Let,s Debate Not Name Call. [Archive]

Nothing Human Is Alien

2nd July 2006, 04:03

This belongs in opposing ideologies.

Otherwise, these are questions we've heard 1,000 times before. I'll answer some of them, but I suggest reading this: Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/faq.html#a).

It's useful to know what something is before opposing it.

I know that most if not all on this board HATE or just disagree with Capitalism, and think America is an oppresive and evil place, My question is WHY????

See: world history.

Since it represent the U.S. capitalist minority, the U.S. imperialist government is objectively the enemy of the vast majority of humanity (workers and farmers).

If America is so bad, why is everyone breaking down our doors to get here?????

"Everyone" isn't. A comrade on this board recently pointed out in this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51927&st=25) that more people immigrate and become citizens of European countries each year than the U.S.

That's not to say that alot of people don't go to the U.S. Alot do. But, most people that do come to the U.S. do so for purely economic reasons. You see, the U.S. made itself rich by stealing land, exploiting unpaid African slaves, and raping and plundering places like Central America -- where the majority of immigrants to the U.S. come from, since there's no way for many of them to survive in their countries of birth. Feel free to ask an immigrant from Mexico if they like the U.S., or if they're there just to make some money.

and if Communism is better than Capitalism, why are almost all the Countries on earth who have embraced Communism poor and backward, while the Countries that have embraced Capitalism are for the most part succesful and have immigration problems from people trying to get in, where as Communist Countries have to build walls to keep there own people in????

There's a lot wrong with this. First of all, there's no such thing as a "communist country". There will be no countries under communism. There are (& were) socialist countries.

I'll again refer you to the FAQ I linked to earlier.

Most countries in the world are now capitalist. I don't have to tell you that most people in the world are poor (Almost 3 billion -- about half actually). So what you said about capitalist countries prospering has no basis in reality. The main "immigration" problem most countries in the world are facing is the problem of skilled workers leaving for rich imperialist countries like the U.S.

The only time a wall was built was between the GDR and West Germany. There was never a socialist revolution in the GDR, so at best, it was what I would call a bureaucratic socialist country. Walter Ulbricht and the rest of the government of the GDR's justification of the construction of the Berlin wall was that it was needed to stop the drain of skilled workers to the capitalist west (where they could be paid more largely due to subsidies from the imperialist countries through the "Marshall Plan"), as well as to prevent the constant sabotage which was being taken against the GDR by agents of the imperialist countries. The GDR was also responsible for reparations to the USSR and Poland.

Ironically, and causing more problems for the GDR, while skilled workers from the GDR were leaving for the west in search of higher pay, people from West Berlin were crossing into East Berlin to shop at state stores where prices were much lower.

It's also worthy to note that even though eastern Germany was much less developed than the western section before WWII, the GDR was actually the richest country in the "Eastern Bloc". In 1980, the GDR had a higher GNP ($5,532) than the United Kingdom ($4,990).

Finally, living and economic conditions have become much better in almost every instance where the working class has taken power and held on to it for any meaningful amount of time. The statistics speak to that. Countries in which socialist revolutions have occured were almost universally poor to began with. What the revolutions enabled the workers and farmers to do was use what their countries had to better meet human need, thus increasing things like literacy rates, employment rates, life expectancies, numbers of women in work places and politics, etc. Socialism isn't a magic wand that erased deep rooted poverty immediately, especially in isolated countries in a world dominated by capitalism (and even more with former colonies). This is why we revolutionaries constantly speak of the need for world revolution.

Any more questions?

Zero

2nd July 2006, 04:04

I have yet to see a paper slip jump off the table and stab someone in the face.

Red Heretic

2nd July 2006, 04:08

This thread will probably be moved to opposing ideologies soon, but I'd like to respond to some of your questions before then (I don't normally bbother with the Opposing Ideologies forum).

If America is so bad, why is everyone breaking down our doors to get here?????

Specifically, because America is an imperialist country, and it derives its tremendous wealth from super exploiting third world countries. Of course, things in America aren't just "peachy," but US imperialism has made the rest of the world even more fucked up than the US itself is.

and if Communism is better than Capitalism, why are almost all the Countries on earth who have embraced Communism poor and backward

You're confusing communism with socialism (communism is a world-wide society without classes, armies, or states that exists after socialism covers the working class takes power in every country around the world, and the contradictions which create classes, states, and armies are abolished).

Nevertheless, the reason poor and backward countries have had socialist revolutions is because their economies were dominated and super exploited by imperialism. Imperialism makes class contradictions (that is, the contradiction between the working class and the capitalist class) the sharpest in oppressed third world countries.

Those countries which have has socialist revolutions are then able to develop (rapidly too). For example, because of Japanese imperialism, the economy of China was semi-fuedal and completed stagnated. China was one of the poorest and most oppressed countries on the planet, yet the socialist revolution against the Japense imperialists allowed the Chinese masses to take control of their economy and develop it. By 1968, starvation, drug addiction, and illiteracy had been completely wiped out (though all of those things have returned to China since the capitalist coup in 1976).

while the Countries that have embraced Capitalism are for the most part succesful

Those countries which developed before the rest of the world have accumulated tremendous weath because they use the position of having developed economies to exploit those economies which have not developed (and continue to exploit those economies even if they DO develop). Look at the Philippines, for example. The Philipinnes has a developed capitalist economy, yet is exploited by US imperialism. Because of this, the people of the Philippines live under some of the worst conditions in the world.

where as Communist Countries have to build walls to keep there own people in????

No socialist country has ever built walls to keep people in. The Soviet Union had a capitalist coup in the mid 1950's when Khruschev came to power, but it held onto the veil of communism to pretend that it wasn't a capitalist country (if the people of the Soviet Union had known the reality of the state they were living under, they would have rised up in revolution).

Many capitalist countries pretend to be socialist to keep the masses from overthrowing them. Look at China today!

Red Heretic

2nd July 2006, 04:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:05 AM
I have yet to see a paper slip jump off the table and stab someone in the face.
Huh?

Nothing Human Is Alien

2nd July 2006, 04:13

Yeah I don't know what the fuck he was talkin about either.

Anyway, how about this gem.. according to this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5942091/) 2004 poll, "25% of West Germans [1 in 4] and 12% [1 in 10] of East Germans wished that East Germany and West Germany were again cut off by the Berlin Wall."

That's a total of 1 in 5 Germans btw.

Zero

2nd July 2006, 04:32

Originally posted by "Generalissimo"
And i think youre name is moronic. How can communism kill people, if anything communism would lead to less violence. As there would be no warfare if there are no nation-states.

Yeah, thats what I was commenting on.

LSD

2nd July 2006, 04:32

My question is WHY???? If America is so bad, why is everyone breaking down our doors to get here?????

Because the United States is a better place to live than the nearby countries that it has ravaged with centuries of imperialism.

Pretty much every imperialist capitol manages to maintain a decent standard of living. It's simply in the interests of the rulling elite to make sure that those within it's borders are not those most liable to revolt.

This is not to say that the American proletariat is not exploited, because it is. It just isn't as exploited as the third world's.

Thanks to a greater history of class activism, a long stretch of reformist advances, and the relative ability of the Western bourgeoisie to compromise on internal issues, it's much better to be a worker in Northern America/western Europe than in South/Central America or Africa.

And as I recently pointed out to another capitalist, the United States is hardly "unique" in its immigration situation. All countries have to deal with people who want to get in, western nations especially.

Furthermore, there are several countries with higher immigration and/or naturalization figures than the United States. The myth of "American exceptionalism" is really just that.

and if Communism is better than Capitalism, why are almost all the Countries on earth who have embraced Communism poor and backward, while the Countries that have embraced Capitalism are for the most part succesful

Because none of the so-called "communist" nations have actually been communist.

The "People's Democratic Republic of Korea" is as much a "people's republic" as it is "democratic". And China doesn't even really call itself communist (or "socialist") anymore.

Unlike communism, however, we do have many world and historical examples of practical capitalism. Whether it be heavily "mixed" capitalism like the north-western Europe of today, or relatively uncontrolled "laissez-fair" capitalism like the United States of the 1920's-'30s and 1980's to present.

None fo them produce anything but inequality and coercive exploitation.

The unavoidable conclusion is therefore that something else is required if human society is to evolve. And if one accepts the historical materialist paradigm, that something else must eventually be communism (whether or not it is labeled as such).

Accordingly, we on this board labour towards that inevitable abolition of class and state oppressiong, with the firm understanding that absent a communist revolution, the sole possibility for humanity is social collapse.

Comrade J

2nd July 2006, 04:45

Yet another member comes on with bourgeois-implanted illusions of what communism actually is :rolleyes:

People ought to realise that just because somebody/something claims to be something, they may not be telling the truth. This is true with the 'Chinese Communist Party' and so on, who are an insult to leftist ideals.
For example, take this following statement:

I am a Pink Fairy from Saturn.

Despite having made this claim, I am in fact not a pink fairy, nor am I from Saturn. Similarly, certain 'Communist' parties are not Communist, they develop their own twisted versions of Marxism, or abandon them altogether and keep the party name. Disgusting.

I have no problem debating Communism with people who disagree with it for some reason, just so long as they know what exactly they disagree with, and don't go on a rant about Stalin, Castro etc.
I hope this thread has cleared up your mistakes about Communism.

Nothing Human Is Alien

2nd July 2006, 05:37

This is not to say that the American proletariat is not exploited, because it is. It just isn't as exploited as the third world's.

I was just reading something that said capitalists make more per each dollar invested in paying "American" workers than any others. The article it was in argued that this meant American workers were the most exploited workers on earth. What do you think?

Abolish Communism

2nd July 2006, 06:08

QUOTE
My question is WHY???? If America is so bad, why is everyone breaking down our doors to get here?????

Because the United States is a better place to live than the nearby countries that it has ravaged with centuries of imperialism.

Pretty much every imperialist capitol manages to maintain a decent standard of living. It's simply in the interests of the rulling elite to make sure that those within it's borders are not those most liable to revolt.

This is not to say that the American proletariat is not exploited, because it is. It just isn't as exploited as the third world's.

Thanks to a greater history of class activism, a long stretch of reformist advances, and the relative ability of the Western bourgeoisie to compromise on internal issues, it's much better to be a worker in Northern America/western Europe than in South/Central America or Africa.

And as I recently pointed out to another capitalist, the United States is hardly "unique" in its immigration situation. All countries have to deal with people who want to get in, western nations especially.

Furthermore, there are several countries with higher immigration and/or naturalization figures than the United States. The myth of "American exceptionalism" is really just that.

