Opposition To Communism

[Dean]

This is directed at those who claim to oppose communism.

Why do you oppose socialism / communism? Do you oppose the ideology as a goal or just the means that have been used in an attempt to achieve it?

What does "communism" mean to you?

I'm asking because I see a varied opposition to it, many arguments regard the state bureaucracies that advocated "Leninism" or other centralized governement plans. Other arguments appear to be capitalist libertarian in nature. If you oppose it, what is yor idea of a free society?

Though my description of "libertarian communist" appears somewhat cut and dry for many, I'll leave the argument open to criticism of "Leninism" and other factions, as they are also represented at RevLeft.

[Anti-Red]

Basically I would have no problem with any communist setting up a commune anywhere but I just fear that they would impose their rules on us.

[theraven]

My oppistion to utopian communism (ie everyone lives happily ever after) stems not from any disliking of that life but fromt he lack of it as a realsitic futre anytime soon.

plus you guys suck at understanding basic economics.

[red team]

plus you guys suck at understanding basic economics.

A riddle for you:

Since money is a measure of wealth and wealth by definition means the production of goods and services that people deem useful and therefore demand them then shouldn't energy companies like shell, exxon... be able to print money since industrial society depends on energy to run its massive production assets? No? Then what is money?

It's more like economists don't know what's really used for producing things. In other words they live in a fantasy world. Unfortunately most of us live in the real world of engines and electricity.

[power... UNLIMITED POWER!]

Why do you oppose socialism / communism? Do you oppose the ideology as a goal or just the means that have been used in an attempt to achieve it?

I oppose the ideology partly because it cannot exist without the evil means. Lots of you here say you will do what is necessary to ensure the success of the revolution. What does that mean?

I also oppose the reward of lazyness. I mean you guys think housing a food is a right. So I mean, give me a house and food because Im homeless. Now, why should I work? Ive got what I need!


What does communism mean to you?
Imagine a boot stamping on a human face... forever.


Im asking because I see a varied opposition to it, many arguments regard the state bureaucracies that advocated Leninism or other centralized governement plans. Other arguments appear to be capitalist libertarian in nature. If you oppose it, what is yor idea of a free society?
A very primitive one! No socialism or capitalism is free from work and trouble.

[red team]

I also oppose the reward of lazyness. I mean you guys think housing a food is a right. So I mean, give me a house and food because Im homeless. Now, why should I work? Ive got what I need!

A hydroelectric dam generates gigawatts of power from simply using water and gravity. This power can then be fed to an electric motor that does work. Couple that motor with computers to add decision making capabilities and you've got automation.

Now define "lazyness". Laziness is irrelevant and meaningless when manual muscle work is not what generates the majority of production in a society.


Imagine a boot stamping on a human face... forever.

Kind of like what happens now with people engaging in pointless "make-work" to earn a wage that is totally divorced from materially or mentally productive activity because they're forced to operate within an obsolete economic paradigm. That is if you're "lucky" enough to find some pointless "make-work" otherwise you end up in a severe state of deprivation if you don't have anybody else to help you.


A very primitive one!

Brilliant idea. Throw all the machines away so everybody will be forced to not be "lazy". <_<

[Eleutherios]

I oppose the ideology partly because it cannot exist without the evil means. Lots of you here say you will do what is necessary to ensure the success of the revolution. What does that mean?
What did it mean to those fighting for the French Revolution? As societies progress, sometimes it is necessary to overthrow the existing political/economic system and institute a new, freer one, instead of just putting up with whatever tyranny happens to have society in its grasp. Freedom and equality don&#39;t just grow on trees, you know. Human beings have to actually do stuff to get rid of oppressive institutions if they want to increase their freedom and equality.

I also oppose the reward of lazyness. I mean you guys think housing a food is a right. So I mean, give me a house and food because Im homeless. Now, why should I work? Ive got what I need&#33;
lazyness = laziness
housing a food is a right = housing and food are rights
Im = I&#39;m
Ive = I&#39;ve

This is a complicated issue that we don&#39;t all agree on. But it certainly is no argument for capitalism. I would refer you to Section I.4.14 of the Anarchist FAQ (http://infoshop.org/faq/secI4.html#seci414). Basically, if there really is a big problem with people refusing to do any productive work yet still wanting to enjoy all the fruits of society (not unlike the rich property-owning capitalists of today), and people don&#39;t think it&#39;s right for lazy individuals to live off others&#39; labor, couldn&#39;t a commune simply decide to not let those lazy individuals enjoy the fruits of the commune&#39;s labor unless they contribute themselves?

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face... forever.
How would that be possible in a society without bosses or governments, where everyone has the freedom to do as they wish so long as they don&#39;t harm anyone else&#39;s life or freedom? The point of communism is to rid the world of unnecessary exploitation and authority.

A very primitive one&#33; No socialism or capitalism is free from work and trouble.
Well duh, of course every society requires people to do work, but a communist society would be able to mechanize away much of the unpleasant work, which under capitalism is done primarily by humans because it is more profitable to pay someone minimum wage than to build machines to do the work. Without the profit motive, we can ensure that technology is used to everyone&#39;s benefit, instead of wasting away our industrial capabilities producing as much crap as we can make and trying to convince people that they need it. A "very primitive" society won&#39;t reduce workloads; only a highly technological one will, so long as that technology is applied correctly.

Also, accountants, lawyers, salesmen, advertisers, bureaucrats, bosses and the unemployed would be able to pitch in on real productive work, thus lightening everyone&#39;s workload even further.

[power... UNLIMITED POWER&#33;]

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face... forever.


