have to define what can be scientifically considered "human nature" (a difficult task in itself) and then you'd have to ascertain that I can't be changed etc.

Greed, as well as altruism, are (probably) part of "human nature". However "private property" is not. You yourself acknowledged that human societies have lived without private property.

Which means we've either evolved biologically (try proving that) or that it's not part of "human nature" to have a private property system. Rather it is to do with specific material conditions present in a society.


Originally posted by pravyj
what about other negative human traits like jealousy? There will always be something to be jealous of - neighbours wife, his house, his "luck" and achievements etc.

:huh:

Please do explain how wanting to fuck your neighbours wife would stop a Communist society from functioning?

I think this has to be the strangest reason for Communism not working I've ever heard.


Originally posted by pravyj
Those 20% are the loosers who expect the state to cater for them. They are mainly uneducated and rarely vote in elections.

In other words they're the working class. Guess what? ....they are the people Communists give a shit about.


Originally posted by pravyj
Fortunately socialism cannot offer much to successful people and is therefore doomed.

No "Socialism" won't offer anything to the "rich minority" and therefore they won't support us. Guess what? ....Communists don't give two shits about these people.


Originally posted by pravyj
Why there is so high unemployment in eastern germany and not in western?

That's a question for an Economist from (Eastern) Germany. I have neither the technical skills, nor the time to address such a complicated question.


Originally posted by pravyj
Doesn't it have something to do with low competitiveness of former state run industry in eastern germany?

What? ....after 15 years of Capitalism? :lol:

Perhaps it's Stalin's fault? ....I bet that's a reasonable view in your opinion. :lol:


Originally posted by pravyj
They have achieved more than any western commies could ever dream of.

What has German Social Democracy achieved? ....going to war. Yeah, I really want their advice. :lol:


Originally posted by pravyj
You're not interested why?

I'd imagine it has a lot to do with the seat in Parliament, the nice pay-cheque and the position of power.

Being determines consciousness.


Originally posted by pravyj
I know what would have happened, and I'm thankful to americans for what they have done for us.

What would have happened? ....free healthcare, education for all, development of the economy, relative prosperity, becoming an advanced modern country. Horrors.

Of course, you prefer that butchers like Somoza and Pinochet stay in power, murdering at will and leaving the country to rot.

That's what you're thankful for. Perhaps you're thankful for Hitler, Mussolini and Franco too?


Originally posted by pravyj
The opinion of minority can be ignored.

Perhaps the only sensible thing you've said.


[email protected]
They usually only get about 5% of votes which is negligible

Well a "Communist Party" that wades around in the shit of Parliamentary cretinism, no longer deserves the name Communist.


pravyj
only difference is Czech republic where communist party gets 12~14%

Funny how the Czech Government wants to ban them.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 07:31 PM
Why do I get the feeling when I'm reading this forum that you guys want to revive the USSR model and socialism that fell in Eastern Europe?
Because youv'e been indoctrinated to believe that everyone who opposes capitalism advocates that model. Which is kinda like believing everyone opposed to the Tsar is a Communist.

[Zingu]

If you have really been to Eastern Germany, you must agree that free market economy is superior to central planned economy. Eastern Germany is a perfect example how communists can devastate economy and human minds. Even the unreformed czech communist party admits it's good that free market economy has been given a chance.


Even though I despise Stalinism and Authoritarian "Socialism", if you check the history books "communism" developed these countries, it did not "wreck their economy", the USSR developed its industrial cacipity at a rate nobody ever saw before...same goes with Eastern Europe (save for Germany and Czechslovakia) and China....


Of course State-Capitalism stagnates alot more quickly that Laizze-faire capitalism...

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 01:08 AM
Of course State-Capitalism stagnates alot more quickly that Laizze-faire capitalism...

Debatable.

Russia (if memory serves me correctly) grew economically at around 5% per year, every year from around 1920 to around 1985. It never really tried to recover as a State-Capitalist system post 1985.

The same could be said of Western countries during the depression. They switched from open "laizze-faire" markets to more protected markets in order to recover.

Basically showing (in my opinion) that no form of Capitalist economy (laizze-faire, State-Capitalist or Keynesian) can last indefinitely. Rubbishing the claims of the left and right-bourgeois about their systems being superior.

[Zingu]

Well, well, someone with statistics, I guess I stand corrected. I'm not that interested in defending such points about the USSR :P but...

My main point still remains, State-Capitalism is not an economy destroyer, it signifigantly developed such nations as I mentioned above.

[pravyj]

Please do explain how wanting to fuck your neighbours wife would stop a Communist society from functioning?

I think this has to be the strangest reason for Communism not working I've ever heard.
Jealously can trigger greed and once it resurfaces that person doesn't know how much is enough.


That's a question for an Economist from (Eastern) Germany. I have neither the technical skills, nor the time to address such a complicated question.
Perhaps you should find some time and study in your free time to answer this question. Perhaps then you would find out there are serious flaws in central planned economy.


What? ....after 15 years of Capitalism?
Do you have a clue what competitiveness means and how it can be increased?


What has German Social Democracy achieved? ....going to war. Yeah, I really want their advice.
I wonder why you keep mixing social democrats into the discussion. I was speaking about pre 1989 era. You western communists have achieved nothing, have zero popularity, zero experience but want to teach eastern communists how to run socialism.


What would have happened? ....free healthcare, education for all, development of the economy, relative prosperity, becoming an advanced modern country. Horrors.
The main problem with communists is they can't be trusted. Do you think people in China, North Korea, Vietnam, Kuba would have elected/supported communists if they knew they would install such an opressive regime? All communist experiments have ended up in dictatorships exploiting all people for the benefit of "vanguard party".


Well a "Communist Party" that wades around in the shit of Parliamentary cretinism, no longer deserves the name Communist.
That's your subjective opinion. There are communists who think socialism can only work in democracy. What support do you have by the way? Does it even reach 5%?


Even though I despise Stalinism and Authoritarian "Socialism", if you check the history books "communism" developed these countries, it did not "wreck their economy", the USSR developed its industrial cacipity at a rate nobody ever saw before...same goes with Eastern Europe (save for Germany and Czechslovakia) and China....
No socialism wrecked the economy of the whole eastern europe except USSR in the beginning. Czechoslovakia was in top10 or top20 developed countries just before WW2, after WW2 it was still more developed than poor Austria, and in 1989 average wage in capitalist Austria was more than 8 times higher than in "socialy just" Czechoslovakia. Workers in an exploiting capitalist system earned more than in socialy just system. How strange. Communists must learn how to run economy first before they start revolting.

[JKP]

Again, the Soviet union wasn't communist.

[Apka]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 10:36 AM

Jealously...... blah blah blah

Then why do you wan't to decrease the sum of human hapiness in a society?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by pravyj+--> (pravyj)Jealously can trigger greed and once it resurfaces that person doesn't know how much is enough.[/b]

So if I want to sleep with my neighbours wife, I'm going to go about trying to bring back the monetary system and then once that's done, pay my neighbour to let me sleep with his wife?

Doesn't that seem like an unlikely sequence of events to you?


Originally posted by pravyj+--> (pravyj)Perhaps you should find some time and study in your free time to answer this question.[/b]

Free time is not something I have an abundance of and an "economic mind" is not something I possess.

I could of course, suggest you read Marx (you clearly haven't), however I'm not in the business of telling people what to do.


Originally posted by pravyj
Perhaps then you would find out there are serious flaws in central planned economy.

The flaws of a "centrally planned economy" are as obvious as shit on a stick. Lucky that's not what I advocate.


Originally posted by pravyj
Do you have a clue what competitiveness means and how it can be increased?

Do you have any idea how stupid this question is (and the thinking that lies behind it)?


Originally posted by pravyj
I was speaking about pre 1989 era.

So was I. When was the First World War?


Originally posted by pravyj
want to teach eastern communists how to run socialism.

No I don't.

I offer an opinion on a message board that I doubt has many Eastern European members. Never mind the obvious flaws of your assertion (why would an Eastern Communist listen to me?), your lack of knowledge of the "history" of the "Communist" movement is astounding.

Who's model did every Western Communist Party follow? ....who funded these Parties? ....who "advised" them on what actions to take?


Originally posted by pravyj
The main problem with communists is they can't be trusted.

I know, we're always pinching old ladies handbags. :lol:


Originally posted by pravyj
Do you think people in China, North Korea, Vietnam, Kuba would have elected/supported communists if they knew they would install such an opressive regime?

Ask them.

What I do know (from the data on the subject) is that most people in these countries either want these "regimes" back or want them to stay.

They certainly seem to prefer "Communist oppression" to anything they had before. Do you think many Russian's want the Tzar back?


Originally posted by pravyj
All communist experiments have ended up in dictatorships exploiting all people for the benefit of "vanguard party".

Primitive capital accumulation requires extreme exploitation. How do you Britain or America became modern countries?

Plus, if anything, the "Communist regimes" did this more nicely. You don't hear of child labour in thirties Russia do you.


Originally posted by pravyj
That's your subjective opinion.

No, it's a pretty objective opinion. Communists "don't do" Parliamentary cretinism.


[email protected]
There are communists who think socialism can only work in democracy.

Which is precisely why they oppose Parliamentary cretinism.


pravyj
What support do you have by the way?

How big is your dick? ....how the fuck should I know.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by pravyj
There are communists who think socialism can only work in democracy.

Workers' (scientific) socialism is democracy (do not mistake it for "socialism" a la NKorea or USSR). In fact, it really can only work as a proletarian direct-democracy, or it can't work at all (that is: it's not socialism at all).

This is now a historically proven necessity. It is an elementary axiom in Marxist theory today, and for the paste 100 years since the first soviet was formed.

Who advocates something different - counterposed to a scientific fact - could not be called a communist, at all.

I hope you are aware of the fact that most of leftists on this board are advocating this "sort" of communism (left communists, councilists, anarcho-communists, some trotskyists and many "others"...).