QUOTE
and if Communism is better than Capitalism, why are almost all the Countries on earth who have embraced Communism poor and backward, while the Countries that have embraced Capitalism are for the most part succesful

Because none of the so-called "communist" nations have actually been communist.

The "People's Democratic Republic of Korea" is as much a "people's republic" as it is "democratic". And China doesn't even really call itself communist (or "socialist") anymore.

Unlike communism, however, we do have many world and historical examples of practical capitalism. Whether it be heavily "mixed" capitalism like the north-western Europe of today, or relatively uncontrolled "laissez-fair" capitalism like the United States of the 1920's-'30s and 1980's to present.

None fo them produce anything but inequality and coercive exploitation.

The unavoidable conclusion is therefore that something else is required if human society is to evolve. And if one accepts the historical materialist paradigm, that something else must eventually be communism (whether or not it is labeled as such).

Accordingly, we on this board labour towards that inevitable abolition of class and state oppressiong, with the firm understanding that absent a communist revolution, the sole possibility for humanity is social collapse.

The same old wrong and boring arguments.

Here's what I get out of every one of these posts:

1. America bad; everywhere else, good.
2. Every country but America can't do squat.
3. America took all the money and profit from the world.
4. America has no culture worth copying (though so many continue to do so.)
5. Communisim is good, and will solve everything (by killing everyone.)

communismkillspeople

2nd July 2006, 06:23

Well I read the replies to My question thread, but a lot of the answers I got didn,t make a lot of sense. Some of the replies were along the lines of, there aren,t any Communist Countries, well if Cuba isn,t Communist, and North Korea isn,t Communist, and the former Soviet Union wasn,t Communist, what are and were they??? Another reply was that Capitalist countries have more money, and thereby are better at propaganda, or something along those lines, well My reply to that would be all the propaganda in the world isn,t going to mask a Countries deficiencies, in other words if the U.S. wasn,t a sucessful nation, would just about ALL of Mexico want to come here??? Another reply was that the U.S. and other Capitalist Countries are only succesful because of "Imperialism", well if that were true then Great Britain should be a 3rd world country right now, because she gave up her empire a long time ago, but the fact is Great Britain ALSO has an immigration problem they are dealing with, and it,s NOT people who want to leave. I also want to ask another question, I know You Communists hate buisnesses AND buisness owners, but if it weren,t for them where would the jobs come from?????and I also think You guys don,t like compitition (in the buisness sense) but without it, nothing would be of any quality, do any of You remember the car the Yugo???? well there was only ONE car company in Yugoslavia, and no other compitition was allowed, so that car was the only one produced over there, and when they were allowed to be sold here in the states, everyone was AMAZED at what a piece of junk it was, I know because My uncle owned one, and believe Me it was JUNK. My point being that Capitalistic compitition breeds EXCELLENCE, where as when there is no compitition, like in Communist Countries, that breeds LOW QUALITY.

Ander

2nd July 2006, 06:58

Originally posted by communismkillspeople+--> (communismkillspeople)Some of the replies were along the lines of, there aren,t any Communist Countries, well if Cuba isn,t Communist, and North Korea isn,t Communist, and the former Soviet Union wasn,t Communist, what are and were they???[/b]

This was answered in the 3rd post.

Originally posted by [email protected]
in other words if the U.S. wasn,t a sucessful nation, would just about ALL of Mexico want to come here???

Obviously not, no one is disagreeing with this. The reason why many Mexicans want to come to the US, because it is a rich and comfortable country. They figure that they have better opportunities there then they would in their home country...unfortunately this is not always the case. They also have to deal with discrimination, exploitation, and a lot of other bullshit.

communismkillspeople
Another reply was that the U.S. and other Capitalist Countries are only succesful because of "Imperialism", well if that were true then Great Britain should be a 3rd world country right now, because she gave up her empire a long time ago

What are you talking about? British-controlled islands in the Caribbean were still gaining their statehood in the 70's and 80's. Even larger territories like Palestine and Ireland only gained independence in the late 40's, less than 60 years ago. The UK still keeps its former colonies close with the Commonwealth too...what do you think that is for? Just to be buddies?

And as for the rest of your post, I'll let a communist handle that.

Raj Radical

2nd July 2006, 07:15

Another reply was that the U.S. and other Capitalist Countries are only succesful because of "Imperialism", well if that were true then Great Britain should be a 3rd world country right now, because she gave up her empire a long time ago, but the fact is Great Britain ALSO has an immigration problem they are dealing with, and it,s NOT people who want to leave

Jello already mentioned that Britain is still an empire in some aspects, but collapssed mainly because of the uprising of the Indian people.

When we refer to imperialism, we dont mean just direct military aggression, but also a form of indirect imperialism of neo-liberalisim by multinational corporations

. . My point being that Capitalistic compitition breeds EXCELLENCE, where as when there is no compitition, like in Communist Countries, that breeds LOW QUALITY.

We just have different views of humanity.

You are of the belief that people only create and work when there is a monetary reward (a variation of the old capitalist "human nature" dead horse)

I agree, in our current social structure that is encouraged.

But when the greed and incentive to work and exploit for nothing more than profit is taken away, its my belief that people will work because it benefits everyone and everyone working benefits you, because of civic duty, because of enjoyment, or at the very least, the realization that people need to work to survive.

Just like we did for thousands of years before slavery, capitalism and feudalism. So in that sense, communism can be considered regressive :lol:

EDIT: All your other points were either previously addressed in this thread, or I couldnt understand. Please use paragraphs, mate. :star:

Red Heretic

2nd July 2006, 07:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 03:24 AM
Another reply was that the U.S. and other Capitalist Countries are only succesful because of "Imperialism", well if that were true then Great Britain should be a 3rd world country right now, because she gave up her empire a long time ago, but the fact is Great Britain ALSO has an immigration problem they are dealing with, and it,s NOT people who want to leave.
Actually, Great Britain is still very much an imperialist country. Great Britain is the USA's lap dog and partakes in the spoils of imperialism and exploitation that the USA leads. Just because Great Britain is not the leading imperialist power does not at all mean that British imperialism doesn't exist.

Oh, and just for the record, the British Empire was an example of colonialism, not imperialism.

Nothing Human Is Alien

2nd July 2006, 07:48

The return key is your friend.

Well I read the replies to My question thread, but a lot of the answers I got didn,t make a lot of sense. Some of the replies were along the lines of, there aren,t any Communist Countries, well if Cuba isn,t Communist, and North Korea isn,t Communist, and the former Soviet Union wasn,t Communist, what are and were they???

Apparently you didn't read the responses at all. I answered this in my original post. The FAQ I refered you to did the same. Cuba is socialist, the USSR was socialist at a certain point, etc. Both socialism and communism are defined in the FAQ as well.

Of course, this site is frequented by "leftists" of all sorts, many of whom (like anarchists) wouldn't describe any of those countries as socialist at any time in their histories. I'm answering as a communist.

But really, it's pretty obvious you aren't interested in any serious and fact-based responses.

in other words if the U.S. wasn,t a sucessful nation, would just about ALL of Mexico want to come here???

This was answered in my original post again. The U.S. capitalist class is extremely successful -- at pillaging the planet.

Another reply was that the U.S. and other Capitalist Countries are only succesful because of "Imperialism", well if that were true then Great Britain should be a 3rd world country right now, because she gave up her empire a long time ago, but the fact is Great Britain ALSO has an immigration problem they are dealing with, and it,s NOT people who want to leave.

Imperialism doesn't mean "offical colonialism only". Britain never "gave up her empire" either, the forms of domination just changed from open colonialism to neo-colonialism.

I also want to ask another question, I know You Communists hate buisnesses AND buisness owners, but if it weren,t for them where would the jobs come from?????

Under socialism and communism, people create what needs to be created to meet social need.

and I also think You guys don,t like compitition (in the buisness sense) but without it, nothing would be of any quality, do any of You remember the car the Yugo???? well there was only ONE car company in Yugoslavia, and no other compitition was allowed, so that car was the only one produced over there, and when they were allowed to be sold here in the states, everyone was AMAZED at what a piece of junk it was, I know because My uncle owned one, and believe Me it was JUNK. My point being that Capitalistic compitition breeds EXCELLENCE, where as when there is no compitition, like in Communist Countries, that breeds LOW QUALITY.

Yugoslavia operated on a market system, it wasn't socialist. Many things created in socialist countries are/were superior in every way to those made in capitalist countries.

KIAs are made in a capitalist country and they're junk too. How about all those shitty novelties which are made in Japan? How about all the completely unneccessary and ridiculous things made in capitalist countries. What kind of system uses resources to make things like dildos in the shape of a crucifix or candy that looks like boogers while people starve to death in the streets?

Tungsten

2nd July 2006, 10:14

MonicaTTmed

Communism as defined by Marx (the first person to actually use the word frequently) - a STATELESS, CLASSLESS SOCIETY.
A stateless society will be nothing more than a free-for-all dump like Somalia and I have yet to hear how we're going to be guaranteed freedom and equality in a society without law, police or an army.

Oops, it looks like none of the poor countries you mentioned are actually communist.
Oops it looks like no country ever has been or ever will be. Communism is unrealisable.
Generalissimo

People are trying to get into america because they can be capitalists there and exploit other people.
"This country is a shithole."
"I know, let's move to American and exploit people."

And i think youre name is moronic. How can communism kill people, if anything communism would lead to less violence. As there would be no warfare if there are no nation-states.
Or course not. And there wouldn't be gangs of theives, rapists or psychopaths queuing up to take advantage of the fact that there are no police or army to stop them doing as they liked, would there? :rolleyes:
CompañeroDeLibertad

Walter Ulbricht and the rest of the government of the GDR's justification of the construction of the Berlin wall was that it was needed to stop the drain of skilled workers to the capitalist west (where they could be paid more largely due to subsidies from the imperialist countries through the "Marshall Plan"),
Oh bullshit. They were paid more because they valued being better paid over being "equal" to unskilled workers.

Finally, living and economic conditions have become much better in almost every instance where the working class has taken power and held on to it for any meaningful amount of time.
Proof?

The statistics speak to that.
???????
Red Heretic

Specifically, because America is an imperialist country, and it derives its tremendous wealth from super exploiting third world countries.
And how do you explain the tremendous wealth of countries who aren't imperialist.

Those countries which have has socialist revolutions are then able to develop (rapidly too).
Look at how well zimbabwe is devoloping!

No socialist country has ever built walls to keep people in. The Soviet Union had a capitalist coup in the mid 1950's when Khruschev came to power,
The soviet union orded the construction of a wall to prevent skilled labour leaving eastern Germany.

but it held onto the veil of communism to pretend that it wasn't a capitalist country
What a load of horseshit. The soviet union was a command economy. Capitalism requires a free market, which the soviets didn't have. There wasn't any fucking "capitalist coup".