How would that be possible in a society without bosses or governments, where everyone has the freedom to do as they wish so long as they don&#092;&#39;t harm anyone else&#092;&#39;s life or freedom? The point of communism is to rid the world of unnecessary exploitation and authority.
Because your society is in another place. Well see what happens is the revolution ALWAYS gets subverted by dicatatorship. But of course, it wont happen this time round right&#33; This time well do it properly&#33; Only problem is youll be up for counterrevolution right?


Well duh, of course every society requires people to do work, but a communist society would be able to mechanize away much of the unpleasant work, which under capitalism is done primarily by humans because it is more profitable to pay someone minimum wage than to build machines to do the work. Without the profit motive, we can ensure that technology is used to everyone&#092;&#39;s benefit, instead of wasting away our industrial capabilities producing as much crap as we can make and trying to convince people that they need it. A &#092;"very primitive&#092;" society won&#092;&#39;t reduce workloads; only a highly technological one will, so long as that technology is applied correctly.

What makes you think a society that doesnt exist will be mechanised? Because you imagine it to be, right? Your like Redteam. You actually think capitalists deliberately hold back technology. Do you know what a Cuban bus looks like? If not why dont you look it up?


Also, accountants, lawyers, salesmen, advertisers, bureaucrats, bosses and the unemployed would be able to pitch in on real productive work, thus lightening everyone&#092;&#39;s workload even further.
Sure U can use the lawyers.

[Eleutherios]

Because your society is in another place. Well see what happens is the revolution ALWAYS gets subverted by dicatatorship. But of course, it wont happen this time round right&#33; This time well do it properly&#33; Only problem is youll be up for counterrevolution right?
Sure, revolutions based around the idea of a vanguard, like the Bolshevik Revolution or the Cuban Revolution, will end up with intolerable authoritarianism. That is why I&#39;m an anarchist communist, not a Leninist or a Maoist or whatever. If the people genuinely want a freer and more equal society, that is what they will fight for; they will not submit to dictatorship, for that is the very thing they seek to destroy. However, if everybody just follows the orders of a few people at the top of the ladder, then revolution is useless and will simply result in a new system of oppression.

What makes you think a society that doesnt exist will be mechanised? Because you imagine it to be, right? Your like Redteam. You actually think capitalists deliberately hold back technology.
I&#39;m not saying that capitalists are scheming to hold back technology that can make our lives better just for the sake of making our lives crappy. I&#39;m saying that they are acting in the interests of profit. This profit motive drives them to take the cheapest possible option, and it is usually cheaper to hire people to do the most unpleasant tasks for minimum wage than it is to research and implement technology that eliminates it.

Do you know what a Cuban bus looks like? If not why dont you look it up?
Cuba is not a communist society.

Sure U can use the lawyers.
For what purpose? A free society has no need for people who spin the truth for whomever gives them the most money.

[Sabocat]

Because your society is in another place. Well see what happens is the revolution ALWAYS gets subverted by dicatatorship. But of course, it wont happen this time round right&#33; This time well do it properly&#33; Only problem is youll be up for counterrevolution right?

No, the revolutions usually get subverted by a capitalist regime. See Vietnam, Chile, Nicaraqua, multiple attempts at Cuba etc, etc.


The boys of capital; they chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the twentieth century-without exception-has either been crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted, perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement-from the Russian Revolution to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to the EMLN in El Salvador-not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.

-William Blum



Do you know what a Cuban bus looks like? If not why dont you look it up?

So what&#39;s wrong with the Cuban buses? They&#39;re efficient and can hook up multiple cars for added ridership. When you have basically a worldwide embargo on you, you make do the best you can, and in this case, I would say it&#39;s a better transit system than many places in the U.S.

[power... UNLIMITED POWER&#33;]

No, the revolutions usually get subverted by a capitalist regime. See Vietnam, Chile, Nicaraqua, multiple attempts at Cuba etc, etc.
That is an interesting spin, but I agree with you a self interested (capitalist) clique does take control.


So whats wrong with the Cuban buses? They&#092;&#39;re efficient and can hook up multiple cars for added ridership. When you have basically a worldwide embargo on you, you make do the best you can, and in this case, I would say it&#092;&#39;s a better transit system than many places in the U.S.
But I read there are no timetables and the busses come every three hours and are always packed like crazy.

[Sabocat]

That is an interesting spin, but I agree with you a self interested (capitalist) clique does take control.

Spin. :lol:


But I read there are no timetables and the busses come every three hours and are always packed like crazy.

A bus line with no schedules isn&#39;t logical. What use would it be? If the buses come every 3 hours, that sounds like a schedule to me. If the 3 hour schedule is true (which I highly doubt) I would guess that it is because Cuba has a difficult time providing them with fuel because of the trade embargo.

With regards to the buses being packed, obviously you&#39;ve never ridden a bus or train in New York or Boston.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by power... UNLIMITED POWER&#33;@Jul 16 2006, 02:02 AM





Why do you oppose socialism / communism? Do you oppose the ideology as a goal or just the means that have been used in an attempt to achieve it?


I oppose the ideology partly because it cannot exist without the evil means. Lots of you here say you will do what is necessary to ensure the success of the revolution. What does that mean?

It means that we will stop the elite of society from harming the weak. If we must kill the offenders, I have no problem with it. We wouldn&#39;t "strike the bourgoise when they&#39;re down", we&#39;d simply do what we have to do to keep peopl safe.


I also oppose the reward of lazyness.

Really? I didn&#39;t know that you were against Capitalism. Good for you&#33;

I mean, you must realize that the major CEO&#39;s of major corporations do little labor to help society suceed, thye merely rake in their "fair share" of the profits and leave. Right?