[pravyj]

So if I want to sleep with my neighbours wife, I'm going to go about trying to bring back the monetary system and then once that's done, pay my neighbour to let me sleep with his wife?

Doesn't that seem like an unlikely sequence of events to you?
Imagine the following situation:
Your neighbour's wife has a gold necklace and yours doesn't. Your wife will be jelaous of that necklace and make your life unpleasant until you get one for her too. Once she acquires it, she notices that 2nd neighbours wife has a beautiful ring. After getting the same (or better) ring, she will crave something else.

This example has nothing to do with jealousy, but is still valid:
I believe you have noticed the tendency of children to ask for new toys. Once you buy them one, they already want another new one. What happens if a child gets everything it desires?

I can imagine child's greed could be triggered by the fact it doesn't have all the toys the others have.


Free time is not something I have an abundance of and an "economic mind" is not something I possess.
You don't need an economic mind, but you might need common sense.


The flaws of a "centrally planned economy" are as obvious as shit on a stick. Lucky that's not what I advocate.
Strange that you didn't agree with me that communists have devastated the economy of eastern germany. It was communists who introduced centrally planned economy. Who is responsible if not communists?


Ask them.

What I do know (from the data on the subject) is that most people in these countries either want these "regimes" back or want them to stay.

They certainly seem to prefer "Communist oppression" to anything they had before. Do you think many Russian's want the Tzar back?
Maybe because they haven't known anything else!
Those that dare to cross the border are shot dead!


Primitive capital accumulation requires extreme exploitation. How do you Britain or America became modern countries?

Plus, if anything, the "Communist regimes" did this more nicely. You don't hear of child labour in thirties Russia do you.
I have heard of thousands if not millions that died in soviet gulags building russian industry. Most of them were falsely accused because Stalin needed slaves. In capitalism, "slaves" (working class) at least get paid and are treated humanely.



What support do you have by the way?

How big is your dick? ....how the fuck should I know.
Then you are probably one of those that keep on ranting while doing nothing.


Workers' (scientific) socialism is democracy (do not mistake it for "socialism" a la NKorea or USSR). In fact, it really can only work as a proletarian direct-democracy, or it can't work at all (that is: it's not socialism at all).

This is now a historically proven necessity. It is an elementary axiom in Marxist theory today, and for the paste 100 years since the first soviet was formed.
So then you will probably agree with me if I say Cuba, Vietnam, China, North Korea should either reform to conform to this requirement or the regimes should be overthrown since what they are building is not socialism but vanguard party dictatorship with centrally planned economy.

[KC]

Your neighbour's wife has a gold necklace and yours doesn't. Your wife will be jelaous of that necklace and make your life unpleasant until you get one for her too. Once she acquires it, she notices that 2nd neighbours wife has a beautiful ring. After getting the same (or better) ring, she will crave something else.

Why would she do that? There wouldn't be consumerist tendencies. Everything's free. People won't be "craving" material items.



I believe you have noticed the tendency of children to ask for new toys. Once you buy them one, they already want another new one. What happens if a child gets everything it desires?

I can imagine child's greed could be triggered by the fact it doesn't have all the toys the others have.

Same situation.


In capitalism, "slaves" (working class) at least get paid and are treated humanely.

In communism, there are no slaves!



So then you will probably agree with me if I say Cuba, Vietnam, China, North Korea should either reform to conform to this requirement or the regimes should be overthrown since what they are building is not socialism but vanguard party dictatorship with centrally planned economy.

How much do you know about Cuba?

[pravyj]

Why would she do that? There wouldn't be consumerist tendencies. Everything's free. People won't be "craving" material items.
Making everything free won't remove consumerist tendencies. How do you want to achieve that?


In communism, there are no slaves!
Theoretically yes, but practically it can't work without machines doing the job.


How much do you know about Cuba?
Only from newspapers and TV. It's mostly negative though.

[Connolly]

Making everything free won't remove consumerist tendencies

Since our actions are determined by our economic material conditions, what is the economic necessity of consumerism?

Consumerism exists as long as our economic system requires it to.

Why do workers in the west try to buy a new car each year, as if there is some competition to keep up with others?

Why do workers buy Nike runners? when, most of the purchase value is for the brand name, a simple tick on the side. Even though, the runners may not be more comfortable, better made or better quality than that of a less expensive option.

The simple answer is, present economic conditions rely on the selling of items that are unnecsessary, over priced and indifferent to any other previous, older items.

In order to maintain such a system, people must be convinced by the media and popular culture to keep up with this race, hence, consumerism.

If the economic conditions do not require consumerism as its maintainer, why would consumerism exist?

Socialist, and communist economic systems would not require consumerism to exist, therefore, it wouldnt exist for a society reflected and structured around economic conditions - as is all.

[pravyj]

Socialist, and communist economic systems would not require consumerism to exist, therefore, it wouldnt exist for a society reflected and structured around economic conditions - as is all.
How would you persuade people that they don't need 3 mobile phones, 5 trousers, 2 cars, 1 house, 8 formal suits, private plane?

If I was living in your communist world I would demand these items.

[Connolly]

How would you persuade people that they don't need 3 mobile phones, 5 trousers, 2 cars, 1 house, 8 formal suits, private plane?

If I was living in your communist world I would demand these items.

I wouldnt persuade anyone, economic necessity, through the material conditions in which you would be placed, would decide and "persuade".

Its a bit like you going to a prison to buy a bed. You would find the furniture awful and walk away without purchasing. You would consciously compare it to other furniture available outside the prison for which you have known and seen.

However, if you grew up in prison, or in the middle ages, you would find the furniture suitable - you would adapt. Because, your material conditions do not allow for such thoughts on other, better furniture - as you have not seen or contemplated it.

So, you see, our material conditions decide our actions and thought. If those material conditions are different, what we want and desire changes. And, since, our material conditions are defined by our economic conditions (the means of production and of exchange), if it were not a necessary function of an economic mode, such desires would not even enter our minds.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 09:35 PM

How would you persuade people that they don't need 3 mobile phones, 5 trousers, 2 cars, 1 house, 8 formal suits, private plane?

If I was living in your communist world I would demand these items.
Don't be stupid. You don't need them.

How would you persuade 99% of people that they can have these things with capitalism? I don't know about you, but I don't know a single person who owns a private plane.

[Luís Henrique]

1. Why this fad of arguments concerning "greed" and capitalism?

That's stupid.

Greed is anti-capitalist.

Capitalism involves systematically postponing the satisfaction of desires. It functions because people aren't completely greedy.

If a capitalist was greedy, he would sell his means of production and buy tons of chocolate, cuban cigars, absynth, and Ferraris.

It is not how it works.

2. Some have suggested you read Marx. Don't. Instead, read, let me see, João Ameal. Here (http://www.greenapplebooks.com/cgi-bin/mergatroid/59301.html).

Luís Henrique

[Nathe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:39 PM

Why would she do that? There wouldn't be consumerist tendencies. Everything's free. People won't be "craving" material items.
Making everything free won't remove consumerist tendencies. How do you want to achieve that?
it will. so much these days, people only buy things (esp. the upper classes) to show off how much money they have, take away the money, and the things become less special. so much so that you only really have what you need and a little more. youll probably find that next to no-one will have a private jet or helicopter, because its too much hassle to organise. it would just be stupid to have 3 mobile phones, unless you were to show off 'wealth', and 8 formal suits is just the same, you just wouldnt need them, and theres no wealth to show off. just a free commune.



In communism, there are no slaves!
Theoretically yes, but practically it can't work without machines doing the job.
how do you figure that. people freely work for each other, its not slavery if its a free organisation of workers.
if your talking about the small menial jobs, like cleaners an garbos etc. people will still do them. because they get something back for it, like they get money in todays society, if you say that theres no incentive in communism, theres no incentive in capitalism either.


How would you persuade people that they don't need 3 mobile phones, 5 trousers, 2 cars, 1 house, 8 formal suits, private plane?

If I was living in your communist world I would demand these items.
thats stupid... saying people need these is like saying a dog needs a remote controll car!! :lol:

[KC]

Making everything free won't remove consumerist tendencies. How do you want to achieve that?


Making everything free overnight won't remove consumerist tendencies. That is what you appear to think that I am advocating, which is wrong. These kind of changes take decades, perhaps even centuries. When people grow up without consumerist tendencies, they will not develop consumerist tendencies. This is the reason that it takes so much time.



Theoretically yes, but practically it can't work without machines doing the job.


Theoretically and practically yes. When I said that I didn't mean that there would be nobody working. What I meant was that workers will no longer be slaves. They are no longer slaves because they are volunteering to work. They are choosing to participate and not being coerced into participating.



Only from newspapers and TV. It's mostly negative though.

I suggest reading more about it before being so quick to judge.



How would you persuade people that they don't need 3 mobile phones, 5 trousers, 2 cars, 1 house, 8 formal suits, private plane?

Why would someone need 3 mobile phones? Do you think that they will want them just to have them? Because if someone needs 3 mobile phones then they can have 3.

2 cars/private plane wouldn't exist in my ideal communist society. It would be solely mass transit as it's easier to make, cleaner, and can be highly effective when it is fully implemented.

You're asking the wrong questions. Your argument consists of "what's stopping people from just grabbing everything that they want and keeping it?!" There is nothing stopping people from doing this! They are able to take whatever they want as their own personal property. But that is exactly what destroys the status aspect of products that you are so determined to prove undermines communist society! This contradiction just destroyed your argument. Because everything is free then people will grab whatever they want, right? But what you're failing to realize is that because everything is free that people won't flock to grab whatever they want because it's free!



If I was living in your communist world I would demand these items.

Well, it's a good thing that you won't live to see it then! Of course neither will anybody here. And when communism comes about nobody will be like you.


1. Why this fad of arguments concerning "greed" and capitalism?

That's stupid.

Greed is anti-capitalist.