(if the people of the Soviet Union had known the reality of the state they were living under, they would have rised up in revolution).
No, they'd have been shot, which is why they didn't.
CompañeroDeLibertad

How about all those shitty novelties which are made in Japan? How about all the completely unneccessary and ridiculous things made in capitalist countries.
They're obviously not unwanted otherwise no one would buy them.

What kind of system uses resources to make things like dildos in the shape of a crucifix or candy that looks like boogers while people starve to death in the streets?
What we need is a command economy! :rolleyes:

B.E. Jones

2nd July 2006, 11:18

Tungsten you need to chill out, everyone posting here is just trying to fill the creator of this post in on our views of the questions he has asked us.

Now we're just getting back into the same

Communist: You're fucking stupid listen!
Capitalist: No you Listen!
Communist: You first!
Capitalist: No you!

Arguement that plagues every post rather than discussing the actual topic. It seems every post is doomed to degenerate into the same thing.

Now let's stay on track.

The Resistor

2nd July 2006, 12:20

If America is so bad, why is everyone breaking down our doors to get here?????

mmm, yes let see why iraq people are fleeing to other countries? mmmm, And for the immigrant issue without people from countries that the USA distroyed, they think that in America all would be better, in America there is a prospect of getting your life in the lift. But in reality nothing is more different....see NEW ORLEANS.

Marx_was_right!

2nd July 2006, 12:40

You remember the car the Yugo???? well there was only ONE car company in Yugoslavia, and no other compitition was allowed, so that car was the only one produced over there, and when they were allowed to be sold here in the states, everyone was AMAZED at what a piece of junk it was, I know because My uncle owned one, and believe Me it was JUNK

I supose because it had no expensive leather interior you think it bad? Beleive me, the Yugo was a reliable car. When the steering whell fell out, you could stick your hand in the stearign column and still drive it. When the gear sticj broke off, or fell out, you could still stear. Also, when the roof leaked, you got a free shower.

Obviously I'm not defending the Yugo, but you have to understand you don't need leather interior to make agood car, OK Mr Capitalst? Back to your diamond encrusted Hummer on the backs of the Iraqi oil and African diamonds. :angry:

RebelOutcast

2nd July 2006, 12:50

Governments are run by people who want power over the majority, they are run by megalomaniacs. And as such I oppose all forms of government.

red team

2nd July 2006, 13:01

And how do you explain the tremendous wealth of countries who aren't imperialist.

Strong governments that make sure business either pay their fair share of taxes or start a joint venture with them which is still imperialism, but in an era when imperialism is the dominant economic force in the world, its better than nothing (which usually means a corrupt kleptocracy).

Look at how well zimbabwe is devoloping!

You on the wacky tobaccy again Tungsten? Since when did ZANU-PF declared itself Socialist? Furthermore, growing cash luxury crops for the host imperial country instead of food crops for local consumption does a lot of good doesn't it. For the landed agri-businessmen yes, but are the poor natives going to see a cent of it?

What a load of horseshit. The soviet union was a command economy. Capitalism requires a free market, which the soviets didn't have. There wasn't any fucking "capitalist coup".

Capitalism requires profit. Monopoly Capitalism operates just as well for those willing and able to invest which obviously does not include workers, but could include just about anybody else that have the cash such as party members and bureaucrats turn Capitalists. Khruschev came to power and introduced profits. That's all that's needed.

As an example how many members of current governments are also major shareholders in companies? Also, many companies with different names are nowadays simply different business units of the same mother company meaning competition between different business units of the same huge monopoly company works just as well.

No, they'd have been shot, which is why they didn't.

Who did the shooting? If it was simply a few radicals with no support from the population they would have been quickly found out and overwhelmed. Are you trying to defend the Tsarist Monarchy now? The bloody Tsarist Monarchy that shot down strikers and protesters? Knowing that you're a defender of unmerited privilege I have my suspicions. And I guess in the end the protesters and strikers like the Bolsheviks more than the Tsarist Monarchy.

RevMARKSman

2nd July 2006, 14:07

MonicaTTmed

QUOTE
Communism as defined by Marx (the first person to actually use the word frequently) - a STATELESS, CLASSLESS SOCIETY.

A stateless society will be nothing more than a free-for-all dump like Somalia and I have yet to hear how we're going to be guaranteed freedom and equality in a society without law, police or an army.

QUOTE
Oops, it looks like none of the poor countries you mentioned are actually communist.

Oops it looks like no country ever has been or ever will be. Communism is unrealisable.

"Orville, let's give up this glider shit, no one's ever done it before. Go back to the bike shop." :rolleyes:

Forward Union

2nd July 2006, 14:21

debating how Govts are run.

And this is the fatal problem I have with pro-democracy socialists and people that partake in the democratic process. It degenerates into this question 'how should the government be run' It fails to address the issue of whether or not government is legitimate.

As soon as we fall prey to picking sides, whether it's between Labour and the conservatives, Republicans, Democrats or even The Socialist party, we can no longer question the system itself. Our Autonomy; ideas and dreams are reduced to nothing but opinion, we become part of the bourgeois democracy, and hence forth are useless to any real forms of class struggle.

How should we run a government? into the ground!

Abolish Communism

2nd July 2006, 15:52

It fails to address the issue of whether or not government is legitimate.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

Tungsten

2nd July 2006, 16:28

red team

You on the wacky tobaccy again Tungsten? Since when did ZANU-PF declared itself Socialist?

http://www.zanupfpub.co.zw

When it began siezing and redistributing land from the "white bourgeoise" in a revolution that isn't going quite as well as expected. It might be easier to believe that it wasn't socialist if such militant leftist parties didn't have a track record of that kind of behaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanu-PF

Officially, ZANU-PF is socialist in ideology, and is modelled on communist parties in other countries.
MonicaTTmed

"Orville, let's give up this glider shit, no one's ever done it before. Go back to the bike shop."
There's no anology between implementing communism and the invention of the flying machine. And you still haven't explained how we're going to be guaranteed freedom and equality in a society without law, police or an army.

Sabocat

2nd July 2006, 16:33

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

C'mon Abolish Communism....don't stop there...finish it.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Sabocat

2nd July 2006, 16:44

And you still haven't explained how we're going to be guaranteed freedom and equality in a society without law, police or an army.

Where did you ever get the idea that a communist society would be without laws, police or an army?

The difference is that the job of police would fall to the community working in the interest of that community and not business or capital.

The professional army would be replaced by a peoples militia responsible for the protection of society and not imperialist adventure.

Abolish Communism

2nd July 2006, 16:51

Disgustapated:

I am just as proud of my country's Declaration's "Right of Revolution" clause as I am it's "Puropse of Government" clause.

I chose the specific passage because, if you will note, Additives Free was commenting on whether or not government itself could be legitimate, not on whether it could be abolished. Jefferson said "yes" to both questions.

And you will note, in the passage that I clipped, I quoted Jefferson's words re: THE PURPOSE for government. Reread it. It is not cappie nor commie; it is not Blue State or Red State. It makes the overall comment that the puspose of government is to insure people enjoy their lives, liberties, and their attempt to find happiness. That's all. If there is a better purpose for government, wrapped up in one sentence, I have yet to read it.

P.S. (The purpose for my edit: I do not challenge the forces of Marxism from arguing for revolution in my country; I merely laugh at their cry baby excuse that the reason why they continue to make no headway is based on American's ignorance, media saturation, and lack of a distribution of their message caused by government interference.)

Forward Union

2nd July 2006, 17:04

Originally posted by Abolish [email protected] 2 2006, 12:53 PM
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

Democracy (http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secB2.html)

Sabocat

2nd July 2006, 17:09

P.S. (The purpose for my edit: I do not challenge the forces of Marxism from arguing for revolution in my country; I merely laugh at their cry baby excuse that the reason why they continue to make no headway is based on American's ignorance, media saturation, and lack of a distribution of their message caused by government interference.)

Do you actually deny that those things exist? It's not an excuse. It's fact. Ignorance, media saturation, and lack of distribution are certainly all contributing factors.

I would argue that because of the internet and it's ease of distribution of information, headway is being made however.

Membership in almost all the Marxist, Socialist, Anarchist groups is up. Substantially. There has been a resurgence of membership in the IWW etc. In the last 5 years, there has been many new groups formed as well. Every protest I've been to for the last 2-3 years or so has seen marked increases in representation from Communists and Anarchists.

Abolish Communism

2nd July 2006, 17:10

A.F.

Yeah, so I skimmed it. Read pieces of it here and there.

So what. More talk talk.

The passage you and I both quoted from the Declaration went on to be the basis of our Country.

What will become of this article you linked me to?

Abolish Communism

2nd July 2006, 17:15

Membership in almost all the Marxist, Socialist, Anarchist groups is up. Substantially. There has been a resurgence of membership in the IWW etc. In the last 5 years, there has been many new groups formed as well. Every protest I've been to for the last 2-3 years or so has seen marked increases in representation from Communists and Anarchists.

As has membership in the political Right ALSO increased.

The internet allows people to bypass the traditional forms of what the "OFFICIAL" word is, like the N. Y. Times, and CBS News.

And because of this, people can "find" new venues of information.

BUT, along with YOUR brand of people, increases have also occurred in the religious right. They may not hit the streets as well as you guys do, BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO BUSY PUTTING PEOPLE LIKE PRESIDENT BUSH IN OFFICE.

And there are those to the RIGHT of them, such as "Save Our State" and increases in the John Birch movement since the internet.

Your point?

Forward Union

2nd July 2006, 17:20

Originally posted by Abolish [email protected] 2 2006, 02:11 PM
A.F.

Yeah, so I skimmed it. Read pieces of it here and there.

So what. More talk talk.

I changed the link a couple of times, :rolleyes: so im not sure if we are infact talking about the same thing.

What will become of this article you linked me to?

Who can say? but if your throwing sucess and historical importance in my face I wil just throw it back. To quote M Bonnano (again)

You govern in the name of a power, a force that comes from what? From an abstract concept, you have realised a structure you think can be improved upon... But how, in what way has it ever been improved in history? What condition are we are living in today if it is not a condition of death, of a flattening of quality? This is the critique we need to throw back at the supporters of democracy. If we anarchists are utopians, we are so as a tension towards quality; if democrats are utopians, they are so as a reduction towards quantity.

Abolish Communism

2nd July 2006, 17:54

I didn't understand a lot of that, but on that, I will let you have the last word.