:rolleyes:

Right.


I mean you guys think housing a[nd] food [are] right[s]. So I mean, give me a house and food because Im homeless. Now, why should I work? Ive got what I need&#33;

Because of the theory of mutual benifit.

Individual gain without individual responsibility in a socialist society would be obsolete. In a socialist society, if someone worked hard, did their fair share, and was moral, they would recieve support from the society in question. If not, they would not be "proped up", if you will, and would either leave or start working again. I really doubt that very few many would choose the latter, or support those that do, wouldn&#39;t you?


What does communism mean to you?


Imagine a boot stamping on a human face... forever.

I don&#39;t understand the metaphor. Please elaborate.

[theraven]

Really? I didn&#39;t know that you were against Capitalism. Good for you&#33;

I mean, you must realize that the major CEO&#39;s of major corporations do little labor to help society suceed, thye merely rake in their "fair share" of the profits and leave. Right?

good ceo&#39;s are usualy moe then worth thier salaries. i believe retirmene tbenfits shoudl be decided at the end of the ceos term, but none the less, ceos are far mroe valabel then the averag laboror. they are the oens who organzie and run the company and its success ro lack there of is based on them.

[theraven]

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face... forever.


I don&#39;t understand the metaphor. Please elaborate.

thats from 1984 i believe.

[evergreen]

Hello all,

Well, I think that this is very interesting thing by Dean, and at least a civilized way of asking.


This is directed at those who claim to oppose communism.

Why do you oppose socialism / communism? Do you oppose the ideology as a goal or just the means that have been used in an attempt to achieve it?

Socialism has interesting ideas which in fact are used by "capitalist" countries as we speak. Matter of fact the US has what it&#39;s called a mixed economy with both capitalist and socialist ideologies, although European countries are more tightly socialist than here in America. Capitalism in it&#39;s truest form is just as utopian as communism.

As regards to communism. I oppose it simply because of the altruistic belief. To me it&#39;s total rubbish such an idea, that humans all the sudden will be creatures with unselfish concern for the welfare of others. Also, i can&#39;t comprehend the idea of no police, this anarchist idea is conflictive. Communists believe that all crimes are due because of basic needs, well how is basic needs in some way shape or form the cause of rape? or murder? by some psychopath.

Also your ideas that everything can be automated, then we might as well in the future just don&#39;t work at all. The only job would be for the maintenance of robots and stuff; although that can probably by automated as well&#33; :o

I don&#39;t oppose the "goal" of communism at all, because ultimately it&#39;s a respectable goal, you guys fight for justice and that is respectable. But the attempt to achieve this, the way you guys fight it, with total change of the status quo in my opinion is not the way. Well, not really the change, but the way you guys want to change it, is what i mean.


What does "communism" mean to you?

Interesting question, some people have more personal feelings towards communism, or any idelogy. For example if you asked the same question to a North Korean who is starving right now, you can&#39;t expect him to say many good things about the communist and leftist ideology. Although im sure you guys will come here and attack me and say that NO, the USSR , North Korea, Cuba and so on, were/are not communists. But the fact is communism means to me a "failure", thats what it means. Because the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and China for example, all started with guys just like some of you i suppose, with the idea to start off their miracle paradise society, and what happens is you always end up with a dictator/totalitarian society. These countries have been communist experiments. The hypothesis has been done, and the data reveals the conclusion. The conclusion is : USSR, North Korea, Cuba
To me : FAILURES.


I&#39;m asking because I see a varied opposition to it, many arguments regard the state bureaucracies that advocated "Leninism" or other centralized governement plans. Other arguments appear to be capitalist libertarian in nature. If you oppose it, what is yor idea of a free society?

Idea of a "free society". What is free? is freedom, my right to criticize you, and your right to beat me up? One can say technically Cuba is free for example. I can say "screw Fidel" and the police then has the freedom to put me in jail. The whole idea of freedom and democracy is conflictive. Im sure democratically all kids would choose not to go to school. My idea of a free society is one where i can pursue my ambitions.

thank you

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 06:42 PM
Hello all,

Well, I think that this is very interesting thing by Dean, and at least a civilized way of asking.


This is directed at those who claim to oppose communism.

Why do you oppose socialism / communism? Do you oppose the ideology as a goal or just the means that have been used in an attempt to achieve it?

Socialism has interesting ideas which in fact are used by "capitalist" countries as we speak. Matter of fact the US has what it&#39;s called a mixed economy with both capitalist and socialist ideologies, although European countries are more tightly socialist than here in America. Capitalism in it&#39;s truest form is just as utopian as communism.

As regards to communism. I oppose it simply because of the altruistic belief. To me it&#39;s total rubbish such an idea, that humans all the sudden will be creatures with unselfish concern for the welfare of others. Also, i can&#39;t comprehend the idea of no police, this anarchist idea is conflictive. Communists believe that all crimes are due because of basic needs, well how is basic needs in some way shape or form the cause of rape? or murder? by some psychopath.

Also your ideas that everything can be automated, then we might as well in the future just don&#39;t work at all. The only job would be for the maintenance of robots and stuff; although that can probably by automated as well&#33; :o

I don&#39;t oppose the "goal" of communism at all, because ultimately it&#39;s a respectable goal, you guys fight for justice and that is respectable. But the attempt to achieve this, the way you guys fight it, with total change of the status quo in my opinion is not the way. Well, not really the change, but the way you guys want to change it, is what i mean.


What does "communism" mean to you?