Capitalism involves systematically postponing the satisfaction of desires. It functions because people aren't completely greedy.

If a capitalist was greedy, he would sell his means of production and buy tons of chocolate, cuban cigars, absynth, and Ferraris.

It is not how it works.

Greed is capitalist. If a capitalist was greedy, he would keep his means of production so he can become more wealthy.

[pravyj]

Its a bit like you going to a prison to buy a bed. You would find the furniture awful and walk away without purchasing. You would consciously compare it to other furniture available outside the prison for which you have known and seen.
So you wouldnt be able to "buy" cars, houses, diamonds, planes at all right? You would get a "public house" (which was used by another family before you came), small items could be just taken for free from a "shop", and transport would be public. You would also need to destroy all literature that has a reference to capitalism or greed. If people knew one could have owned a house and 2 cars long ago they would want them too!
Sounds like brainwashing to me.

In capitalism you can be anything you like as long as you don't break the law. But you communists are trying to brainwash people so they suit your system.

You are forgetting, that statistically, there will be at least one greedy from 6 billion people. If you sneak into a football match, there is good chance there will be at least one seat free (I verified that myself). Will you imprison that person for being greedy or treat him in a psychiatric clinic? Otherwise he might spread greed among the others and destroy your system.


How would you persuade people that they don't need 3 mobile phones, 5 trousers, 2 cars, 1 house, 8 formal suits, private plane?

If I was living in your communist world I would demand these items.

Don't be stupid. You don't need them.
Who are you to tell me what I need? Only the consumer knows exactly what he needs. I might need 5 trousers because one pair is casual, one for garden, one for cycling, and 2 are outdoor wear. But I might need even 20 or 50 trousers you can't know. Maybe I always need a new pair because I just throw it away after use!

You are right that I'm thinking in this way because I grew up in capitalism. But as long as there is at least one capitalist state on the Earth, greed will not disappear and people from communist world will be curious about what it looks like on the other side. Also the "statistical" argument is valid here.


how do you figure that. people freely work for each other, its not slavery if its a free organisation of workers.
if your talking about the small menial jobs, like cleaners an garbos etc. people will still do them. because they get something back for it, like they get money in todays society, if you say that theres no incentive in communism, theres no incentive in capitalism either.
The tricky part is they will get everything for free whether they work or not. Sooner or later they will become lazy and exploit the system. Who will work as a cleaner if he can get an office job?


But what you're failing to realize is that because everything is free that people won't flock to grab whatever they want because it's free!
Only if there was abundance of everything for everyone. One way to achieve this is to kill off most population and leave maybe 1 milion on the whole Earth who could live in communism. Otherwise you run into the problem of limited resources on the Earth. There isn't enough oil, coal, iron, diamonds, wood for everyone to have what they want. Not to speak about low production capacity which results in shortage of products.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 11:59 AM

The tricky part is they will get everything for free whether they work or not. Sooner or later they will become lazy and exploit the system. Who will work as a cleaner if he can get an office job?

Only if there was abundance of everything for everyone. One way to achieve this is to kill off most population and leave maybe 1 milion on the whole Earth who could live in communism. Otherwise you run into the problem of limited resources on the Earth. There isn't enough oil, coal, iron, diamonds, wood for everyone to have what they want. Not to speak about low production capacity which results in shortage of products.
Communism is the total development of productive forces over history.

There WILL be an abundance of things, its essentially why capitalism will come to its knees....I won't explain the whole theory to you, but one day or an other, capitalism is going to develop just fast, efficent means of production that it must lower the amount of labor to keep the output the same....creating a "poverty of abundance" type of thing.

Consumerist society? Alot of people won't have that life when this comes, going to be kicked out on street to rot so the capitalists can still make a profit. Which won't last for long.

Besides, we can operate the means of production for our own needs. Its kind of stupid actually, the UN reports that we have the capicity to grow enough food for 12 billion people...and we also have the capacity to ship clean bottled water to the entire 3rd world..oh! But wait! Theres no profit incentive! Instead, companies burn excess crop or even dump the grain into the sea! :o

[HateandWar]

Only from newspapers and TV. It's mostly negative though.

I think it was mentioned somewhere else on this thread but you shouldnt take what the media says as infallible. I have had long and intricate conversations with several people who have been to Cuba for long periods of time and mingled with the people. The attitude among many of those who remember Batista is overwhelmingly positive and even the younger generations don't see the need for a capitalist system.

[Connolly]

So you wouldnt be able to "buy" cars, houses, diamonds, planes at all right? You would get a "public house" (which was used by another family before you came), small items could be just taken for free from a "shop", and transport would be public

You see, you havnt taken my point into account. Our desires, wants and thoughts are a reflection of our economic conditions. Such thoughts of wanting an aircraft or 10 cars simply would not come to mind.

Just, as the advanced proletariat presently fail to relise their actual conditions of exploitation - where, they are in fact not gaining from their labour, contrary to what they believe. They do not relise this, what seems to me to be common sense, due to their economic conditions. The idea of change in any way or form to them, seems a long way off. However, if there was a sudden change in their material conditions - you would see a whole new thought patterns emerge.

I really dont know were you got this ridiculous 'public house' thing, "which was used by another family".

The fact of the matter is, from a Marxist point of view - such details of social planning and housing schemes are not possible to formulate. Marxism, quite bluntly, using historical materialism, outlines without immense detail the general principles of social advancement. Accuratly, it uses historical evidence to formulate a vague conclusion as to our social destination. Anything less vague is pure idealism - and, let me tell you, you will find those attempting structure a whole master plan down to the types of materials used in buildings, to how cars will have super bright headlights. Completely beyond our human capabilities!!!


You would also need to destroy all literature that has a reference to capitalism or greed. If people knew one could have owned a house and 2 cars long ago they would want them too!
Sounds like brainwashing to me.

But, you see, to simply read something in a book is very different and less influential than your material conditions. I could read all sorts of things in books, be it fictional or historical, and want to do them. I would think living a lifestyle of agrarian subsistance would be quite appealing, and many people do it, detach themselves from the global reality, but, for most people, economic conditions do not allow for such possibilities. To analyse deeper into this would get immensly complicated and somewhat impossible - the fact of the matter is - historical evidence, quite clearly leads to eventual communism - it is nonsense to go deeper into unknown social possibilities.


You are forgetting, that statistically, there will be at least one greedy from 6 billion people. If you sneak into a football match, there is good chance there will be at least one seat free (I verified that myself). Will you imprison that person for being greedy or treat him in a psychiatric clinic? Otherwise he might spread greed among the others and destroy your system.

Again, you are going into detailed social possibilities, which you, or I cannot know for definite - AS IT IS IN THE FUTURE!!!! - and i sure as hell wont claim to be god.
Its possible to understand a vague outline, but to do anything else is just speculation.


You are right that I'm thinking in this way because I grew up in capitalism. But as long as there is at least one capitalist state on the Earth, greed will not disappear and people from communist world will be curious about what it looks like on the other side. Also the "statistical" argument is valid here.

So you believe capitalism is an end? it will exist forever? It can resist technological and social advancement?

Communism does not have a state nor has it ever existed. And to reverse your argument, when those in a capitalist society see the advanced sociatal order that is communism - free from exploitation, inequality, racism, sexism, crime, religious illusions and devestaing poverty, the system will collapse in favour of the democratic masses.


The tricky part is they will get everything for free whether they work or not. Sooner or later they will become lazy and exploit the system. Who will work as a cleaner if he can get an office job?

The further I go down through you post, the greater shit I read.

Again, your lack of materialist, sociological, philosphic amd economic understanding is evident.

You only think something is free because cost and purchase value exists. If the latter dont exist then there is no definition of free, only with historical relevence.

Why do the majorty of people work in this world when they do not gain? ......"well....uhhh......they have the need and incentive to gain wealth and keep themselves alive" - completely the same as communism.

You forget that primitive communism exists in remote villages in India, Brazil and Papa New Guinea. Why the hell do they build houses for one another, teach one another and share their harvests with one another?-------simply, it is in their best intersts to work with one another. You wouldnt find one of them say, ah, ill let someone else do it. If it were the case, these primitive communes would have fallen apart hundreds of years ago. We are a social animal, throughout our short history we have only survived by working together? there is no reason to assume this would just stop.


Only if there was abundance of everything for everyone. One way to achieve this is to kill off most population and leave maybe 1 milion on the whole Earth who could live in communism. Otherwise you run into the problem of limited resources on the Earth. There isn't enough oil, coal, iron, diamonds, wood for everyone to have what they want. Not to speak about low production capacity which results in shortage of products.

Yet more babble. Firstly, if you know your statistics - the earth currently has the capability to feed our present population four times over. Tonnes of food, milk and goods are destroyed each year to maintain their value. (even though 17 million children alone die from food related problems)

You mention oil, coal. Are you completely asleep? Societal change correlates with technological avancement. What the hell are wind turbines for? Tidal generators for?...sure a little bit of money pumped into renewable energy research would conclude cars could run on water - without even damaging the environment. Diamonds? who fucking needs them, except industrial lazers. Wood, for heat I assume? electrical element ring a bell?

Low production capacity? how. we have nearly mastered nature. We dont suffer from low harvest this day and age. - so what the hell are you talking about?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by pravyj+--> (pravyj)Imagine the following situation:[/b]

I'm afraid I'll have to "imagine" that situation.

However, if that example (someone having more "goodies") is a reason for a Communist society (with relative wealth distribution) to implode. What does that example mean when we apply it to todays society, where there is loads of unequal wealth?


Originally posted by pravyj+--> (pravyj)You don't need an economic mind, but you might need common sense.[/b]

Give your short (and unsuccessful) attempt at debating our resident Mathematician (ComradeRed). I don't think you should be one to boast about possessing either of the above qualities.


Originally posted by pravyj
Strange that you didn't agree with me that communists have devastated the economy of eastern germany.