A.C.

communismkillspeople

2nd July 2006, 18:10

Originally posted by Jello+Jul 2 2006, 03:59 AM--> (Jello @ Jul 2 2006, 03:59 AM)
Originally posted by communismkillspeople+--> (communismkillspeople)Some of the replies were along the lines of, there aren,t any Communist Countries, well if Cuba isn,t Communist, and North Korea isn,t Communist, and the former Soviet Union wasn,t Communist, what are and were they???[/b]

This was answered in the 3rd post.

[email protected]
in other words if the U.S. wasn,t a sucessful nation, would just about ALL of Mexico want to come here???

Obviously not, no one is disagreeing with this. The reason why many Mexicans want to come to the US, because it is a rich and comfortable country. They figure that they have better opportunities there then they would in their home country...unfortunately this is not always the case. They also have to deal with discrimination, exploitation, and a lot of other bullshit.

communismkillspeople
Another reply was that the U.S. and other Capitalist Countries are only succesful because of "Imperialism", well if that were true then Great Britain should be a 3rd world country right now, because she gave up her empire a long time ago

What are you talking about? British-controlled islands in the Caribbean were still gaining their statehood in the 70's and 80's. Even larger territories like Palestine and Ireland only gained independence in the late 40's, less than 60 years ago. The UK still keeps its former colonies close with the Commonwealth too...what do you think that is for? Just to be buddies?

And as for the rest of your post, I'll let a communist handle that. [/b]
Well, THAT,S My point, if Mexicans think they have a better opprotunity here in the U.S. there has to be a reason for it, and You gave the reason, You said the U.S. is a rich and comfortable country. Well if Capitalism leads to Countries being rich and comfortable...then what,s the problem?????????? are You saying it,s better for a Country to be poor???? I want to point something else out that I haven,t mentioned before, if You look at the long history of Countries, anywhere on the Earth, You will not find ANY form of Govt, that has produced a bigger MIDDLE CLASS than Capitalism, just about every other form of Govt produces just 2 things rich and poor, I think sometimes You Liberals, or Communists, I,m sorry, forget that NOT EVERYONE in the U.S. is rich, as a matter of fact MOST people are middle class, I come from a middle class family (of Italians) who have carved out a pretty good life for themselves on middle class salaries, where as in Your form of Govt Communism, everyone is the same (poor and miserable) everyone makes the same amonunt of money (very little) everyone lives in the same Govt housing apatments, everyone drives the same car (Yugo) and let,s not forget Communism and Religion don,t mix very well, so in a Communist Country if I am not allowed to attend Mass on Sunday, what am I alowed to worship???? the State???? And I keep hearing that the U.S. and other Capitalist Countries ruin other Countries, so the U.S. ruined Mexico???? Mexico is awash in natual rescources, but the Mexican Govt is SO CORRUPT it won,t allow those rescources to be used to lift the country out of poverty, so miilions of poor Mexicans run north every year, and remember, it,s not Communism they are running to, it,s CAPITALISM.

Sabocat

2nd July 2006, 18:13

Originally posted by communismkillspeople+Jul 2 2006, 11:11 AM--> (communismkillspeople @ Jul 2 2006, 11:11 AM)
Originally posted by Jello+Jul 2 2006, 03:59 AM--> (Jello @ Jul 2 2006, 03:59 AM)
Originally posted by communismkillspeople
Some of the replies were along the lines of, there aren,t any Communist Countries, well if Cuba isn,t Communist, and North Korea isn,t Communist, and the former Soviet Union wasn,t Communist, what are and were they???

This was answered in the 3rd post.

[email protected]
in other words if the U.S. wasn,t a sucessful nation, would just about ALL of Mexico want to come here???

Obviously not, no one is disagreeing with this. The reason why many Mexicans want to come to the US, because it is a rich and comfortable country. They figure that they have better opportunities there then they would in their home country...unfortunately this is not always the case. They also have to deal with discrimination, exploitation, and a lot of other bullshit.

communismkillspeople
Another reply was that the U.S. and other Capitalist Countries are only succesful because of "Imperialism", well if that were true then Great Britain should be a 3rd world country right now, because she gave up her empire a long time ago

What are you talking about? British-controlled islands in the Caribbean were still gaining their statehood in the 70's and 80's. Even larger territories like Palestine and Ireland only gained independence in the late 40's, less than 60 years ago. The UK still keeps its former colonies close with the Commonwealth too...what do you think that is for? Just to be buddies?

And as for the rest of your post, I'll let a communist handle that. [/b]
Well, THAT,S My point, if Mexicans think they have a better opprotunity here in the U.S. there has to be a reason for it, and You gave the reason, You said the U.S. is a rich and comfortable country. Well if Capitalism leads to Countries being rich and comfortable...then what,s the problem?????????? are You saying it,s better for a Country to be poor???? I want to point something else out that I haven,t mentioned before, if You look at the long history of Countries, anywhere on the Earth, You will not find ANY form of Govt, that has produced a bigger MIDDLE CLASS than Capitalism, just about every other form of Govt produces just 2 things rich and poor, I think sometimes You Liberals, or Communists, I,m sorry, forget that NOT EVERYONE in the U.S. is rich, as a matter of fact MOST people are middle class, I come from a middle class family (of Italians) who have carved out a pretty good life for themselves on middle class salaries, where as in Your form of Govt Communism, everyone is the same (poor and miserable) everyone makes the same amonunt of money (very little) everyone lives in the same Govt housing apatments, everyone drives the same car (Yugo) and let,s not forget Communism and Religion don,t mix very well, so in a Communist Country if I am not allowed to attend Mass on Sunday, what am I alowed to worship???? the State???? And I keep hearing that the U.S. and other Capitalist Countries ruin other Countries, so the U.S. ruined Mexico???? Mexico is awash in natual rescources, but the Mexican Govt is SO CORRUPT it won,t allow those rescources to be used to lift the country out of poverty, so miilions of poor Mexicans run north every year, and remember, it,s not Communism they are running to, it,s CAPITALISM. [/b]
Seriously, your understanding of Communism is nothing if not laughable.

communismkillspeople

2nd July 2006, 18:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:33 AM

My question is WHY???? If America is so bad, why is everyone breaking down our doors to get here?????

Because the United States is a better place to live than the nearby countries that it has ravaged with centuries of imperialism.

Pretty much every imperialist capitol manages to maintain a decent standard of living. It's simply in the interests of the rulling elite to make sure that those within it's borders are not those most liable to revolt.

This is not to say that the American proletariat is not exploited, because it is. It just isn't as exploited as the third world's.

Thanks to a greater history of class activism, a long stretch of reformist advances, and the relative ability of the Western bourgeoisie to compromise on internal issues, it's much better to be a worker in Northern America/western Europe than in South/Central America or Africa.

And as I recently pointed out to another capitalist, the United States is hardly "unique" in its immigration situation. All countries have to deal with people who want to get in, western nations especially.

Furthermore, there are several countries with higher immigration and/or naturalization figures than the United States. The myth of "American exceptionalism" is really just that.

and if Communism is better than Capitalism, why are almost all the Countries on earth who have embraced Communism poor and backward, while the Countries that have embraced Capitalism are for the most part succesful

Because none of the so-called "communist" nations have actually been communist.

The "People's Democratic Republic of Korea" is as much a "people's republic" as it is "democratic". And China doesn't even really call itself communist (or "socialist") anymore.

Unlike communism, however, we do have many world and historical examples of practical capitalism. Whether it be heavily "mixed" capitalism like the north-western Europe of today, or relatively uncontrolled "laissez-fair" capitalism like the United States of the 1920's-'30s and 1980's to present.

None fo them produce anything but inequality and coercive exploitation.

The unavoidable conclusion is therefore that something else is required if human society is to evolve. And if one accepts the historical materialist paradigm, that something else must eventually be communism (whether or not it is labeled as such).

Accordingly, we on this board labour towards that inevitable abolition of class and state oppressiong, with the firm understanding that absent a communist revolution, the sole possibility for humanity is social collapse.
You said North Korea was Democratic??? how so??? have they had an election there recently that I didn,t hear about. You also mentioned that other Countries have bigger immigration problems than the U.S. o.k. which ones??? the U.S. govt admits to 12 million illegals, which means You can probably DOUBLE that number, so what other Country on Earth is letting 20-25 million people into it?????And You are partly right, China HAS embraced some Capitalistic economic reforms, which is why it is FLOURISHING these days, it would be nice to see it embrace even more capitalistic ideas, so the Chinese people can have the Type of life that Democratic, Capitalist Taiwan enjoys.

Nothing Human Is Alien

2nd July 2006, 19:07

Oh bullshit. They were paid more because they valued being better paid over being "equal" to unskilled workers.

Wages weren't equal in the GDR. Skilled workers made more than unskilled ones. You lose.

Finally, living and economic conditions have become much better in almost every instance where the working class has taken power and held on to it for any meaningful amount of time.

Proof?

The statistics speak to that.???????

I can't be bothered to dig up tons of stats, you're free to do the research. But I will post a few things to back up my statement:

Life expectancy in Cuba before revolution (1955): 59.4
Life expectancy in Cuba after revolution (2006): 77
Literacy in Cuba before revolution (1957): 59%
Literacy expectancy in Cuba before revolution (2005): 97% (not even functional illiteracy exists, only those with mental handicaps and very small children can't read or write).
Infant mortality before revolution in Cuba (1958): 60
Infant mortality after revolution in Cuba (2005): 5.8
Cuba Truth Project (http://www.cubatruth.info)

" Under tribalism and feudalism, life expectancy was thirty-five and almost one in three children died in infancy. Ninety per cent of the population was illiterate. The new government introduced free medical care in the poorest areas. Peonage was abolished; a mass literacy campaign was begun. For women, the gains were unheard of; by the late 1980s, half the university students were women, and women made up 40 per cent of Afghanistan's doctors, 70 per cent of its teachers and 30 per cent of its civil servants." - John Pilger, Australian journalist.

Life expectancy in USSR in 1983: 69
Life expectancy in today's Russia: 58
sources: [i]World Development Report 1985 (New York, 1985) & http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2006-23-20.cfm

Life expectancy in pre-revolution China (1949): 32
Life expectancy in post-revolution China (1975): 65
Literacy in pre-revolution China (1949): 15%
Literacy in post-revolution China (1975): 85%
source: http://rwor.org/a/1248/mao_china_setting_record_straight.htm Penny Kane, The Second Billion (New York: Penguin, 1987), chapter 5; & Ruth and Victor Sidel, Serve the People: Observations on Medicine in the People's Republic of China (New York: Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation, 1973), pp. 255-66.