Interesting question, some people have more personal feelings towards communism, or any idelogy. For example if you asked the same question to a North Korean who is starving right now, you can&#39;t expect him to say many good things about the communist and leftist ideology. Although im sure you guys will come here and attack me and say that NO, the USSR , North Korea, Cuba and so on, were/are not communists. But the fact is communism means to me a "failure", thats what it means. Because the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and China for example, all started with guys just like some of you i suppose, with the idea to start off their miracle paradise society, and what happens is you always end up with a dictator/totalitarian society. These countries have been communist experiments. The hypothesis has been done, and the data reveals the conclusion. The conclusion is : USSR, North Korea, Cuba
To me : FAILURES.


I&#39;m asking because I see a varied opposition to it, many arguments regard the state bureaucracies that advocated "Leninism" or other centralized governement plans. Other arguments appear to be capitalist libertarian in nature. If you oppose it, what is yor idea of a free society?

Idea of a "free society". What is free? is freedom, my right to criticize you, and your right to beat me up? One can say technically Cuba is free for example. I can say "screw Fidel" and the police then has the freedom to put me in jail. The whole idea of freedom and democracy is conflictive. Im sure democratically all kids would choose not to go to school. My idea of a free society is one where i can pursue my ambitions.

thank you
excellent post evergreen, welcome aboard

[evergreen]

excellent post evergreen, welcome aboard

Hello theraven, thank you. I hope we can all understand eachother a lot better.

take care

[More Fire for the People]

Socialism does not exist in any country. Socialism means pb]workers’ control of the means of production[/b]. Some countries have some industries under state control.

[Matty_UK]

Evergreen

As regards to communism. I oppose it simply because of the altruistic belief. To me it&#39;s total rubbish such an idea, that humans all the sudden will be creatures with unselfish concern for the welfare of others.

I don&#39;t claim that; the self interest of the proletariat will bring about revolution, and furthermore communism is based on human to human relationships, not altruism; if you don&#39;t contribute to society society will reject you. Some people find that harsh, for some reason, but it&#39;s no different to capitalist society and would certainly be a lot more tolerant of idleness.


Also, i can&#39;t comprehend the idea of no police, this anarchist idea is conflictive. Communists believe that all crimes are due because of basic needs, well how is basic needs in some way shape or form the cause of rape? or murder? by some psychopath.

Do you think people are incapable of policing themselves? We oppose a private or state owned police force because they serve to defend the private property of the bourgoisie and the state.

Bear in mind the first police force, ever, was in 1800-about the start of bourgoise capitalism eh? Before that there was merely guards employed to defend the nobility but with the formation of a middle class (the bourgoise, although they are really ruling class now and a far smaller class than they once were) just guards for the odd castle or stately home were not enough. What do you think people did before that?


Also your ideas that everything can be automated, then we might as well in the future just don&#39;t work at all. The only job would be for the maintenance of robots and stuff; although that can probably by automated as well&#33; :o

You&#39;re complaining?

If we have the technology to make many jobs unnecassary, we should use it but under capitalism doing this just makes people unable to make a living. If you have a progressive attitude to technology then you have to accept that capitalism must go at some point.


I don&#39;t oppose the "goal" of communism at all, because ultimately it&#39;s a respectable goal, you guys fight for justice and that is respectable. But the attempt to achieve this, the way you guys fight it, with total change of the status quo in my opinion is not the way. Well, not really the change, but the way you guys want to change it, is what i mean.

The goal of communism inherently involves a total change of the status quo, and there&#39;s really no way round it.


Because the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and China for example, all started with guys just like some of you i suppose, with the idea to start off their miracle paradise society, and what happens is you always end up with a dictator/totalitarian society. These countries have been communist experiments. The hypothesis has been done, and the data reveals the conclusion. The conclusion is : USSR, North Korea, Cuba
To me : FAILURES.

They did all fail, but these were all poorly developed countries. It&#39;s a very bad idea to attempt communism unless production is advanced enough to create a huge surplus. It was never intended to be attempted before the material conditions are what they are in the west-arguably they need to be like this internationally.

[Dean]

---power... UNLIMITED POWER&#33;

I oppose the ideology partly because it cannot exist without the evil means. Lots of you here say you will do what is necessary to ensure the success of the revolution. What does that mean?

Any revolution, including a capitalist one, requires some immoral act unless it is purely democratic, the latter of which is extremely hard to accomplish. Others have said that they would line capitalists up and shoot thim; I am horrified that people find that acceptable. Morally, no man should even be put in jail, but if you deem someone a threat (such as a capitalist counterrevolutionary, for instance) I find prison an acceptable answer, but not execution.


I also oppose the reward of lazyness. I mean you guys think housing a food is a right. So I mean, give me a house and food because Im homeless. Now, why should I work? Ive got what I need&#33;
...
A very primitive one&#33; No socialism or capitalism is free from work and trouble.

In communist societies in the past, the will to work has been voluntary and welcomed Under a centralized system, however, people find that the work they do simply benefits the few - whether it be a corporation or a state. This encourages apathy towards work, and an inclination towards laziness. Erich Fromm described lazness as a disease of capitalism.


Imagine a boot stamping on a human face... forever.

To quote a socialist is ironic in this context. Eric Blair was quite a leftist... Have you read "Shooting an Elephant"?


---Muigwithania

I don&#39;t understand the metaphor. Please elaborate.

Blair meant that the society in 1984 was dehumanizing.

---evergreen
I didn&#39;t quote your text because it was long and jumped around a bit, but I&#39;ll try to respond to all the main points.

It appears that you have a clearer understanding of communism than most of it&#39;s detractors. Unfortunately, you appear to be a socialist; by that I mean that your admiration for the communist ideal of freedom falls short of a belief in total decentralization of power.