Just because a method of economy has "flaws", doesn't mean it "devastates" a country.

Of course a (legitimate) argument could be made about East Germany and the war reparations, but even then its only "devastation" when you compare it to West Germany, whose "economic miracle" was hardly miraculous as you should well know.


Originally posted by pravyj
Maybe because they haven't known anything else!
Those that dare to cross the border are shot dead!

How in any way does this answer relate to the point that very few (nutballs mostly) people in Russia want the Tsar back.


Originally posted by pravyj
Most of them were falsely accused because Stalin needed slaves.

Taking this somewhat dubious assertion at "face value". The question has to be asked, what methods do you think were used during "primitive capital accumulation" in the "West"?

Primitive capital accumulation is an unsavoury process, Britain used child labour and slavery. Russia if anything, did it in a nicer way.


[email protected]
In capitalism, "slaves" (working class) at least get paid and are treated humanely.

A worker in thirties Russia, had a standard of living (at least "basic necessities") of around about the same level as that of a Western worker. There was free healthcare in thirties Russia, that didn't happen in Britain till post 1945.


pravyj
How would you persuade people that they don't need 3 mobile phones, 5 trousers, 2 cars, 1 house, 8 formal suits, private plane?

If I was living in your communist world I would demand these items.

Then you'd have to make these things yourself. Marx, was once asked by a friend "who would polish the shoes in Communism," he replied "you should."

[Elect Marx]

Has anyone considered the irony of this thread?

Our new friend has come here accusing us of believing in a cause without looking into the facts and all of this while not seeking out the pre-existing threads that illuminate our reasoning. Some people just can't see the forest, because they’re cutting down the trees.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 12 2006, 09:30 PM
Has anyone considered the irony of this thread?

Or perhaps the idiocy of those debating with our "new friend". It hasn't occurred to me (or anyone else) to link the past threads, what time we could have saved. :( :lol:

[pravyj]

Give your short (and unsuccessful) attempt at debating our resident Mathematician (ComradeRed).
That guy is far from being a Mathematician. He doesn't even check his own results. Once I showed him his solution of equation did not satisfy the equation itself he said it didn't matter coz his theory was valid anyway :lol: so there goes your mathematician. With that sort of person ANY discussion is pointless. He belongs to a psychiatric clinic.

Guys do you ever hang out with people with different opinions than your own?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by pravyj
That guy is far from being a Mathematician.

If I'm not mistaken, he's a Physics Grad. Perhaps you could start a thread and challenge him to a "duel". :lol:

[JKP]

How would communist/Anarchist economics work?

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI4.html#seci45

[Connolly]

Has anyone considered the irony of this thread?

Our new friend has come here accusing us of believing in a cause without looking into the facts and all of this while not seeking out the pre-existing threads that illuminate our reasoning. Some people just can't see the forest, because they’re cutting down the trees.


Or perhaps the idiocy of those debating with our "new friend". It hasn't occurred to me (or anyone else) to link the past threads, what time we could have saved.

Agreed.

[KC]

So you wouldnt be able to "buy" cars, houses, diamonds, planes at all right? You would get a "public house" (which was used by another family before you came), small items could be just taken for free from a "shop", and transport would be public.

Somewhat. Although I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to get at by saying "public house". The house is still your personal property so I don't understand what is so wrong about that. Maybe you could enlighten me. Also, houses now are usually used by more than one family in their long time standing.


You would also need to destroy all literature that has a reference to capitalism or greed. If people knew one could have owned a house and 2 cars long ago they would want them too!
Sounds like brainwashing to me.

I don't think that any literature would have to be destroyed. I'm certainly not advocating that. If people knew one could have owned a house and 2 cars long ago they wouldn't care because they get everything for free.



In capitalism you can be anything you like as long as you don't break the law. But you communists are trying to brainwash people so they suit your system.

Theoretically anyone can be anyone they want in a capitalist system. But practically that isn't true at all. Most people can barely afford to get by, much less do whatever they want. Most people don't have time to figure out what they would be if they could be anything, much less have the time or money to work towards it. Communists aren't brainwashing anyone to suit our system. Capitalism brainwashes people to believe that greed is natural. You are the one advocating brainwashing.



You are forgetting, that statistically, there will be at least one greedy from 6 billion people. If you sneak into a football match, there is good chance there will be at least one seat free (I verified that myself). Will you imprison that person for being greedy or treat him in a psychiatric clinic? Otherwise he might spread greed among the others and destroy your system.

How would one greedy person destroy the system? What's he going to do? Take more free stuff? What's the point in doing that?



Who are you to tell me what I need? Only the consumer knows exactly what he needs. I might need 5 trousers because one pair is casual, one for garden, one for cycling, and 2 are outdoor wear. But I might need even 20 or 50 trousers you can't know. Maybe I always need a new pair because I just throw it away after use!

Then you can have them! Of course people would look down on you and you would probably be socially ostracized for being such an asshole and throwing everything out.



You are right that I'm thinking in this way because I grew up in capitalism. But as long as there is at least one capitalist state on the Earth, greed will not disappear and people from communist world will be curious about what it looks like on the other side. Also the "statistical" argument is valid here.

Communism isn't a state system. Neither is capitalism. So what the fuck is this supposed to even mean? "At least one capitalist state on the Earth" can't exist! How would one capitalist state exist in a communist world? Could you please explain your hilarious argument against communism that is devoid of any common sense?



The tricky part is they will get everything for free whether they work or not. Sooner or later they will become lazy and exploit the system. Who will work as a cleaner if he can get an office job?


There's two arguments here. The first is that people won't work if everything's free. People nowadays work without getting paid. It's called a hobby. Also, people aren't inactive beings. People need to be active. It makes them feel good. So why wouldn't people work if it makes them feel good and they're doing what they like?

The second argument here is "who will do the dirty jobs?". Most of these jobs can be automated, dispersed throughout the community, or even completely done away with.

[Nathe]

is it just me, or is this guy repetedly bringing up the greed argument, no matter how many times it is refuted...

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:54 AM
is it just me, or is this guy repetedly bringing up the greed argument, no matter how many times it is refuted...
People with a capitalistic worldview do that; they only see relationships in terms of monetary exchange and as such, they really cannot understand until they apply critical thinking to their lives. For many, losing faith in a meritocratic hand of capital is too hard to bear, not unlike a cult mentality.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 11 2006, 07:22 PM
Capitalism involves systematically postponing the satisfaction of desires. It functions because people aren't completely greedy.

If a capitalist was greedy, he would sell his means of production and buy tons of chocolate, cuban cigars, absynth, and Ferraris.

It is not how it works.
Not at all. You are thinking of gluttony and the middleclass is where you must buy-up if you aspire to join the ruling class. This is also greed, as from there, you get a glimpse at the luxury of high society.

Life in the ruling class is quite different. The ruling class own production and this means that they simply have to purchase as much of the pie as they can and they are ensured revenue. If they sold it, they would quickly lose revenue by not maintaining their source of income.

Capitalists know that it takes property (they consider workers property too) to make money, so if you are greedy you buy as much property as you can.

[вор в законе]

pravyj said :

People of the Eastern Europe have had 17 years of experience of capitalism since the revolution took place in 1989.

Very well let's see the effects of Capitalism after 17 years.



Percentage of Soviet Union's population in conditions of poverty as defined by $2 standard in 1989: 2%
( source Joseph E. Stiglitz*, "Globalization and its Discontents", Penguin Books, 2002, page 153)

By 1998 Population below poverty in Russia, as defined by the $2 standard, became: 23.8%.


It went from 2% to 23.8% in less than ten years, all thanks to the wonders of free market capitalism.


By 2005 Population below poverty line in Russia has become: 25%

Link (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rs.html#Econ)

Now read very carefully this one.

Percentage of US Population in conditions of 'official poverty' in 2003: 12.5%

http://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/povfacts.htm

You have been thus discredited. If you have any stats which prove the opposit, which you don't, i challenge you to post them.



*(Important note : Joseph E. Stiglitz is a Professor in the Columbia University teaching at the Columbia Business School, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (Department of Economics) and the School of International and Public Affairs.He is Co-founder and Executive Director of the Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD).)*




http://images.indymedia.org/imc/barcelona/capitalism.jpg

[pravyj]

Somewhat. Although I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to get at by saying "public house". The house is still your personal property so I don't understand what is so wrong about that. Maybe you could enlighten me. Also, houses now are usually used by more than one family in their long time standing.
A public house would be a house owned by everybody, but would be assigned to a family. It would not be inherited. That's what I had on my mind.


If people knew one could have owned a house and 2 cars long ago they wouldn't care because they get everything for free.
What brings you to this conclusion? You think it is logical? But is human race logical? Communists refuse to accept that there might be 1% of people who might never conform to your idealistic man. There is always some uncertainty a fact that communists disregard.


Capitalism brainwashes people to believe that greed is natural. You are the one advocating brainwashing.
Capitalism gives you a choice. If you think greed is unnatural, you commies can buy some land in a poor country and found your community there with nobody exploiting you. If you believe otherwise you are free to pursue high profit and personal well-being.


How would one greedy person destroy the system? What's he going to do? Take more free stuff? What's the point in doing that?
Yes he would take all stuff for just himself. He wouldn't care that the others look down upon him. The point could be to accumulate more than the others could or to point at the flaws of the system.
And don't tell me it wouldn't happen because of blah blah blah. There are crazy people who do all sort of crazy things. He could be mentally ill for example.


Then you can have them! Of course people would look down on you and you would probably be socially ostracized for being such an asshole and throwing everything out.
I wouldn't care!


Communism isn't a state system. Neither is capitalism. So what the fuck is this supposed to even mean? "At least one capitalist state on the Earth" can't exist! How would one capitalist state exist in a communist world? Could you please explain your hilarious argument against communism that is devoid of any common sense?
Suppose you succeed in your communist revolution and the whole world except one island for example australia remains capitalist. The existence of a capitalist state would have grave consequences to the "communist community" (if you don't like the term state).