RevMARKSman

2nd July 2006, 21:44

You said North Korea was Democratic??? how so??? have they had an election there recently that I didn,t hear about.

How dense are you? He was implying that the DPRK isn't democratic, nor is it a people's republic.

communismkillspeople

3rd July 2006, 00:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:45 PM

You said North Korea was Democratic??? how so??? have they had an election there recently that I didn,t hear about.

How dense are you? He was implying that the DPRK isn't democratic, nor is it a people's republic.
So if it was a REAL Communist Country it would allow elections??? And I have another question, all You Communists say that Cuba and North Korea aren,t really Communist Countries, well Fidel Castro considers himself a Communist, what do all You Communists on this board consider him???

Comrade J

3rd July 2006, 01:16

Originally posted by communismkillspeople+Jul 2 2006, 09:55 PM--> (communismkillspeople @ Jul 2 2006, 09:55 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 06:45 PM

You said North Korea was Democratic??? how so??? have they had an election there recently that I didn,t hear about.

How dense are you? He was implying that the DPRK isn't democratic, nor is it a people's republic.
So if it was a REAL Communist Country it would allow elections??? And I have another question, all You Communists say that Cuba and North Korea aren,t really Communist Countries, well Fidel Castro considers himself a Communist, what do all You Communists on this board consider him??? [/b]
Please can we have a source where Fidel Castro has declared himself to be a communist.
Castro has often been critical of Marxism, he is certainly no Communist. If he believes he is, then he has a very twisted and incorrect view of communism.

Don't Change Your Name

3rd July 2006, 01:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:55 PM
So if it was a REAL Communist Country it would allow elections???
No, because it wouldn't need the kind of people that would be "elected".

And I have another question, all You Communists say that Cuba and North Korea aren,t really Communist Countries, well Fidel Castro considers himself a Communist, what do all You Communists on this board consider him???

Nothing but an average "latin socialist", as I call them: anti-imperialist nationalists who think you only need to take power and then you will get rid of poverty and oppression, thanks to amazing "yankee imperialism" fighters like Kirchner, Lula and Tabare Vazquez, even if they are just populist bourgeois politicians. Many of them are christians too, but they are all misguided. They could be worse, though.

You said North Korea was Democratic??? how so??? have they had an election there recently that I didn,t hear about.

He mentioned their official name (actually, it is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"). Are you really this ignorant?

Raj Radical

3rd July 2006, 03:01

Originally posted by communismkillspeople+Jul 2 2006, 09:55 PM--> (communismkillspeople @ Jul 2 2006, 09:55 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 06:45 PM

You said North Korea was Democratic??? how so??? have they had an election there recently that I didn,t hear about.

How dense are you? He was implying that the DPRK isn't democratic, nor is it a people's republic.
So if it was a REAL Communist Country it would allow elections??? And I have another question, all You Communists say that Cuba and North Korea aren,t really Communist Countries, well Fidel Castro considers himself a Communist, what do all You Communists on this board consider him??? [/b]
Catro's Cuba is socialist

Some prefer to call it state-capitalism.

The only people who call Cuba "Communist" is the US, so when people think 'communism' images of pol-pot and castro in fatigues pop up. :D

Its a brilliant strategy , actually...and has proved effective.

Abolish Communism

3rd July 2006, 03:49

The only people who call Cuba "Communist" is the US

Here's a recent interview with Raul Castro:

Fidel Castro's brother said the Communist Party will remain in control of Cuba if there is a leadership change, according to comments published Thursday.

Raul Castro, the island's defense minister and designated successor of his 79-year-old brother, dismissed claims that Cuba's political system would change dramatically after his brother is no longer president, saying the party would quickly fill any political vacuum.

"Only the Communist Party - as the institution that brings together the revolutionary vanguard and will always guarantee the unity of Cubans - can be the worthy heir of the trust deposited by the people in their leader," he said in a speech Wednesday marking a military anniversary.

end of part of text from interview

Look, Raj, most people I know who have studied the subject knows Cuba is not communist. But, this notion that "Cuba being Communit is an American Invention" is bullcrap.

If I looked for it, I could find comments by Castro stating that Cuba was communist, whether you agree with him or not.

Cuba CLAIMING TO BE COMMUNIST is the genisis of why Americans believe Cuba IS Communist.

Raj Radical

3rd July 2006, 04:48

Are you saying that nobody in the US state department 40 years ago to today had any idea what communsm was? But me, you and your friends who investigated it do?

Illegal US miltary and economic aggressions towards Cuba were as much a "war on communism" as Korea and vietnam were wars on "democracy" amd "republicanism" respectivly.

Abolish Communism

3rd July 2006, 05:02

I didn't say anysuch thing. I was making a totally different point. Someone had written that only the U.S. has "marked" Cuba a commie nation, and that Cuba didn't do so.

Regardless of how everyone hear seems to classify what a communist is, Cuba seems to regard themselves as such.

And that's that.

Oh, and regarding your quote under your name:

Anyways, my favorite US president is Wlliam Harrison...this is because he did nothing in office and then died less than a month in. An excellent example of what an American president should do in office! - tragicClown

The irony is that every Soviet Premire except Stalin pretty much got into office, then died, and then kept working. Even Lenin's corpse ran things for a few years. :)

But when you finally saw the Premires pics alive and dead, how could you tell the difference? :huh:

My favorite was Krustev (sp?) He took his shoe off a lot. Kinda laid back.

Raj Radical

3rd July 2006, 05:14

Originally posted by Abolish [email protected] 3 2006, 02:03 AM
I didn't say anysuch thing. I was making a totally different point. Someone had written that only the U.S. has "marked" Cuba a commie nation, and that Cuba didn't do so.

Regardless of how everyone hear seems to classify what a communist is, Cuba seems to regard themselves as such.

And that's that.

Oh, and regarding your quote under your name:

Anyways, my favorite US president is Wlliam Harrison...this is because he did nothing in office and then died less than a month in. An excellent example of what an American president should do in office! - tragicClown

The irony is that every Soviet Premire except Stalin pretty much got into office, then died, and then kept working. Even Lenin's corpse ran things for a few years. :)

But when you finally saw the Premires pics alive and dead, how could you tell the difference? :huh:

My favorite was Krustev (sp?) He took his shoe off a lot. Kinda laid back.
I think its safe to say that both the United States and Castro have a vested interest in having the public believe Cuba is a communist state.

P.S. We both hate the Soviet Union. Im so happy we have found that common ground, now we can make love on it . :wub:

Nothing Human Is Alien

3rd July 2006, 06:05

No country on earth has ever claimed to be communist. You didn't post anything by any Cuban official saying Cuba was communist. You're making yourself look ridiculous.

"To those who talk to us about the 1940 constitution, we say that the 1940 constitution is already too outdated and old for us. We have advanced too far for that short section of the 1940 constitution that was good for its time but which was never carried out. That constitution has been left behind by this revolution, which, as we have said, is a socialist revolution. We must talk of a new constitution, yes, a new constitution, but not a bourgeois constitution, not a constitution corresponding to the domination of certain classes by exploiting classes, but a constitution corresponding to a new social system without the exploitation of many by man. That new social system is called socialism, and this constitution will therefore be a socialist constitution." From: "May Day Celebration (1961): Cuba is a Socialist Nation" a speech by Fidel Castro (http://marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/1961/05/01.htm) [emphasis mine]

Since you couldn't be bothered to click the link to the FAQ (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/faq.html#c) I posted earlier, I'll post some of it here:

Q: What is Socialism?
A: Socialism is the stage of transition to communism. Under socialism the workers have control of all of the means of production (factories, farms, stores, etc), since they are the ones that actually work them, and goods and services are created to supply the people with what they need, instead of creating them to make a profit for a few capitalists. In socialist society quality education (through college), healthcare, and housing are guaranteed to all, and unemployment, racism, and sexism are done away with. Since all the work that is needed to be done will be done by everyone together, individuals won't have to work as much as they currently do. The people rule socialist society in their own interest, instead of being ruled in the interests of the capitalists. Socialism is not permanent, the foundations of cooperation and equality are created in order to build communism.

Q: What is Communism?
A: There's a good chance that everything you've ever heard about communism was a lie. No country has ever been communist or even claimed to be. In fact, communism has never yet been acheived anywhere in the world. Under communism people are no longer seperated by class, government no longer exsists as we know of it, and people no longer work for money, rather everyone works so that everyone can receive what they need. Under communism crime will no longer exist as everyone will have what they need, and will be free to grow and develop naturally.

PRC-UTE

3rd July 2006, 06:27

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 2 2006, 02:38 AM

This is not to say that the American proletariat is not exploited, because it is. It just isn't as exploited as the third world's.

I was just reading something that said capitalists make more per each dollar invested in paying "American" workers than any others. The article it was in argued that this meant American workers were the most exploited workers on earth. What do you think?
Some orthodox and DeLeonist Marxists argue that American and other first world workers are more exploited because the wealth they create is greater due to an advanced economy. American workers also work more than any other first world nation.

However, that may not be true anymore, seems most production is moving away from the USA and western Europe.

Abolish Communism

3rd July 2006, 06:29

Tungsten

3rd July 2006, 16:41

Disgustapated

Where did you ever get the idea that a communist society would be without laws, police or an army?
Communism = "Stateless, classless society." If you have a police, laws and an army then you have a state.

The difference is that the job of police would fall to the community working in the interest of that community and not business or capital.
So there would be a state after all.

The professional army would be replaced by a peoples militia responsible for the protection of society and not imperialist adventure.
Acting on who's orders?
CompañeroDeLibertad

Wages weren't equal in the GDR. Skilled workers made more than unskilled ones. You lose.
No, I don't lose. There is no other explanation for skilled labour leaving the GDR other than the conditions and wages were better in the west. Enough soviet apologetics (I didn't think the easter block countries had "real communism").

I can't be bothered to dig up tons of stats, you're free to do the research. But I will post a few things to back up my statement:

Life expectancy in Cuba before revolution (1955): 59.4
Life expectancy in Cuba after revolution (2006): 77
Literacy in Cuba before revolution (1957): 59%
Literacy expectancy in Cuba before revolution (2005): 97% (not even functional illiteracy exists, only those with mental handicaps and very small children can't read or write).
Infant mortality before revolution in Cuba (1958): 60
Infant mortality after revolution in Cuba (2005): 5.8
We're not discussing Cuba, and I'm right to be suspicious of any statistics coming from a place where censorship and propaganda rule ok.

dannie

3rd July 2006, 17:38

Communism = "Stateless, classless society." If you have a police, laws and an army then you have a state.