I myself cannot certainly say that communism, as a completely stateless society will necessarily work, but one very simlar to it seems completely viable. much crime, for instance, is caused by dehumanizing factors that stem from the athoritarian of centralized nations today. The poor of course need more or feel hopeless; essentially, the authoritarianism used upon people by centralized power deforms their psyche to the point that their concept of life is subjection to authority; this is why many sons for instance will use similar methods of parenting as their fathers did and why psyhological addictions occur.

The implication on automazion is far from my concept, however. Once a friend of mine described communism "to a T" as he put it as a society in which all labor is done by computers. This is not my ideology, or that of most communists as far as I have seen.

Those nations you refer to are not really communist - oriented except in regards to a single ideology, that of "Leninism." The problem with leninism is that it has become an ideology of authority: "we will force you to be free." This vaguely resembles Lenin&#39;s attempt at creating a socialist faction, but he himself claimed that the society he created was far from even being socialist - it was "state capitalism." Lenin did attempt to reform society and upon realizing Stalin&#39;s excessively autocratic means attempted to bring Trotsky, a more humanist leader, to power, but unsuccessfully.

Freedom to me is the material ability to effect as much of your life as possible without intrding on the same, equal rights of others. Because we are bound to our own psychological diseases, social or biological, true and complete freedom can never really exist, but the goal is to make that freedom the norm.

Thanks for your post, btw. I&#39;ve found it to be the most civilized anti-communist post and you actually had informed opinions.


(If I didn&#39;t respond to a post, it was because it appeared to lack any informative content.)

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Anti&#045;[email protected] 15 2006, 06:18 PM
Basically I would have no problem with any communist setting up a commune anywhere but I just fear that they would impose their rules on us.
i have no problem living with all the essential things in life available to me. i have no problem working hard and contributing.

what rules do you mean? I for one have stop caring about materialism and about luxuries or all those wants.

[theraven]

Any revolution, including a capitalist one, requires some immoral act unless it is purely democratic, the latter of which is extremely hard to accomplish. Others have said that they would line capitalists up and shoot thim; I am horrified that people find that acceptable. Morally, no man should even be put in jail, but if you deem someone a threat (such as a capitalist counterrevolutionary, for instance) I find prison an acceptable answer, but not execution.

the only way communism won&#39;t turn into some sort of civil war would invovle everyone beign for it. a communsti revoltuion that actualy revolts will just turn into a war with no real communism as a revolt.



In communist societies in the past, the will to work has been voluntary and welcomed Under a centralized system, however, people find that the work they do simply benefits the few - whether it be a corporation or a state. This encourages apathy towards work, and an inclination towards laziness. Erich Fromm described lazness as a disease of capitalism.

then eric fromm is an idiot.



I don&#39;t claim that; the self interest of the proletariat will bring about revolution, and furthermore communism is based on human to human relationships, not altruism; if you don&#39;t contribute to society society will reject you. Some people find that harsh, for some reason, but it&#39;s no different to capitalist society and would certainly be a lot more tolerant of idleness.

so basicly if you don&#39;t work and add things, people won&#39;t let you take things out. but how do you determe who adds enough and who doesn&#39;t? perhaps oy you should use some method of counting :lol:




Do you think people are incapable of policing themselves? We oppose a private or state owned police force because they serve to defend the private property of the bourgoisie and the state.

when people police themselves its generally called "vigalitism" it results in things like the lynching in the south


Bear in mind the first police force, ever, was in 1800-about the start of bourgoise capitalism eh? Before that there was merely guards employed to defend the nobility but with the formation of a middle class (the bourgoise, although they are really ruling class now and a far smaller class than they once were) just guards for the odd castle or stately home were not enough. What do you think people did before that?

the romans had police forces too, any time you have a large metroplis the people there in ned a police force.




You&#39;re complaining?

If we have the technology to make many jobs unnecassary, we should use it but under capitalism doing this just makes people unable to make a living. If you have a progressive attitude to technology then you have to accept that capitalism must go at some point.


well sure, if we get ot the poitn wer producing things is o easy we don&#39;t need peole to do it then a welfare state is easy. the problem is this isn&#39;t the case yet, or in the forseeable future







Because the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and China for example, all started with guys just like some of you i suppose, with the idea to start off their miracle paradise society, and what happens is you always end up with a dictator/totalitarian society. These countries have been communist experiments. The hypothesis has been done, and the data reveals the conclusion. The conclusion is : USSR, North Korea, Cuba
To me : FAILURES.


They did all fail, but these were all poorly developed countries. It&#39;s a very bad idea to attempt communism unless production is advanced enough to create a huge surplus. It was never intended to be attempted before the material conditions are what they are in the west-arguably they need to be like this internationally.

but on anothe thread you guys are arguing that communsim can happen anywhere

[Ol' Dirty]

:)

Really? I didn&#39;t know that you were against Capitalism. Good for you&#33;

I mean, you must realize that the major CEO&#39;s of major corporations do little labor to help society suceed, thye merely rake in their "fair share" of the profits and leave. Right?

I found it interesting that you only responded to only one part of my argument. It shows that you don&#39;t have much to say.

Anyway...


good ceo&#39;s

Hey, look&#33; An oxy-moron in the first two words. Wow. You&#39;re good. ;)


are usualy mo[r]e th[a]n worth the[i]r salaries.

Name Five Major CEO&#39;s that have made major contributions, individualy, in the fields of political science, the arts, philosophy, and/oror made a great labor achievment, and I&#39;ll believe you (or not).


ceo[&#39;]s are far [more] val[u]abel then the averag labor[e]r.

alright...