There's two arguments here. The first is that people won't work if everything's free. People nowadays work without getting paid. It's called a hobby. Also, people aren't inactive beings. People need to be active. It makes them feel good. So why wouldn't people work if it makes them feel good and they're doing what they like?
Who sorts rubbish or mines coal as a hobby?


The second argument here is "who will do the dirty jobs?". Most of these jobs can be automated, dispersed throughout the community, or even completely done away with.
Unfortunately lots of menial jobs can't be fully automated yet.


is it just me, or is this guy repetedly bringing up the greed argument, no matter how many times it is refuted...
It might appear to you that I got refuted, but that might be because this forum is full of commies. In reality, maybe 5% believe your arguments and those 5% aren't particularly educated. The number of people believing in mathematics, physics or even God is higher. The number of your supporters is comparable to that of a sect.


Percentage of Soviet Union's population in conditions of poverty as defined by $2 standard in 1989: 2%
Soviet union still didn't have market economy in that time which means salaries were derived from salary tables. Useless labourers were paid almost the same as a factory manager which was unfair. What exchange rate did they use to convert ruble to $ btw? As far as I know ruble was overvalued and fell sharply after the exchange rate was liberalised.


By 1998 Population below poverty in Russia, as defined by the $2 standard, became: 23.8%.
That is because people's skills vary a lot. Some have useless skills (or skills of little market value) so they end up poor. Also unemployment has a huge effect on poverty. As a result we get uneven wealth distribution.


You have been thus discredited. If you have any stats which prove the opposit, which you don't, i challenge you to post them.
Excuse me? Whats wrong with people getting paid market value of their skills? The uneven distribution of wealth in capitalism is caused by irrational, stupid, lazy people. The system can only be as good as people are!

[KC]

A public house would be a house owned by everybody, but would be assigned to a family. It would not be inherited. That's what I had on my mind.

It wouldn't be your private property, no. It would, however be your personal property. It wouldn't be inherited. So what?



What brings you to this conclusion? You think it is logical? But is human race logical? Communists refuse to accept that there might be 1% of people who might never conform to your idealistic man. There is always some uncertainty a fact that communists disregard.


Yes, because they are really going to counter-revolt to get a house and two cars back. Of course it doesn't matter that they already have a house in communist society, and it would be shown how inefficient cars are compared to public transportation! Also, even if this small amount of people existed, I don't think they would be willing to revolt against the world just so they can get a car. Let's say a group did. How effective do you think they would be? How effective are feudalists now at overthrowing capitalism? Not very.



Capitalism gives you a choice. If you think greed is unnatural, you commies can buy some land in a poor country and found your community there with nobody exploiting you. If you believe otherwise you are free to pursue high profit and personal well-being.

Capitalism encourages greed. Selflessness isn't profitable so there's no point in doing it as it goes against your means of living.



Yes he would take all stuff for just himself. He wouldn't care that the others look down upon him. The point could be to accumulate more than the others could or to point at the flaws of the system.
And don't tell me it wouldn't happen because of blah blah blah. There are crazy people who do all sort of crazy things. He could be mentally ill for example.


And that would destroy communism? :lol: So he is going to fill his entire living space up with as much stuff as he can grab. Then what? What's accumulating more than others to the point of filling his living space up going to do?



I wouldn't care!

If it got extreme to the point where you were taking too much stuff and throwing it out then you would probably be cut off from the rest of society. In other words, everybody else would decide that you don't deserve to get anything as you just throw it out which is pointless and wasteful, as it could have gone to other people.



Suppose you succeed in your communist revolution and the whole world except one island for example australia remains capitalist. The existence of a capitalist state would have grave consequences to the "communist community" (if you don't like the term state).

A capitalist state can't exist.



Who sorts rubbish or mines coal as a hobby?

Coal mining could easily be automated.



Unfortunately lots of menial jobs can't be fully automated yet.

Yet meaning that there is no profit in doing so. We are certainly capable of automating pretty much all menial jobs. The rest can be taken care of how I previously stated.



It might appear to you that I got refuted, but that might be because this forum is full of commies. In reality, maybe 5% believe your arguments and those 5% aren't particularly educated. The number of people believing in mathematics, physics or even God is higher. The number of your supporters is comparable to that of a sect.


We don't need supporters now. Capitalism will dictate when the revolution happens, and since it isn't now it doesn't matter how many supporters we have.

[вор в законе]

The uneven distribution of wealth in capitalism is caused by irrational, stupid, lazy people.

These are catastrophic effects of the uneven distribution of wealth.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/387/sudan4.jpg





Excuse me? Whats wrong with people getting paid market value of their skills? The system can only be as good as people are!


I will only discuss with pravyj when he prove me that the deprivation of poverty in Socialist Russia was more than in Capitalist Russia.

As it seems you don't have any stats to offer in your rebutal and you will thus be ignored as you have been discredited like the rest of the apologetic capitalists. I have proved with numbers that the people in Capitalist Russia are living in worst conditions than during Socialist Russia.


Such images did not exist in Socialist Russia. The State was obliged to protect the people. They were not letting them unemployed on the mercy of free market and starve them to death in the streets of Moscow during the winter.

http://www.spraguephoto.com/stock/images/Poverty/3149.jpg
Moscow today


Who are you going to believe...me or your eyes?

[Columbia]

Socialism is a society in which the means of production are owned by the working class. What existed in the pre-Krushev Soviet Union was a degenerated form of socialism in which the working class “owned” the means of production through a series of bureaus.

Of course, this is one of two obvious conclusions for all "socialist" states.

Take your pic:

Such a state will either:

A) be like the above by remaining "socialist" but creating a society which has a lot of turf protectors. In such a society, because one cannot provide for their family through traditional means of wealth, they'll use the power of their departments, and make a series of deals for position and comodities. Classic Soviet insurance that the sons and daughters of Comisar X will promote higher than average People's People.

B) be like China or Vietnam, where the socialsim remains in name only, and everyone's a capitalsit, or dies on the vine. Here the party members run around shouting, "We're relevant!" while everyone turns away and goes shopping.

I don't mean to be so simplistic. It's possible that Cuba or Venezuela can become more of a socialist nation than East Germany ever was. HOWEVER, such nations have to prove themselves by living beyond their founders. The United States collectively held its breath as Adams took power as Washington stepped down. And now we have about 225 years of peaceful transition of executive authority and civilian control of the military. We're probably the longest doing that, and IT'S MORE DIFFICULT THAN YOU MIGHT THINK! (Most polititions can't step away from such power after only 4 or 8 years. It's too "humiliating".) So, if after Fidel and/or Hugo, each of these nations, let's say, 100 years later, have a more socialist nation, building upon the previous generation's socialsim, you may have something there. BUT, IT'S HARDER THAN YOU THINK!

[Tormented by Treachery]

Columbia, I'd like to point out that of all of the presidents, not a one has been even 1/16th non-white, every single one of them being a protestant with the exception of JFK (Catholic), and that there has yet to be a poor president. Furthermore, I'd love to hear what the average net worth of each current senator is. If this transfer of power is anything more than the reshuffling of the same corrupt capitalist cards, then I'm a monkey's uncle.

[Columbia]

Columbia, I'd like to point out that of all of the presidents, not a one has been even 1/16th non-white, every single one of them being a protestant with the exception of JFK (Catholic), and that there has yet to be a poor president. Furthermore, I'd love to hear what the average net worth of each current senator is. If this transfer of power is anything more than the reshuffling of the same corrupt capitalist cards, then I'm a monkey's uncle.

Tormented,

I really think you're missing the mark on my comment. Way off. (To correct you for a moment, there were men who became president after being born to extreem poverty or very little money. Some rose out of it on their own, Like Lyndon Johnson, while others married out of it, like Abraham Lincoln, while still others endured it until fortune changed their circumstance, like Ulysses Grant and Andrew Johnson.

But on this subject, take Bill Clinton, for example. He was born into lower middle class, and he and his wife, through their own efforts and hard work (mainly studying and arguing, as they are lawyers by profession) rose to their level of finance. But this is all by the way. My comments had nothing to do with the "reshuffling of persons".

My comments had nothing to do with how "white" one is, or how Christian one is. If you wish to make this point, perhaps you should start a new thread on the subject.

What I wrote was that we in America have a transfer of power and, regardless of who's elected, we know our system will produce an American president and a continuation of the many things, including an open market system. We base this upon 225 years of this occuring in the executive office. Follow me? In a funny way, your comment mirrors my point. I'm saying this is not a bad thing (regardless of the ethnic or religious similarities, which are, of course, bound to change.) I'm merely saying it's an expectation.

Now, Cuba, and perhaps Venezuela, are in the middle of a socialist revolution, or transformation, or what have you. And their revolutions have been based on their dynamic leaders. But what happens when their leaders are gone.

In three years from yesterday, it will be January 20, 2009. I know for a fact (impeachment jokes aside) the U.S. will have a new president. I know this person will be a civilian. I know this person will have authority over the military and veto power over bills of legislation. Our constitution has been tested every four years and it has succeeded every four years.

Cuba also has a constitution. It's pretty boring compared to ours and not as well written, but it's there. It too talks of how authority is transferred. But it's untested.

One day Mr. Castro will go to that great Island in the Sky. What will happen then. I know you can READ to me the Cuban constitution, but that don't mean shit until the thing is tested. And it's simply never been tested.

The Chinese and Vietnamese governments have shown that as a new generation emerges from their revolutions, they become capitalists, though they still prefer to call themselves socialists. Go figure.

No one knows where Venezuela will end up, as they're having, currently, a legislative experiment, and not a full blown revolution. The legislature empowering Mr. Chavez can be erased by future legislation. If that happened, would he accept it or freak out and mount a bloody revolution? You tell me. At any rate, he has to die, and we need to see what happens to their society to determine whether his "revolution" will be transferred.