A lot of commies don't support laws, police nor army's, but have other propositions. Most of the more libertarian commies think the people living in a certain community are capable of making their own rules and deciding what an appropriate reaction would be to those rules. So it's the community (read: everyone who is willing to participate in a certain community) that is deciding. Not some fuckwit in a big city miles away.

So there would be a state after all.

no

Acting on who's orders?

people's militia = the people + guns, so i guess it would be acting on "the peoples" order

We're not discussing Cuba, and I'm right to be suspicious of any statistics coming from a place where censorship and propaganda rule ok.

Infant mortality rate:

total: 6.22 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 6.99 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 5.41 deaths/1,000 live births (2006 est.)

Life expectancy at birth:

total population: 77.41 years
male: 75.11 years
female: 79.85 years (2006 est.)

HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate:

less than 0.1% (2003 est.)

Literacy:

total population: 97%
male: 97.2%
female: 96.9% (2003 est.)

not that bad huh?

source: your neighbourhood watch program, the cia
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cu.html

Nothing Human Is Alien

3rd July 2006, 19:03

I do not believe that quoting Fidel Castro's brother, who is presumed by EVERYONE to take his place upon his death, makes me look "rediculous".

I think what is more accurate is that Cuba herself has probably used both terms at different times, and I think you know I'm correct.

It appears to be the tactic of many here, though not all, that when a restricted member points out an obvious truth that is against the dogma here, she is called "rediculous".

So sue me.

It is not presumed, it's fact. Because of his position in the government, Raul would take over as President if Fidel were to die first (until the next elections can be held).

But no where in that post does Raul call Cuba a "communist country". Cuba is a socialist country, and no official -- or even any Cuban -- would ever call it a "communist country".

Cuba is on the path towards communism, most of the people in government are communists, but that doesn't make it a "communist country," which is an oxymoron.

And even if what you typed originally didn't make you look ridiculous, surely spelling it "rediculous" did.

No, I don't lose. There is no other explanation for skilled labour leaving the GDR other than the conditions and wages were better in the west. Enough soviet apologetics (I didn't think the easter block countries had "real communism").

Wait, which way do you want it? I originally said that one of the reasons the government of the GDR said it needed the wall was to stop the draining of skilled labor to West Germany (where they could be paid much more, largely because of Marshall Plan subsidies). You replied by saying that this was wrong, and the reason they left was because in the GDR they'd have to receive the same pay as unskilled workers. When I pointed out that this was incorrect, you now take the originally argument as your own (that skilled workers left the GDR in search of higher wages in the west)!

We're not discussing Cuba, and I'm right to be suspicious of any statistics coming from a place where censorship and propaganda rule ok.

If you visited the site I linked to, you'd see that the states come from various agencies of the United Nations.

communismkillspeople

3rd July 2006, 21:18

I have another question, what Country on earth today, in Your opinion is the closest thing to Communism as You people on this board define Communism???

Nothing Human Is Alien

3rd July 2006, 22:17

Have you read anything I've posted?

Raj Radical

3rd July 2006, 22:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:19 PM
I have another question, what Country on earth today, in Your opinion is the closest thing to Communism as You people on this board define Communism???
Excluding the various communes and small communist communities?

Cuba, I believe its been said many times.

communismkillspeople

3rd July 2006, 22:49

Originally posted by Raj Radical+Jul 3 2006, 07:26 PM--> (Raj Radical @ Jul 3 2006, 07:26 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 06:19 PM
I have another question, what Country on earth today, in Your opinion is the closest thing to Communism as You people on this board define Communism???
Excluding the various communes and small communist communities?

Cuba, I believe its been said many times. [/b]
Well if Cuba is the closest thing to Communism, then WHY isn,t it doing MUCH better than it is, and don,t give Me the U.S. embargo non sense, because Cuba still trades with the rest of the world, so if it,s the closest country to Communism, shouldn,t it be a LITTLE more successful than it is????? Cuba is a HELLISH DUMP, if that,s Communism or close to it, ...You can KEEP it!

Tungsten

3rd July 2006, 23:30

Jannes

A lot of commies don't support laws, police nor army's, but have other propositions. Most of the more libertarian commies think the people living in a certain community are capable of making their own rules and deciding what an appropriate reaction would be to those rules.
That sounds arbitrary.

people's militia = the people + guns, so i guess it would be acting on "the peoples" order
Which people? A group of people with guns who went looting would technically be acting on "the people's order". Again, this is arbitrary and doesn't guarantee any of what was promised.

not that bad huh?

source: your neighbourhood watch program, the cia
And where have the cia got these figures from?
CompañeroDeLibertad

Wait, which way do you want it? I originally said that one of the reasons the government of the GDR said it needed the wall was to stop the draining of skilled labor to West Germany (where they could be paid much more, largely because of Marshall Plan subsidies). You replied by saying that this was wrong, and the reason they left was because in the GDR they'd have to receive the same pay as unskilled workers.
The two reasons reinforce each other, they don't contradict.

Nothing Human Is Alien

3rd July 2006, 23:40

That doesn't address why you responded as you did. And you were wrong about your first argument as I pointed out (after which you then adopted the GDR's argument that you originally opposed).

Well if Cuba is the closest thing to Communism,

Communism is a world system. There's no "closest thing to communism" in one country, sorry. Cuba is the only socialist country in the world today, therefor, it's actively marching on the road to world communism.

then WHY isn,t it doing MUCH better than it is,

Cuba has the best living conditions in Latin America, see Cuba Truth Project (http://www.cubatruth.info) which I linked to earlier. I explained why Cuba is poor and will likely remain so until more countries have socialist revolutions in an earlier post.. but despite this, there are NO homeless people in Cuba, NO illiterates, NO one without access to quality healthcare and education, etc.

and don,t give Me the U.S. embargo non sense, because Cuba still trades with the rest of the world,

No it doesn't. The embargo against Cuba is extreme. Boats and airplanes that even stop in Cuba can't enter the U.S. for an extended period of time afterwards. No company that does business with or in the U.S. can do business with Cuba. Products with one Cuban made part in them can never be sold in the U.S. (ie. if one bolt in a car was made in Cuba, the car cannot be sold in Cuba). etc.

The U.S. takes the embargo worldwide, See: U.S. government pressures hotel in Mexico to expel Cuban guests (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fp21c.html)

so if it,s the closest country to Communism, shouldn,t it be a LITTLE more successful than it is????? Cuba is a HELLISH DUMP, if that,s Communism or close to it, ...You can KEEP it!

Because you say so, it's a hellish dump? :lol: Get the fuck out of here. You're not even trying to be serious or have a principled debate.

Sabocat

4th July 2006, 00:02

Communism = "Stateless, classless society." If you have a police, laws and an army then you have a state.

False.

So there would be a state after all.

False.

The professional army would be replaced by a peoples militia responsible for the protection of society and not imperialist adventure.

Acting on who's orders?

Can you really be this dense?

red team

4th July 2006, 04:49

The reason why Capitalists has power of decide what to produce, who to hire, who to fire, what to sell or buy and what not to sell and buy from the perspective to hoarding ever greater resources for themselves rather than from the basis of providing material wealth is because the economic system at present makes this motive for production inevitable from the fact that prices of production are appraised inversely proportional to scarcity (the more scarce the higher the price) rather than objective production costs based on amount of material and energy involved in making the finished product. The fact that scarcity based value permeates everything including the medium used for exchange itself in the form of money just makes it easier for those in control of scarce resources be it Capitalists or bureaucrats to use indirect coercion in the form of deprivation of value to drive the selling price of people with less control of scarce resources to sell for lower value be it labour or personal possessions or to hoard limited commodities while artificially cutting back on production to raise selling prices so as to make a "killing" for selling what could have been cheap and abundant if produced in higher quanitities.

Witness why toys for the rich in the form of luxury consumer items are high priced while ordinary consumer items are relatively cheaper in their limited quantities (which could be even cheaper if not limited by the demands of profit). This is because there is a lot more "demand" for toys for the rich rather than cheap staples for the poor and if things produced becomes "too cheap" they're not produced at all. Are luxury items that much more demanding in energy and material to produce than cheaper items of utilitarian purpose? Not really. If compared from an material point of view they're only marginally more demanding of materials and energy so why the high price? See above. The economic system is based not on objective cost, but subjective value based on scarcity.

Abolish Communism

4th July 2006, 05:26

rather than objective production costs based on amount of material and energy involved in making the finished product

Who cares if you put in a lot of materials and a lot of energy to obtain or make a product if no one wants it? This "theory" of objective production is moronic beyond the usual nonsense one reads here.

Look, stick to *****ing and moaning about how my father was "exploited" by ABC for 26 years. A nice home and food on the table, while many others starve in America. That's fine to hear commies complain about that, but PLEASE don't theorize on economics.

LONG before capitalism came along, supply and demand was a natural occurance. The boy comes back to his village after one week and wants to trade an object that no one wants, even though he spent a week to get materials for it and create it, and put great energy every day while he was gone, yet no one wants it, versus his brother, who spends an hour going into the snake infested area that no one else wants to go into, just a mile from the village, and brings back another thing everyone wants.

His brother is ignored when he returns, but he is crowded by a large number of people who all want his product. Whether you think this is "fair" depends upon your point of view, of course, and I'll suprise you Red Team by perhaps agreeing with you that the celebrated brother should be sharing with his people and not set himself up as a god, but place himself as one of many others in his village.

BUT, there's no way you can convince me that the two brothers have perfected products that should exchange equally, or that the brother with the less popular product should receive more in exchange for his product.

In a funny bow to that direct democracy you all keep writing about here, the village set the value of the products in both cases, not some secret meeting of cappies.

red team

4th July 2006, 05:36

Yes, and if nobody wants it then nobody would buy it. Did I say that the producer would receive income for making it if it doesn't sell? Objective cost of production is simply that. Cost of getting material and energy needed to engage in production which has nothing to do with renumeration of purchases for demanded products. Where have I stated anywhere in my post of reward for non-desired products or services?

Also, where do you think producers nowadays get their financial resources to engage in production? Banks and investors don't lend money out to Capitalists? Big businesses never go bankrupt from lack of demand for products. No, there are spectacular disasters even for our present "supply and demand" system so where's the correlation between a money system with fluctuating subjective value of products and responsibility for making high quality products that are demanded that you alleged?

In a funny bow to that direct democracy you all keep writing about here, the village set the value of the products in both cases, not some secret meeting of cappies.

You obviously never heard of the term price gouging, which can be done within our current economic system in which prices of goods are charged higher based on scarcity regardless of the actual utility of the product. So the functionality and quality of a product could be the same, but if production is cut back it could become more expensive for consumers to buy it? What the hell is that nonsense about?