Get rid of all laborors that make the products, and you have no products, and you have nothing done. You could have the greatest CEO in the world, but if all of his "insupordinates" are incompetent, the entire Idea of Profit goes flying out the window.


[T]hey are the on[e]s who organzie and run the company and its success[,] o[r] lack there of is based on them.

So you&#39;re suggsting a brain without arms or legs?

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 03:19 PM



Imagine a boot stamping on a human face... forever.


I don&#39;t understand the metaphor. Please elaborate.

thats from 1984 i believe.
Ah, that&#39;s right. 1984, that book written by George Orwell because, in his words, "The Spanish war and other events in 1936-7 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I know it." I love it when cappies try to turn that book into some sort of critique of socialism as a whole. :lol:

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by sennomulo+Jul 16 2006, 08:53 PM--> (sennomulo @ Jul 16 2006, 08:53 PM)
[email protected] 16 2006, 03:19 PM



Imagine a boot stamping on a human face... forever.


I don&#39;t understand the metaphor. Please elaborate.

thats from 1984 i believe.
Ah, that&#39;s right. 1984, that book written by George Orwell because, in his words, "The Spanish war and other events in 1936-7 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I know it." I love it when cappies try to turn that book into some sort of critique of socialism as a whole. :lol: [/b]
Thank you sennmulo. :)

[evergreen]

I don&#39;t claim that; the self interest of the proletariat will bring about revolution, and furthermore communism is based on human to human relationships, not altruism; if you don&#39;t contribute to society society will reject you. Some people find that harsh, for some reason, but it&#39;s no different to capitalist society and would certainly be a lot more tolerant of idleness

Well the human to human relationship is altruism, or it can be many other things. And in the countless years of human to human interaction you can see that no type of such society has existed. And if it&#39;s no different to capitalism why would you want to change it? Sounds pointless to me. And how can i possibly be rejected in communism? it would all be automated right?


Do you think people are incapable of policing themselves? We oppose a private or state owned police force because they serve to defend the private property of the bourgoisie and the state.

Do i think people are incapable of policing themselves&#33;? OHH BOY NO WAY&#33; Just go to the Southern states and see how many hillbillies have guns ready to use just if you spit in their lawn. So what are you suggesting? That it&#39;s a reasonable thing for people to take matters into their own hands? :rolleyes: Im sure those hillbillies would be loving that&#33; They would probably go on rampages against homosexuals and blacks. Heck you might see militias popping up everywhere, doing whatever the hell they want, they are "policing" themsleves right? lol


Bear in mind the first police force, ever, was in 1800-about the start of bourgoise capitalism eh? Before that there was merely guards employed to defend the nobility but with the formation of a middle class (the bourgoise, although they are really ruling class now and a far smaller class than they once were) just guards for the odd castle or stately home were not enough. What do you think people did before that?

The police force as we know it today you mean, with such organization and bureaucratic status. Maybe , im no expert on the subject. But there sure has been law and order just as there is today.


You&#39;re complaining?

If we have the technology to make many jobs unnecassary, we should use it but under capitalism doing this just makes people unable to make a living. If you have a progressive attitude to technology then you have to accept that capitalism must go at some point.

Not complaining at all, or should i be? It depends, i don&#39;t think you truley comprehend of the idea of everything in the world being automated. It really is a far off idea at least for us. Anyways, what are you talking about? how is the technology making us unable to make a living under capitalism? In fact capitalism is the only system which embraces entrepreneurship, and thus the influx of new ideas and development. If it wasn&#39;t for capitalism and the capitalist ideal do you think the world would be the same? Highly doubt it buddy. And, yes sure, capitalism must go at some point, nothing lasts forever, and so will the Sun. But does this mean there is something better than the Sun? should we take the Sun out and put an artificial light? Eitherway, capitalism will give way to something else, but i don&#39;t think it will be communism, unless we are dealing with robots; communism would work with robots, but not with humans.


The goal of communism inherently involves a total change of the status quo, and there&#39;s really no way round it.

Ummm? yeah, I believe that&#39;s exactly what i said. I don&#39;t so much attack the idea of "change", rather the idea of going about it, which in your eyes should be communism.


They did all fail, but these were all poorly developed countries. It&#39;s a very bad idea to attempt communism unless production is advanced enough to create a huge surplus. It was never intended to be attempted before the material conditions are what they are in the west-arguably they need to be like this internationally.

Sounds like an excuse more than anything. So, these people didn&#39;t know that? Fidel didn&#39;t know this? Then why did he "try" it if he knew it was going to fail? Plus , say America becomes communist at the momment, and then magically Africa perfectly capitalist, how would this work? Wouldn&#39;t communism have to be a global effort?

thank you

[encephalon]

Well the human to human relationship is altruism, or it can be many other things. And in the countless years of human to human interaction you can see that no type of such society has existed.

By the logic that you&#39;re implying here, one can say that no such society as today&#39;s society has ever existed before this point in history; therefore, today&#39;s society is impossible.



Do i think people are incapable of policing themselves&#33;? OHH BOY NO WAY&#33; Just go to the Southern states and see how many hillbillies have guns ready to use just if you spit in their lawn. So what are you suggesting? That it&#39;s a reasonable thing for people to take matters into their own hands? rolleyes.gif Im sure those hillbillies would be loving that&#33; They would probably go on rampages against homosexuals and blacks. Heck you might see militias popping up everywhere, doing whatever the hell they want, they are "policing" themsleves right? lol


But wait&#33; I thought the united states was ruled for the people, by the people.. right? So that means that the people does police itself, and therefore tyrannical as you imply it would be under any circumstance other than the current system.