I hope you more fully appreciate what I wrote, whether you agree with it or not. Although there's little here to disagree with. I'm simply stating the obvious.

The closest we ever came to a challenge to our transfer of power being upset was the 1864 re-election of Lincoln, as many of his advisors argued he should postpone it. Though he had no authority to do so, his underlings argued they were in the midde of a civil war, and that it gave them such an excuse. But he didn't do so.

On this note, you should know that varoius conspiracy buffs in the U.S., mainly the left leaning ones, believe that the current Bush administration will do exactly that: Find some way to prevent the election of 2008.

That would be strange, but people do talk about it. However, it would be nearly impossible. In fact, it would be impossible, as the federal government does not controll election processes.

I hope this helps you understand my comment better.

Finally, whether you are or are not the uncle of a monkey is something I would prefer not to venture a guess at.

[Tungsten]

Red Brigade

These are catastrophic effects of the uneven distribution of wealth.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/387/sudan4.jpg
No, that's a picture of two starving kids. It doesn't "prove" anything.
Cheap shots like that aren't likely to fool critical thinkers. You're going to have to work a little harder.

As it seems you don't have any stats to offer in your rebutal and you will thus be ignored as you have been discredited like the rest of the apologetic capitalists. I have proved with numbers that the people in Capitalist Russia are living in worst conditions than during Socialist Russia. Such images did not exist in Socialist Russia.
Of course not. Anyone taking such pictures would probably have been shot.

The State was obliged to protect the people.
The state was sure doing something, but it sure wasn't protecting (or feeding):
Link (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm)

They were not letting them unemployed on the mercy of free market and starve them to death in the streets of Moscow during the winter.
Another Soviet apologist who prefers the "protection" of Stalin and his buddies to the "tyranny" of freedom, no doubt.

[Columbia]

These are catastrophic effects of the uneven distribution of wealth.

This ofcourse, can only be taken with a VERY LARGE grain of salt.

Remember that people living in certain areas of the globe cannot necessarily expect assistance from others who have no link to them.

While I know modern socialists have done nothing but link every ill to modern capitalism, remember that before the 1400's there was no transnational capitalism. Small feudal kingdoms throughout the world, whether in Europe or Asia, or in the kingdoms of northern Africa, had no real contact with every part of the world, and had no real effect on various other regions.

During these times countless numbers of peoples starved and died at an early age, and it had NOTHING to do with free markets.

Interestingly, there was a successful socialsim of sorts during the Pre-Columbian period of South America. The Incas used to have a national system of insuring no person starved or went cold, and land was redistributed every year amoung the Empire.

BUT, and here's the point of my reply, those OUTSIDE of the kingdom starved plenty, and their, let's call it Imperial Communalism (there's no such phrase, but it makes sense) did nothing as "good neighbors" to help those outside.

Interesting to note, the Incas enslaved others and forced other regions into their kingdom. When they did so, they brought them in as a conquored people, and distributed the families throughtout the kindgdom, surrounding them with loyal Incans, and watched them for a few generations. Eventually, they would become Incans.

A type of forced assimilation.

But the photo above can hardly be an indictment against haves and have nots created by capitalism. Just a fool's paradise of thinking.

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:54 PM
I really think you're missing the mark on my comment. Way off... My comments had nothing to do with how "white" one is, or how Christian one is... What I wrote was that we in America have a transfer of power and, regardless of who's elected, we know our system will produce an American president and a continuation of the many things, including an open market system. We base this upon 225 years of this occuring in the executive office. Follow me? In a funny way, your comment mirrors my point.
I understand exactly what you're saying: This system does work, as there is a peaceful transfer of power every four years, and that this is evidence that the democratic, capitalist system works.

What I'm saying is that this is no transfer of power -- there has never been the 'transfer of power' to a poor black woman, has there? Disregarding the phrases (compassionate conservative, bleeding heart liberal) thrown around, when comparing presidential candidates every four years, one comes accross strikingly similar opponents. Just look at the 2004 election -- Both Skull and Bones at Yale, both very rich, both white, both of the Christian faith, married, with daughters, both promising to improve the economy and defense, etc. The perpetuality of the country's system actually supports my point, for if this change was actually change, would we not have evolved as a society more than we have?

To say that the power has changed over the past 225 years again and again, every 4 to 8 years, is a blind faith in the country. I'm not attempting to insult you or your beliefs, but there is honestly no truth that this system does any more than puts a new face on the same economic oppression.

[pravyj]

Originally posted by Red Brigade
I will only discuss with pravyj when he prove me that the deprivation of poverty in Socialist Russia was more than in Capitalist Russia.

As it seems you don't have any stats to offer in your rebutal and you will thus be ignored as you have been discredited like the rest of the apologetic capitalists. I have proved with numbers that the people in Capitalist Russia are living in worst conditions than during Socialist Russia.

Such images did not exist in Socialist Russia. The State was obliged to protect the people. They were not letting them unemployed on the mercy of free market and starve them to death in the streets of Moscow during the winter.

First of all, I don't understand the term "deprivation of poverty". Is poverty something you need or want but are deprived of?

I have explained that the number of poor has risen because market economy pays people by the usefullness of their skills and because of drop of ruble in 90ies. You have proved only that the number of people living from less than 2$ has risen, but not that all people live in worse conditions.

If you are unable to accept that as an answer then I'm not interested in a discussion with you.

[вор в законе]

Tungsten said

No, that's a picture of two starving kids. It doesn't "prove" anything.

Very well. I will thus back up my thesis.


In a Capitalist society whenever too many commodities are produced a crisis is braking out. The result is that the manufactured goods could not be sold, and a so-called commercial crisis broke out. Factories had to close, their owners went bankrupt, and the workers were without bread.

In Belgium for example, entire families were freezing to death because the Capital was not selling the charcoal, for the prise was too cheap.


It is true though these crisis are not an every day phenomenon and under an effective capitalist leadership they can be managed e.g. Keynesianism

But this is not the point.

The point is that due to the industrial revolution and the massive technological achievments, we have the ability, the ''blessing''' and the fortune to produce more than enough , at least for the basic needs, and distribute it democratically in order that people have no reason to oppress one another. 30 million people are dying due to starvation every year, even though we have the possibility to produce more than enough commodities to everyone.

At this point i would like to comment that capitalism indeed had its positive contribution to man kind and the bourgeois indeed had a revolutionary and progressive role in the development our society. But now Capitalism has apparently become an obstacle to the develompment of the society with a terrible cost and thus it must be abolished.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y255/RedBrigade/Communism/marxdial_2.jpg


Tungsten said

Of course not. Anyone taking such pictures would probably have been shot.


That is incorrect for there weren't such images after the industrialisation of the Soviet Union.

Tungsten said

The state was sure doing something, but it sure wasn't protecting (or feeding):


That is your opinion and it is respected. But unfortunately the facts , the statistical infromation, that i provided are proving you wrong. If you are able to back up your claims please do so, but i am afraid that you can't.


Tungsten said

Another Soviet apologist who prefers the "protection" of Stalin and his buddies to the "tyranny" of freedom, no doubt.


I am afraid that the alegged crimes of communism are far less than the crimes of capitalism.


Columbia said

ill to modern capitalism, remember that before the 1400's there was no transnational capitalism. Small feudal kingdoms throughout the world, whether in Europe or Asia, or in the kingdoms of northern Africa, had no real contact with every part of the world, and had no real effect on various other regions.

That is incorrect. The crimes of capitalism are beginning after the Industrial Revolution which did not took place at 1400.

The number of the victims of capitalism is increasing every year due to the Imperialist Wars , which is an unavoidable part of the Capitalist System, and the rape of the 3rd World.


Regards

[Tungsten]

Red Team

Very well. I will thus back up my thesis.
No, I want to hear how that picture "proves" that uneven distribution of wealth causes starvation. From what I understand, pretty much everyone in countries like that are in the same position (expect for their dictators, but don't go thinking that redistribtuting their money is going to feed them all).

In a Capitalist society whenever too many commodities are produced a crisis is braking out. The result is that the manufactured goods could not be sold, and a so-called commercial crisis broke out. Factories had to close, their owners went bankrupt, and the workers were without bread.
I have a feeling that the problem those two kids have isn't caused by the overproduction of anything.

The point is that due to the industrial revolution and the massive technological achievments, we have the ability, the ''blessing''' and the fortune to produce more than enough , at least for the basic needs, and distribute it democratically in order that people have no reason to oppress one another.
That sounds oppressive and exploitative.

30 million people are dying due to starvation every year, even though we have the possibility to produce more than enough commodities to everyone.
The reason we have more than enough is because we don't have some fool redistributing it elsewhere. It's lack of such silliness that allows industrial revolutions to take place, which is probably the real reason why our two friends in the photo are starving.

But now Capitalism has apparently become an obstacle to the develompment of the society with a terrible cost and thus it must be abolished.
What cost and how is it an obstacle?

That is incorrect for there weren't such images after the industrialisation of the Soviet Union.
I know. Anyone taking such pictures would have been shot.

That is your opinion and it is respected. But unfortunately the facts , the statistical infromation, that i provided are proving you wrong. If you are able to back up your claims please do so, but i am afraid that you can't.
Here's the link again, that you evidently missed:

Link (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm)


I am afraid that the alegged crimes of communism are far less than the crimes of capitalism.

That is incorrect. The crimes of capitalism are beginning after the Industrial Revolution which did not took place at 1400.
What are these crimes? Who knows...you never tell us.

[вор в законе]

I have a feeling that the problem those two kids have isn't caused by the overproduction of anything

My thesis is based on scientific aproach and historical materialism while your's is based on mere feelings. Feelings are irrelevant when we are dealing with history though. But you can trust you feelings whatsoever.



Here's the link again, that you evidently missed:

These are not statistical information regarding the deprivation of poverty of the Soviet Union. I am merely asking you to prove that the deprivation of poverty is less in Capitalist Russia than in Communist Russia. If you don't then you shall be ignored.