Guerrilla22

4th July 2006, 06:30

Originally posted by communismkillspeople+Jul 3 2006, 07:50 PM--> (communismkillspeople @ Jul 3 2006, 07:50 PM)
Originally posted by Raj [email protected] 3 2006, 07:26 PM

[email protected] 3 2006, 06:19 PM
I have another question, what Country on earth today, in Your opinion is the closest thing to Communism as You people on this board define Communism???
Excluding the various communes and small communist communities?

Cuba, I believe its been said many times.
Well if Cuba is the closest thing to Communism, then WHY isn,t it doing MUCH better than it is, and don,t give Me the U.S. embargo non sense, because Cuba still trades with the rest of the world, so if it,s the closest country to Communism, shouldn,t it be a LITTLE more successful than it is????? Cuba is a HELLISH DUMP, if that,s Communism or close to it, ...You can KEEP it! [/b]
You know very little. Cuba is actually in far better shape than most Latin American countries and its health care system is right on par with that of the US.

Tungsten

6th July 2006, 01:28

red team

The economic system is based not on objective cost, but subjective value based on scarcity.
The marxist value system isn't objective, it's intrinsic - labour based, with little regard to time, context or scarcity. Which is why it fails.

objective production costs based on amount of material and energy involved in making the finished product
As has already been explained to you, nobody cares how much "material and energy (or labour)" went into the finished product; a trye is of little value to a man without a car and a book of little use to someone disinterested in it's subject material.

Jazzratt

6th July 2006, 01:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 10:29 PM
red team

The economic system is based not on objective cost, but subjective value based on scarcity.
The marxist value system isn't objective, it's intrinsic - labour based, with little regard to time, context or scarcity. Which is why it fails.
Which is why one could easily reject it and take up technocratic economic theory.

objective production costs based on amount of material and energy involved in making the finished product
As has already been explained to you, nobody cares how much "material and energy (or labour)" went into the finished product; a trye is of little value to a man without a car and a book of little use to someone disinterested in it's subject material. That is a nineffeciant and subjective way of looking at the value of items. You have to work out the value of something eventually and by the reasoning used above that value would have to be different to each and every person purchasing the product.

Tungsten

6th July 2006, 01:55

Jazzratt

That is a nineffeciant and subjective way of looking at the value of items.
It's the only correct way, if economic dictatorship is to be avoided.

You have to work out the value of something eventually and by the reasoning used above that value would have to be different to each and every person purchasing the product.
Which is why some people take a product at a particular price or leave it, some want to haggle, others are not interested at all.

What's the objective value of a trye? What about a pencil?

Jazzratt

6th July 2006, 02:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 10:56 PM
Jazzratt

That is a nineffeciant and subjective way of looking at the value of items.
It's the only correct way, if economic dictatorship is to be avoided.

I assume this is your doublespeak for Planned Economics. A zero-growth economyy mandaated by a technacte would benigfit mankind and the environment no end so avoiding it is not at the top of my list of priorities.

You have to work out the value of something eventually and by the reasoning used above that value would have to be different to each and every person purchasing the product.
Which is why some people take a product at a particular price or leave it, some want to haggle, others are not interested at all.
They only need this because of capitalist manufactured scarcity. Consider for a moment the advances in our manufacturing and agricultural technolgoies (Robotics, GM foods, Hydroponics ect...) and tell me we couldn't create an abundance if we were not trapped in some capitalist profit game.

What's the objective value of a trye? What about a pencil? £45 and £3 respectivly (what, you expect me to answer that inane question with anything other than the asanine comment it deserved?)

red team

6th July 2006, 02:48

The marxist value system isn't objective, it's intrinsic - labour based, with little regard to time, context or scarcity. Which is why it fails.

Marx lived in the 19th century, 1818 - 1883 which means that everything that is produced back then was labour based, time was not as important since production was slower because it was labour based, and everything including healthy labourers were scarce.

Obviously in 2006, the 21st century the situation quite a bit different. Not everything is labour based, time is very important as everything needs to be done faster because consumers want things faster and there is an abundance of material, energy, technology and healthy workers.

Valuing the purchase price of commodities based on subjective value would make sense if everything was done manually. A producer who is more competent would naturally feel that he deserves more from his workmanship than someone who makes shoddy products, but what would be the justification for subjectively appraised prices for our present age of production when once engineered workmanship is irrelevant since assembly-line production reduces completion of a product regardless of intrinsic quality to a series of mindless repetitive actions that could even be done by pre-programmed machines. Workmanship becomes irrelevant and so does the correlation between the intrinsic quality of a product and it's subjectively arrived at price. The engineer(s) only did the work of designing the product once and is only rewarded once for his expertise. Mass production (and automation) techniques makes reward corresponding to workmanship irrelevant since workmanship is irrelevant for mass production.

The economic system being what it is as a system of trade only suitable for time of material and technical scarcity I can predict where all this can lead to given present trends. Commodities that is most costly in terms of resources to develop only at the design stage will be leveraged with those with a monopoly on financial resources to redistribute subjective value upwards since production can either be automated or shifted to low wage areas. Note, redistribute as opposed to consume since given present technical conditions the actual cost of manufacture would be a fraction of the total price of the product. With the design costs of the product only needed to be paid out once during product development, high prices can be sustained to satsify investor demands for profit so consumption would have to be based on ever increasing debt rather than circulation of paid wages since wages would not be able to offset the high productivity of machinery. I'm guessing you know where all this would lead to also... which is why the present system will also fail.

I'm not advocating a labour intensive system as you should be able to tell by now.

As has already been explained to you, nobody cares how much "material and energy (or labour)" went into the finished product; a trye is of little value to a man without a car and a book of little use to someone disinterested in it's subject material.

If commodities are mass produced with little regards to material cost of production it will eventually lead to irrationality in the economic system as we see it today. So how do the big corporations produce commodities at present? They don't mass produce it? :rolleyes: Again, do you dispute the fact that there are no spectacular failures to guage consumer demand because the present investors of corporations are infallible? The only thing that leads to self-correction in the present order is if the failure becomes severe enough that the investors lose they're shirts so they dump everything they've invested and the over-priced commodities produced by the company falls to better reflect the true cost of the product. So what are you saying really? That if a commodity is in such a high demand that when investors rush in to profit from the sales that it should be bid up until ordinary consumers find it unaffordable, but when the company inadvertantly produces a lemon (and which large company haven't done this at least once) then it should be sold affordably to people that would rather not have a shoddy product? :lol:

Tungsten

6th July 2006, 20:10

Jazzratt

I assume this is your doublespeak for Planned Economics.
Yes, planned economics is economic dictatorship.

A zero-growth economyy mandaated by a technacte would benigfit mankind and the environment no end so avoiding it is not at the top of my list of priorities.
Of course dictatorships and planned economies benefit mankind. Look at their track record! Zero growth doesn't sound like a very clever way of guaranteeing material abundence for everyone.

They only need this because of capitalist manufactured scarcity.
There is always scarcity because no number of products is infinite.

Consider for a moment the advances in our manufacturing and agricultural technolgoies (Robotics, GM foods, Hydroponics ect...) and tell me we couldn't create an abundance if we were not trapped in some capitalist profit game.
This would only make sense if profit and progress were opposties. I'd like to hear how this complicated "technocracy" system is going to be set up and how it's going to promise abundence.

£45 and £3 respectivly
How did you come up with these figures? Calculations? Or did you just pull them out of thin air? That doesn't sound very objective. I'd have expected at least a method of calculation.

(what, you expect me to answer that inane question with anything other than the asanine comment it deserved?)
It's quite obvious why you've avoided giving a proper answer- you know fuck all about economics, like most people here.
red team

Valuing the purchase price of commodities based on subjective value would make sense if everything was done manually.
It doesn't matter whether it was done manually or not. Will I hold as valuable something I don't want? Does it matter if that something I don't want was built by a machine rather than built manually? Of course it doesn't.

A producer who is more competent would naturally feel that he deserves more from his workmanship than someone who makes shoddy products, but what would be the justification for subjectively appraised prices for our present age of production when once engineered workmanship is irrelevant since assembly-line production reduces completion of a product regardless of intrinsic quality to a series of mindless repetitive actions that could even be done by pre-programmed machines.
Even pre-programmed machine manufacture doesn't guarantee quality. Many cars have been designed by machines and most of them are built by machines today. That hasn't stopped wide variations in quality.

Whatever, none of this is a good argument for communism.

Jazzratt

6th July 2006, 20:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:11 PM
Jazzratt

A zero-growth economyy mandaated by a technacte would benigfit mankind and the environment no end so avoiding it is not at the top of my list of priorities.
Of course dictatorships and planned economies benefit mankind. Look at their track record! Zero growth doesn't sound like a very clever way of guaranteeing material abundence for everyone.

it's not merely the people who benefit from planned economics it is also the environment - you know the thing that keeps you alive. It does if you start with an abdunce or create one before implementing the system.

They only need this because of capitalist manufactured scarcity.
There is always scarcity because no number of products is infinite. Yes but through renewable rescources and technolgoy there is no need for anything to be scarce, this of course would not help capitalism so such technogies are avoided.

Consider for a moment the advances in our manufacturing and agricultural technolgoies (Robotics, GM foods, Hydroponics ect...) and tell me we couldn't create an abundance if we were not trapped in some capitalist profit game.
This would only make sense if profit and progress were opposties. I'd like to hear how this complicated "technocracy" system is going to be set up and how it's going to promise abundence.Technocracy FAQ (http://www.technocracy.org/?p=/FAQ/). I can't really help you there though I'm more of a marxist than a technocrat.

£45 and £3 respectivly
How did you come up with these figures? Calculations? Or did you just pull them out of thin air? That doesn't sound very objective. I'd have expected at least a method of calculation. I didn't have enough data to go on, many tyres and pencils are manufactured in different ways that take up certian amounts of energy and labour.

(what, you expect me to answer that inane question with anything other than the asanine comment it deserved?)
It's quite obvious why you've avoided giving a proper answer- you know fuck all about economics, like most people here. Economics is nopt the only consideration, fucknut - if it were I would see no problem with your system as its perfectly sensible but, and here is where we part ways, it is exploitative in nature and I'm afraid I cannot condone that no matter how sensible it is on paper because in practice its poor factory workers and rich CEOs.

Tungsten

7th July 2006, 00:47

Jazzratt

it's not merely the people who benefit from planned economics it is also the environment - you know the thing that keeps you alive.
The only people who ultimately benefit from a planned economy are the ruling clique. This clique doesn't, and never will consist of everyone.