So really, if you&#39;re saying that the police force isn&#39;t the product of a society policing itself, then you&#39;re saying that the police are there for someone other than society as a whole. Welcome aboard, comrade.



The police force as we know it today you mean, with such organization and bureaucratic status. Maybe , im no expert on the subject. But there sure has been law and order just as there is today.


The organizational structure of a civilian police force set wholly apart from the military and political superstructure (although the latter is quite debatable) emerged within bourgeoisie society in the 1800s. Before then, either the military or hired guns were used to keep "peace and order." Which meant, as it does today, doing what those in power want you to do, or else. Nazi Germany, actually, was quite peaceful for a while--thanks to the police force.



Not complaining at all, or should i be? It depends, i don&#39;t think you truley comprehend of the idea of everything in the world being automated. It really is a far off idea at least for us. Anyways, what are you talking about? how is the technology making us unable to make a living under capitalism? In fact capitalism is the only system which embraces entrepreneurship, and thus the influx of new ideas and development. If it wasn&#39;t for capitalism and the capitalist ideal do you think the world would be the same? Highly doubt it buddy. And, yes sure, capitalism must go at some point, nothing lasts forever, and so will the Sun. But does this mean there is something better than the Sun? should we take the Sun out and put an artificial light? Eitherway, capitalism will give way to something else, but i don&#39;t think it will be communism, unless we are dealing with robots; communism would work with robots, but not with humans.

Nobody is saying that the world would be the same; such a thing, in fact, would be an impossibility.

Full automation isn&#39;t really that far off. Why do you think industrialised nations are increasingly becoming "service economies?" It&#39;s because that which hasn&#39;t been exported to lower cost areas (ie the third world) has become largely automated within the industrialized area. If you&#39;ve ever worked in a factory (which I suspect you haven&#39;t), you&#39;d know that human labor is saved only for that which machines cannot yet do well; and in order to further increase profits, the capitalist will look for more ways to replace human labor with machines.

Capitalism cannot exist under the condition of total automation because capitalism has wage-labor as a prerequisite. Read your economics.

As for your "sun" argument, lets take that back a few centuries:

And, yes sure, feudalism must go at some point, nothing lasts forever, and so will the Sun. But does this mean there is something better than the Sun? should we take the Sun out and put an artificial light? Eitherway, feudalism will give way to something else, but i don&#39;t think it will be capitalism, unless we are dealing with wage-laborers; capitalism would work with wage-laborers, but not with peasants.

The point being, your argument encompasses every paradigm shift in the history of humanity.. which means that if humanity followed your defense, we&#39;d still be picking berries to feed our twenty-member society and dying from infected hangnails and the common cold.

. Plus, we have come up with a substitution of the sun; quite a few, really. Fire, for one. The harnessing of electricity is quite a useful substitute, as well.


Ummm? yeah, I believe that&#39;s exactly what i said. I don&#39;t so much attack the idea of "change", rather the idea of going about it, which in your eyes should be communism.

And by that token, we&#39;d all still be peasants. What, you think that nobles no longer wanted to control society? News for you: the upper nobility fought against the rise of the bourgeoisie quite often, many times leading to very bloody results. The bourgeoisie had to replace the nobles as the ruling class before capitalism could replace feudalism. Revolution is not an invention of communists.



Sounds like an excuse more than anything. So, these people didn&#39;t know that? Fidel didn&#39;t know this? Then why did he "try" it if he knew it was going to fail? Plus , say America becomes communist at the momment, and then magically Africa perfectly capitalist, how would this work? Wouldn&#39;t communism have to be a global effort?


Fidel wasn&#39;t originally a communist. And many of us would argue that he still isn&#39;t. And no, they didn&#39;t really know this; that&#39;s the value of retrospect. Trial and error. Einstein didn&#39;t know that his work on nuclear physics would be used to kill millions of Japanese civilians, though in retrospect we say he should have known better; the nameless inventor of fire didn&#39;t know it would later become napalm, but merely wanted to keep warm; and communists in the early half of the last century didn&#39;t think that capitalism was a necessary step in social evolution, even though in retrospect we think they should have known better. Sadly, some here still think capitalism can be completely surpassed, or somehow "made friendly." Before communism can exist, capitalism must reach its aphex just like feudalism had to; and probably then some.

And yes, communism must be by and large a global condition.

[evergreen]

By the logic that you&#39;re implying here, one can say that no such society as today&#39;s society has ever existed before this point in history; therefore, today&#39;s society is impossible.

:huh: How so? Im merely talking about altruism, that no such society has ever existed.


But wait&#33; I thought the united states was ruled for the people, by the people.. right? So that means that the people does police itself, and therefore tyrannical as you imply it would be under any circumstance other than the current system.

So really, if you&#39;re saying that the police force isn&#39;t the product of a society policing itself, then you&#39;re saying that the police are there for someone other than society as a whole. Welcome aboard, comrade.

Yeah that&#39;s the US, and NO, the people don&#39;t police themselves, this is not a vigilante country where there are ruling factions running around doing as they please like in Somalia or something. You are making no sense, we as a society need the police force and have created it. And it&#39;s not there for someone other than society. Why do you have this fetish about the "one" guy behind it all who controls it, or some special group who is benefitting from the police force? :blink:.
And somehow i don&#39;t understand how the police is harmful? Is it because you want to rape your next door 13 year old neighbor? or because you want to smoke pot all day and shoot speed? Hey , now i don&#39;t blame YA&#33;


Before then, either the military or hired guns were used to keep "peace and order."