What are these crimes? Who knows...you never tell us.


Who is ''us''? You speak only for yourself and so am i.

I will thus inform you about these crimes which apparently you tend to ignore due to your ideological myopia.



End 19th century - beginning of 20th

Last repressions anti-Indians in the USA, which transfer the term of the committed génocide at the 19th century: 100 000

The war anglo-boer (for the control of South Africa) 1902 : 100 000

Victims of the colonial conquests of the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century (of which the conquest of Korea by Japan, 1908) : 500 000

The Russo-Japanese war (1904-1905). The only battle of Moukden that made more than 100 000 deaths : 300 000

The repression of the Revolution of 1905 in Russia: 100 000

The Italo-Turkish war for Tripolitaine (1911) : 50 000

Balkan wars (1912-1913) between Turkey, Serbia and Bulgaria: 500 000

The Armenian génocide in Turkey : 1 500 000

The First World War (1914-1918) : 8 500 000

The civil war in the USSR, the consecutive famines and epidemics with the foreign interventions and the blockade by Occident : 6 000 000

Repressions after the revolutionary movement in the various countries dEurope, Finland, Country-Baltic, Hungary, Germany, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria (1918-1923) : 200 000

The gréco-Turkish war (1920-1922), with more than 1 500 000 exiled: 100 000

Victims of Fascism in Europe before the Second World war (1924-1939) : 150 000

The Franco-Spanish war counters the Morrocans of Rif (1925-1926) : 50 000

Military interventions of the USA in Central America, South America and in the Caribbean (1910-1940): 50 000

The war of Chaco for its oil, between Bolivia and Paraguay (1931-1935): 150 000

Victims of the famines and the epidemics in the Indies, in China and Indo-China (1900-1945), including 6 000 000 for only China : 8 000 000

Massive repressions and the civil war started by Tchang Kaï-Chek in China (1927-1937) : 1 000 000

The war Japanese agression in China (1931-1941) : 1 000 000

The war of Italian Fascism in Ethiopia : 200 000

The civil war in Spain, started by Franco, supported by Hitler and Mussolini and facilitated by "non-intervention" : 700 000

The Second World war, military and civil victims, including deportees and Holocaust : 50 000 000

The French war in Indo-China (1946-1955) : 1 200 000

The American war in Vietnam (1956-1975) : 2 000 000

Repressions colonialists daprès-war in Algeria (1945), Morocco, Tunisia and Black Africa : 500 000


Repression colonialist in Madagascar : 800 000

The consecutive massacres indo-Pakistani with the partition of lInde (1948), including 14 million moved people : 300 000

The War in Algeria (1956-1962) : 1 200 000

The Genocide of the anti-communists in Indonesia, after September 1965 : 1 500 000

The war and repressions in Eastern Bengal/Bengladesh (figures dAmnesty International) : 3 000 000

The four wars israélo-Arabic in the Middle East (1948-1956-1967-1973), including the deportation of 700 000 Palestinians : 300 000

Repressions anti-Kurdish of Turkey, Iran and lraq : 200 000

The Iran-Iraq war : 600 000

The war in Eastern Timor : 200 000

American direct interventions or by guerrilla or paramilitary groups interposed in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, Dominican Republic, etc. : 200 000

Repressions in Latin America, supported by the American services : 150 000

Wars in Angola and in Mozambique : 3 000 000

End of the 20th century

The war of the Gulf, direct victims : 200 000

Iraq, victims of the denutrition due to the international blockade : 500 000

Inter--ethnic conflicts in Transcaucasia and Central Asia (1990-1995), including the war of Chechnya at 1995 : 200 000

Massacres in Somalia, in Liberia, in Rwanda, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Congo/Zaïre, Congo/Brazzaville, South Africa (Apartheid). Include the victims of the famines (the Sahel, Somalia, Ethiopia, etc.) : 4 000 000

The civil war in Afghanistan after the fall of the last government : 700 000

Wars and massacres ethniques in ex-Yugoslavia, caused by the disintegration of the countries and encouraged by the Western powers (1996-1996), including more than 1 million refugees : 200 000

Between 1990 and 1995 only, the Imperialist wars , an unavoidable part of the capitalist system, caused in the world 5.500.000 ( In Europe 250 000, Asia 1 500 000, the Middle East 200 000, Africa 3 500 000).

At 1997, the refugees and exiled amounted 40 million.

Number of Dead by Imperialism/Colonialism : 99 700 000

However these stats are incomplete.

First, because it does not include the recent war on Iraq.

Second, because it is necessary to add the deaths by malnutrition, which are 30 000 000 every year.



Source : ''Le Livre Noir du Capitalisme", Ed. Le Temps des Cerises, Paris, published at 1998.


http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/2841093255.08.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

[Columbia]

Red Brigade quoted me and responded:

Columbia
QUOTE
ill to modern capitalism, remember that before the 1400's there was no transnational capitalism. Small feudal kingdoms throughout the world, whether in Europe or Asia, or in the kingdoms of northern Africa, had no real contact with every part of the world, and had no real effect on various other regions.

Red Brigade
RESPONSE
That is incorrect. The crimes of capitalism are beginning after the Industrial Revolution which did not took place at 1400.
The number of the victims of capitalism is increasing every year due to the Imperialist Wars , which is an unavoidable part of the Capitalist System, and the rape of the 3rd World.



Third World in the 1400's?!?
I've read your stuff and your responses and realize that nothing you are saying makes sense.

Your belief that "Capitalism" was alive and well during this time is absurd. Feudalism is not some "for-runner" to capitalism. It is a common mistake Marx and other theorists have made. Since they believe capitalism is slavery, all slavery is capitalism in their tiny minds.

Consider re-writing your thesis, and title it, "If I Actually Had Five Bucks In My Pocket, I'd Stop *****ing About Free Enterprise."

According to your logic, Joe Stalin prevented the whole sale rape of Russia, and Eisenhower was the devil.

Where do you go to school? Marx Junior College?

[KC]

Where was the world wide movement to "copy" Soviet Russia? Outside of them EXPORTING it to Africa and Asia. Why don't I read in the paper about happy socialists running around some country and saying the hell with America, the Soviets, the religous nuts, etc.

You misinterpreted. He was saying that the crimes of capitalism begin after the industrial revolution, which didn't take place in the 1400's. It took place in the late 18th/early 19th centuries.

He then goes on to say the bodycount is increasing presently. The two statements were not about the same time period, and neither were about the 1400's.



Your belief that "Capitalism" was alive and well during this time is absurd. Feudalism is not some "for-runner" to capitalism. It is a common mistake Marx and other theorists have made. Since they believe capitalism is slavery, all slavery is capitalism in their tiny minds.

Marx never made that mistake. Neither is Red Brigade. Nobody on this site is claiming that Feudalism was capitalism. They are two different socio-economic systems.

[Tungsten]

Red Team

My thesis is based on scientific aproach and historical materialism
Your approach is based on the copying and pasting of texts you don't understand.

while your's is based on mere feelings. Feelings are irrelevant when we are dealing with history though. But you can trust you feelings whatsoever.
It's a figure of speech, you fool.

These are not statistical information regarding the deprivation of poverty of the Soviet Union. I am merely asking you to prove that the deprivation of poverty is less in Capitalist Russia than in Communist Russia. If you don't then you shall be ignored.
How about the seven million starved by the government you seem to think is so wonderful? Care to comment?

Last repressions anti-Indians in the USA, which transfer the term of the committed génocide at the 19th century: 100 000
This has nothing to do with capitalism.

The war anglo-boer (for the control of South Africa) 1902 : 100 000
Nor this.

Victims of the colonial conquests of the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century (of which the conquest of Korea by Japan, 1908) : 500 000
Nor this.

The Russo-Japanese war (1904-1905). The only battle of Moukden that made more than 100 000 deaths : 300 000
Nor this.

The repression of the Revolution of 1905 in Russia: 100 000
Nor this.

The Italo-Turkish war for Tripolitaine (1911) : 50 000

Balkan wars (1912-1913) between Turkey, Serbia and Bulgaria: 500 000

The Armenian génocide in Turkey : 1 500 000

The First World War (1914-1918) : 8 500 000

The civil war in the USSR, the consecutive famines and epidemics with the foreign interventions and the blockade by Occident : 6 000 000

Repressions after the revolutionary movement in the various countries dEurope, Finland, Country-Baltic, Hungary, Germany, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria (1918-1923) : 200 000

The gréco-Turkish war (1920-1922), with more than 1 500 000 exiled: 100 000

Victims of Fascism in Europe before the Second World war (1924-1939) : 150 000

The Franco-Spanish war counters the Morrocans of Rif (1925-1926) : 50 000

Military interventions of the USA in Central America, South America and in the Caribbean (1910-1940): 50 000

The war of Chaco for its oil, between Bolivia and Paraguay (1931-1935): 150 000

Victims of the famines and the epidemics in the Indies, in China and Indo-China (1900-1945), including 6 000 000 for only China : 8 000 000

Massive repressions and the civil war started by Tchang Kaï-Chek in China (1927-1937) : 1 000 000

The war Japanese agression in China (1931-1941) : 1 000 000

The war of Italian Fascism in Ethiopia : 200 000

The civil war in Spain, started by Franco, supported by Hitler and Mussolini and facilitated by "non-intervention" : 700 000

The Second World war, military and civil victims, including deportees and Holocaust : 50 000 000

The French war in Indo-China (1946-1955) : 1 200 000

The American war in Vietnam (1956-1975) : 2 000 000

Repressions colonialists daprès-war in Algeria (1945), Morocco, Tunisia and Black Africa : 500 000


Repression colonialist in Madagascar : 800 000

The consecutive massacres indo-Pakistani with the partition of lInde (1948), including 14 million moved people : 300 000

The War in Algeria (1956-1962) : 1 200 000

The Genocide of the anti-communists in Indonesia, after September 1965 : 1 500 000

The war and repressions in Eastern Bengal/Bengladesh (figures dAmnesty International) : 3 000 000

The four wars israélo-Arabic in the Middle East (1948-1956-1967-1973), including the deportation of 700 000 Palestinians : 300 000

Repressions anti-Kurdish of Turkey, Iran and lraq : 200 000

The Iran-Iraq war : 600 000

The war in Eastern Timor : 200 000

American direct interventions or by guerrilla or paramilitary groups interposed in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, Dominican Republic, etc. : 200 000

Repressions in Latin America, supported by the American services : 150 000

Wars in Angola and in Mozambique : 3 000 000
Nor any of these.