Yes but through renewable rescources and technolgoy there is no need for anything to be scarce, this of course would not help capitalism so such technogies are avoided.
A world powered by renewable resources is a pipe dream. They're not reliable and they don't generate enough power. That's why they're "avoided". If they were any good, they'd be worth persuing.

Jazzratt

7th July 2006, 00:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 09:48 PM
Jazzratt

it's not merely the people who benefit from planned economics it is also the environment - you know the thing that keeps you alive.
The only people who ultimately benefit from a planned economy are the ruling clique. This clique doesn't, and never will consist of everyone.
What the fuck does that have to do with the environment. Also there is very little advantage for the ruling clique in either marxist or technocratic economics. Especially true of technocrocy.

Yes but through renewable rescources and technolgoy there is no need for anything to be scarce, this of course would not help capitalism so such technogies are avoided.
A world powered by renewable resources is a pipe dream. They're not reliable and they don't generate enough power. That's why they're "avoided". If they were any good, they'd be worth persuing. That's what you have been taught and know thus far, but since research into the area is not profitable there hasd not been enough. I assume that by "good" you mean "profitable". You cappies and your doublespeak.

Tungsten

7th July 2006, 16:28

Jazzratt

What the fuck does that have to do with the environment.
We weren't discussing the environment and I haven't time to read your link yet.

That's what you have been taught and know thus far, but since research into the area is not profitable there hasd not been enough.
It doesn't matter how much research goes into it or how profitable it is or isn't. When the wind doesn't blow, your wind farm is useless. When the sun doesn't shine, your solar power is uselsess. Use some common sense.

Jazzratt

7th July 2006, 19:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 01:29 PM

That's what you have been taught and know thus far, but since research into the area is not profitable there hasd not been enough.
It doesn't matter how much research goes into it or how profitable it is or isn't. When the wind doesn't blow, your wind farm is useless. When the sun doesn't shine, your solar power is uselsess. Use some common sense.
So? Those are only two forms of renwable energy, were there more research we could easily find morwe in the way of renweable energies. Instead we have great minds locked away in rooms studying new ways to stop wrinkles and desigining stupid bourgoius gas-guzzlers. Our consumer culture is our death warrant.

red team

8th July 2006, 02:27

I assume this is your doublespeak for Planned Economics.
Yes, planned economics is economic dictatorship.

As opposed to an unplanned monetary system being economic freedom? Who really makes the decisions as to what Walmart stocks in their stores? The shopper? If I went to the bank to ask for a multi-million dollar loan to start off my business is there any chance I would get it? Based on what criteria? Producing material wealth for consumption or returning a profit in the form of interest payments to the bank? Quantifiable output of material wealth whether of utility or not is of little or no concern to investors looking for a quick return on their money. Even if there is consumer demand for a product, revenue must be diverted in the form of profit to satisfy investor demands so wages will have to be continuously driven down and investment in productive capacity cut back or present capacity intentionally left idle. This is artificial scarcity when there was none before. So much for your economic freedom.

A zero-growth economyy mandaated by a technacte would benigfit mankind and the environment no end so avoiding it is not at the top of my list of priorities.
Of course dictatorships and planned economies benefit mankind. Look at their track record! Zero growth doesn't sound like a very clever way of guaranteeing material abundence for everyone.

For someone who doesn't know the principles in how a technate operates you're making a lot of assumptions. Where exactly was economic centralization mentioned in the technocracy documents?

And how has investors looking only for a quick buck benefitted everyone? Let me guess, high profits taken off of sales revenue benefits everyone involved including workers and consumers. :rolleyes: Yeah, that's some real positive benefits you've got there from workers being paid lower for their work and consumers needing to pay higher prices because of investor demands for profits. :lol:

Valuing the purchase price of commodities based on subjective value would make sense if everything was done manually.
It doesn't matter whether it was done manually or not. Will I hold as valuable something I don't want? Does it matter if that something I don't want was built by a machine rather than built manually? Of course it doesn't.

Which was never my point in the first place. Being rewarded for quality work was my point in which you failed to correlate to a subjective unit price. Being that the designed phase of a product is the most costly in development effort and that the production phase is simply based on cost of materials and energy to run factory machines, the final cost of the product should be (design costs + material/energy costs) which is not the case given that both wages and prices can be bid up or down by people owning a monopoly on financial resources that is owners and investors.

Add to that the medium of exchange itself is fluctuating in value in that different currencies or the same currency in different locations have different purchasing power which explains why workers in offshored industries could make a comfortable living while being paid less than a quarter of workers here, but if workers here were paid the same value of wages they would be homeless and starving.

What should have been an objective quantifiable cost in producting a commodity is instead made into a speculative shell game for the benefit of investors. Again, supply and demand could be guaged entirely from consumer confidence in the utility of the product with those considered of greater utility purchased in greater numbers, so price speculation could disappear entirely from the production/consumption cycle and nobody would be any less well off because of it other than price speculators that is.

Consider for a moment the advances in our manufacturing and agricultural technolgoies (Robotics, GM foods, Hydroponics ect...) and tell me we couldn't create an abundance if we were not trapped in some capitalist profit game.

This would only make sense if profit and progress were opposties. I'd like to hear how this complicated "technocracy" system is going to be set up and how it's going to promise abundence.

For one thing the accounting of resources used for production will be separate from consumer credits used for purchasing because in Technocracy everybody is a consumer so there is no need for returning profits to investors because there are no need for parasitical investors.

Production when it is done in Technocracy is only done on the basis of drawing energy credits from a publicly available pool allocated for start up capital. Again, no investors needed so there's no motive for drawing more energy than you need because it's only available for production purposes. Consumer credits are entirely separate from production credits.

Being that everything is judged on an utilitarian basis, nothing can be hoarded to be left idle or wasted so as to introduce artificial scarcity when there was none before. Commodities or productive capacity that is left idle are simply bought back and returned to the public pool for someone else to purchase that intends to make use of it to generate consumer wealth. If you intend to leave it idle then you'll have to pay a penalty fee for leaving perfectly usable items of utility to gather dust when it could be used instead to generate consumer wealth. Your penalty would be proportional to the sales that could have been generated from consumer purchases if the productive capacity wasn't left idle.

Because industrialized areas of the planet mostly uses machinery instead of direct manual labour to manufacture items and increasingly also to provide services the wealth generated for consumption is genuinely only limited by physical and technical constraints and measured only by quantifiable units of energy used to run machinery and labour not artificial appraisal of value or investor greed. Desirability judged entirely from consumer confidence in a product or service will rely entirely on sales quantity thus reflecting genuine consumer demand absent of any skewing by investor demands.

Also there is very little advantage for the ruling clique in either marxist or technocratic economics. Especially true of technocrocy.

Especially true of technocrocy because it doesn't use a medium of exchange which can be used for corruption, bribery or negotiation. Not so with classic Marxism which explains why historically when profit was absent the social system of the Soviet Union was rife with patronage and favour trading. When profit was introduced in an attempt to do away with patronage arrangements and covert favor trading you had open bribery and black market operations. Since money as a medium of exchange is negotiable, valued for being scarce and can be hoarded and saved to make it scarce it opens a wide open door to anybody willing to use it to gain an advantage in exchanging it for something else be it labour or useful material items.

mandedani

8th July 2006, 04:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 12:54 AM
People are trying to get into america because they can be capitalists there and exploit other people. Capitalism is not good for the world, it is good for one country. Imperialism is the reason America is so rich, it has sucked everything out of all the other countries and left them with nothing. The reason why communism is having such a hard time is because you need money for propaganda, and all the money is in the hands of people who are the most diametrically opposed to communism.

And i think youre name is moronic. How can communism kill people, if anything communism would lead to less violence. As there would be no warfare if there are no nation-states.
communism, in its ideal, works very well. However, real communism DOES NOT WORK. It has been tryed many times, but it has failed horribly. Read Animal farm.

CommiesSuck

8th July 2006, 04:40

Communism - "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"*

*The Who

red team

8th July 2006, 10:42

Originally posted by mandedani+Jul 8 2006, 01:01 AM--> (mandedani @ Jul 8 2006, 01:01 AM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 12:54 AM
People are trying to get into america because they can be capitalists there and exploit other people. Capitalism is not good for the world, it is good for one country. Imperialism is the reason America is so rich, it has sucked everything out of all the other countries and left them with nothing. The reason why communism is having such a hard time is because you need money for propaganda, and all the money is in the hands of people who are the most diametrically opposed to communism.

And i think youre name is moronic. How can communism kill people, if anything communism would lead to less violence. As there would be no warfare if there are no nation-states.
communism, in its ideal, works very well. However, real communism DOES NOT WORK. It has been tryed many times, but it has failed horribly. Read Animal farm. [/b]
Previous attempts at "Communism" didn't have the benefit of advanced technology that could be built once and then auto-runned to replace manual labour. People get bored of manual labour and would find any excuse not to do it or do it badly if they get bored of it unless bribed with rewards or threaten with punishment (like being homeless or without food). Leveraging computer technology will get us out of this problem by getting the tools to do all (or most) of our work, but of course for you it's much more fun to rot your brain with narcotics.

Furthermore, you're misusing the term Communism which can only be applied to a stateless, worldwide entity of freely associating individuals so there can never be a Communist country. Countries don't exists once humanity reaches to stage of Communism as they will be obsolete institutions.

Raj Radical

8th July 2006, 10:53

mandedani

8th July 2006, 20:42

Originally posted by Raj Radical+Jul 8 2006, 07:54 AM--> (Raj Radical @ Jul 8 2006, 07:54 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 01:01 AM

[email protected] 2 2006, 12:54 AM
People are trying to get into america because they can be capitalists there and exploit other people. Capitalism is not good for the world, it is good for one country. Imperialism is the reason America is so rich, it has sucked everything out of all the other countries and left them with nothing. The reason why communism is having such a hard time is because you need money for propaganda, and all the money is in the hands of people who are the most diametrically opposed to communism.

And i think youre name is moronic. How can communism kill people, if anything communism would lead to less violence. As there would be no warfare if there are no nation-states.
communism, in its ideal, works very well. However, real communism DOES NOT WORK. It has been tryed many times, but it has failed horribly. Read Animal farm.
Real communism doesnt work? So what works very well? Fake communism?

By the way, Animals dont really talk. [/b]
real communism, as in the real world, doesn't work, as opposed to communism in theory. Yes, animals don't talk, but they are pretty accurate metaphors for different people with certain personalities and ideals.

even though it doesn't work - im up to try it sometime; it would be pretty interesting