The war of the Gulf, direct victims : 200 000
The fault of comrade Hussein.

Iraq, victims of the denutrition due to the international blockade : 500 000
The fault of comrade Hussein.

Inter--ethnic conflicts in Transcaucasia and Central Asia (1990-1995), including the war of Chechnya at 1995 : 200 000
This has nothing to do with capitalism.

Massacres in Somalia, in Liberia, in Rwanda, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Congo/Zaïre, Congo/Brazzaville, South Africa (Apartheid). Include the victims of the famines (the Sahel, Somalia, Ethiopia, etc.) : 4 000 000
Nor any of these.

The civil war in Afghanistan after the fall of the last government : 700 000
The fault of the Taliban.

Wars and massacres ethniques in ex-Yugoslavia, caused by the disintegration of the countries and encouraged by the Western powers (1996-1996), including more than 1 million refugees : 200 000
The fault of the Yugoslav government (socialists).

Between 1990 and 1995 only, the Imperialist wars , an unavoidable part of the capitalist system, caused in the world 5.500.000 ( In Europe 250 000, Asia 1 500 000, the Middle East 200 000, Africa 3 500 000).

So what have we here, effectively? A list of wars and other sundries without a single attempt to explain why they are the fault of capitalism, nor even an attempt to define capitalism. That says it all.

Number of Dead by Imperialism/Colonialism : 99 700 000
I'm not advocating "imperialism/colonialism", nor should I imagine is any other person who calls themselves a capitalist. Here's a (simplified) definition that I use: Capitalism is system based on the principle of individual rights in which the initiation of force is banned from use.

Of course, such a system hasn't been tried consistently, but it is practical and morally right. It's not pretending to be utopia either.

Second, because it is necessary to add the deaths by malnutrition, which are 30 000 000 every year.
Presumably, you believe that freedom to trade without interference causes people to starve and kill each other.

How very...interesting.

[Columbia]

Lazar wrote:

Nobody on this site is claiming that Feudalism was capitalism. They are two different socio-economic systems.


I have seen the concept written here several times. But thanks for writing this. we agree upon something.


Medeival feudalism required/demanded a serf population willing to stay on the feif, grow food, and complete service in exchange for "protection".

Capitalism requires the movement of goods and money and services and bargain and exchange and on and on and on. Here the food is another comodity, where as in feudalism it was everything.

[вор в законе]

Red Team
QUOTE
My thesis is based on scientific aproach and historical materialism

Your approach is based on the copying and pasting of texts you don't understand.
QUOTE
while your's is based on mere feelings. Feelings are irrelevant when we are dealing with history though. But you can trust you feelings whatsoever.

It's a figure of speech, you fool.
QUOTE
These are not statistical information regarding the deprivation of poverty of the Soviet Union. I am merely asking you to prove that the deprivation of poverty is less in Capitalist Russia than in Communist Russia. If you don't then you shall be ignored.

How about the seven million starved by the government you seem to think is so wonderful? Care to comment?
QUOTE
Last repressions anti-Indians in the USA, which transfer the term of the committed génocide at the 19th century: 100 000

This has nothing to do with capitalism.
QUOTE
The war anglo-boer (for the control of South Africa) 1902 : 100 000

Nor this.
QUOTE
Victims of the colonial conquests of the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century (of which the conquest of Korea by Japan, 1908) : 500 000

Nor this.
QUOTE
The Russo-Japanese war (1904-1905). The only battle of Moukden that made more than 100 000 deaths : 300 000

Nor this.
QUOTE
The repression of the Revolution of 1905 in Russia: 100 000

Nor this.
QUOTE
The Italo-Turkish war for Tripolitaine (1911) : 50 000

Balkan wars (1912-1913) between Turkey, Serbia and Bulgaria: 500 000

The Armenian génocide in Turkey : 1 500 000

The First World War (1914-1918) : 8 500 000

The civil war in the USSR, the consecutive famines and epidemics with the foreign interventions and the blockade by Occident : 6 000 000

Repressions after the revolutionary movement in the various countries dEurope, Finland, Country-Baltic, Hungary, Germany, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria (1918-1923) : 200 000

The gréco-Turkish war (1920-1922), with more than 1 500 000 exiled: 100 000

Victims of Fascism in Europe before the Second World war (1924-1939) : 150 000

The Franco-Spanish war counters the Morrocans of Rif (1925-1926) : 50 000

Military interventions of the USA in Central America, South America and in the Caribbean (1910-1940): 50 000

The war of Chaco for its oil, between Bolivia and Paraguay (1931-1935): 150 000

Victims of the famines and the epidemics in the Indies, in China and Indo-China (1900-1945), including 6 000 000 for only China : 8 000 000

Massive repressions and the civil war started by Tchang Kaï-Chek in China (1927-1937) : 1 000 000

The war Japanese agression in China (1931-1941) : 1 000 000

The war of Italian Fascism in Ethiopia : 200 000

The civil war in Spain, started by Franco, supported by Hitler and Mussolini and facilitated by "non-intervention" : 700 000

The Second World war, military and civil victims, including deportees and Holocaust : 50 000 000

The French war in Indo-China (1946-1955) : 1 200 000

The American war in Vietnam (1956-1975) : 2 000 000

Repressions colonialists daprès-war in Algeria (1945), Morocco, Tunisia and Black Africa : 500 000


Repression colonialist in Madagascar : 800 000

The consecutive massacres indo-Pakistani with the partition of lInde (1948), including 14 million moved people : 300 000

The War in Algeria (1956-1962) : 1 200 000

The Genocide of the anti-communists in Indonesia, after September 1965 : 1 500 000

The war and repressions in Eastern Bengal/Bengladesh (figures dAmnesty International) : 3 000 000

The four wars israélo-Arabic in the Middle East (1948-1956-1967-1973), including the deportation of 700 000 Palestinians : 300 000

Repressions anti-Kurdish of Turkey, Iran and lraq : 200 000

The Iran-Iraq war : 600 000

The war in Eastern Timor : 200 000

American direct interventions or by guerrilla or paramilitary groups interposed in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, Dominican Republic, etc. : 200 000

Repressions in Latin America, supported by the American services : 150 000

Wars in Angola and in Mozambique : 3 000 000

Nor any of these.

QUOTE
The war of the Gulf, direct victims : 200 000

The fault of comrade Hussein.
QUOTE
Iraq, victims of the denutrition due to the international blockade : 500 000

The fault of comrade Hussein.
QUOTE
Inter--ethnic conflicts in Transcaucasia and Central Asia (1990-1995), including the war of Chechnya at 1995 : 200 000

This has nothing to do with capitalism.
QUOTE
Massacres in Somalia, in Liberia, in Rwanda, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Congo/Zaïre, Congo/Brazzaville, South Africa (Apartheid). Include the victims of the famines (the Sahel, Somalia, Ethiopia, etc.) : 4 000 000

Nor any of these.
QUOTE
The civil war in Afghanistan after the fall of the last government : 700 000

The fault of the Taliban.
QUOTE
Wars and massacres ethniques in ex-Yugoslavia, caused by the disintegration of the countries and encouraged by the Western powers (1996-1996), including more than 1 million refugees : 200 000

The fault of the Yugoslav government (socialists).
QUOTE
Between 1990 and 1995 only, the Imperialist wars , an unavoidable part of the capitalist system, caused in the world 5.500.000 ( In Europe 250 000, Asia 1 500 000, the Middle East 200 000, Africa 3 500 000).


So what have we here, effectively? A list of wars and other sundries without a single attempt to explain why they are the fault of capitalism, nor even an attempt to define capitalism. That says it all.
QUOTE
Number of Dead by Imperialism/Colonialism : 99 700 000

I'm not advocating "imperialism/colonialism", nor should I imagine is any other person who calls themselves a capitalist. Here's a (simplified) definition that I use: Capitalism is system based on the principle of individual rights in which the initiation of force is banned from use.

Of course, such a system hasn't been tried consistently, but it is practical and morally right. It's not pretending to be utopia either.
QUOTE
Second, because it is necessary to add the deaths by malnutrition, which are 30 000 000 every year.

Presumably, you believe that freedom to trade without interference causes people to starve and kill each other.

How very...interesting.


Trying to get something of value out of your post is like trying to squeeze orange juice out of an apple.

[вор в законе]

Lazar

You misinterpreted. He was saying that the crimes of capitalism begin after the industrial revolution, which didn't take place in the 1400's. It took place in the late 18th/early 19th centuries.


No comrade Lazar he didn't misinterpreted anything. He did exactly what ''The Capitalist Pig Guide'' suggests.


''When they debunk you twist their statements and change the subject''


Anyhow, the only occasion that a communist should debate with an imperialist lackey, it should be when he wants to entertain himself.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by pravyj
So then you will probably agree with me if I say Cuba, Vietnam, China, North Korea should either reform to conform to this requirement or the regimes should be overthrown since what they are building is not socialism but vanguard party dictatorship with centrally planned economy.

They will not be "reformed" in that direction, obviously. They should be overthrown by the working class, just like any other capitalist state.

Correction, though: they are not really "vanguard party dictatorship" but bureaucratic dictatorship, a bureaucratic state capitalism. "Party" is just a political extension of it.