Even if it was lab rats with lasers attached to their tails keeping the "peace and order" 10000 years ago, it&#39;s the same thing as if it&#39;s the police force now. So what exactly is your point?


Full automation isn&#39;t really that far off. Why do you think industrialised nations are increasingly becoming "service economies?" It&#39;s because that which hasn&#39;t been exported to lower cost areas (ie the third world) has become largely automated within the industrialized area. If you&#39;ve ever worked in a factory (which I suspect you haven&#39;t), you&#39;d know that human labor is saved only for that which machines cannot yet do well; and in order to further increase profits, the capitalist will look for more ways to replace human labor with machines.

Which quite frankly proves what i said about capitalism being the lifeblood of the technological boom the world has seen in the last century and a half or so.


Capitalism cannot exist under the condition of total automation because capitalism has wage-labor as a prerequisite. Read your economics.

How so? You think big robot manufacturing companies won&#39;t exist? Although sure, if everything is automated then what the hell would i do? How would i work? I guess everybody would be involved in the "robot" industry? lmao Surely then this won&#39;t be communism either. It sounds more like a dystopian society described in 1984 or something.



As for your "sun" argument, lets take that back a few centuries:

Wow, i can also apply that to anything else.


The point being, your argument encompasses every paradigm shift in the history of humanity.. which means that if humanity followed your defense, we&#39;d still be picking berries to feed our twenty-member society and dying from infected hangnails and the common cold.

Your telling that to a capitalist. :lol:


Plus, we have come up with a substitution of the sun; quite a few, really. Fire, for one. The harnessing of electricity is quite a useful substitute, as well.

WHAT&#33; the hell are you talking about? Fire and electricity are useful substitues for the Sun? :blink: :lol:


And by that token, we&#39;d all still be peasants. What, you think that nobles no longer wanted to control society? News for you: the upper nobility fought against the rise of the bourgeoisie quite often, many times leading to very bloody results. The bourgeoisie had to replace the nobles as the ruling class before capitalism could replace feudalism. Revolution is not an invention of communists.

I said your way of change, not change itself. Can&#39;t you comprehend simple English?


Fidel wasn&#39;t originally a communist. And many of us would argue that he still isn&#39;t. And no, they didn&#39;t really know this; that&#39;s the value of retrospect. Trial and error. Einstein didn&#39;t know that his work on nuclear physics would be used to kill millions of Japanese civilians, though in retrospect we say he should have known better; the nameless inventor of fire didn&#39;t know it would later become napalm, but merely wanted to keep warm; and communists in the early half of the last century didn&#39;t think that capitalism was a necessary step in social evolution, even though in retrospect we think they should have known better. Sadly, some here still think capitalism can be completely surpassed, or somehow "made friendly." Before communism can exist, capitalism must reach its aphex just like feudalism had to; and probably then some.

If Fidel wasn&#39;t originally a communist, what was he? A Capitalist? :huh: Trial and error huh. Gee i believe the USSR had been on trial and error way before the Cuban revolution don&#39;t you think? And so had China, and countless others. Communists didn&#39;t think capitalism was necessary? I thought Marx talked about how capitalism has to be before communism? <_<


And yes, communism must be by and large a global condition.

Well, surely just by that then you can infer that it&#39;s almost impossible. For just Africa to reach a capitalism aphex as you call it, will take as long as it did for our ancestors to turn into Homo Sapiens.

Global effort, gee sounds altruistic to me&#33; lol

[red team]

Which quite frankly proves what i said about capitalism being the lifeblood of the technological boom the world has seen in the last century and a half or so.

Two problems:

1. Who&#39;s going to buy all those thousands upon thousands of mass produced products. You can&#39;t pay machines you know. But, if you get rid of highly productive machines you won&#39;t be competitive. Credit card debt can only go on for so long before it becomes unsustainable.

2. Thousands upon thousands of people left out of receiving the wealth produced by machines tend to get unhappy and start trouble. How many police can you afford to hire? So far Robocop is still a fiction.


How so? You think big robot manufacturing companies won&#39;t exist? Although sure, if everything is automated then what the hell would i do? How would i work? I guess everybody would be involved in the "robot" industry? lmao Surely then this won&#39;t be communism either. It sounds more like a dystopian society described in 1984 or something.

Under the current commodity trading system, yes it would be quite horrible. But, you see robotics is so much fun&#33; Ask the U.S. military how fun this is&#33; You can eliminate targets simply by pressing a button in an air conditioned room.


Well, surely just by that then you can infer that it&#39;s almost impossible. For just Africa to reach a capitalism aphex as you call it, will take as long as it did for our ancestors to turn into Homo Sapiens.

Nope. unless competition from imperialists for their colonies brings a better deal for the colonised and not the coloniser. That is rarely the case, but could be changing now with a new rising power like China.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 10:36 PM
the only way communism won&#39;t turn into some sort of civil war would invovle everyone beign for it. a communsti revoltuion that actualy revolts will just turn into a war with no real communism as a revolt.

...

then eric fromm is an idiot.
Your arguments are defeatist and antagonistic. Knowing nothing of Fromm, you claim him to be an idiot simply for a single statement of his. You clearly have no senses of logical debating skills or penetrating analysis, or you choose to hide them carefully.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:02 PM
This is directed at those who claim to oppose communism.

Why do you oppose socialism / communism? Do you oppose the ideology as a goal or just the means that have been used in an attempt to achieve it?

What does "communism" mean to you?
One thing I don&#39;t like about the communists is how they portray the U.S. military as a variant of Nazis in Germany during WW2. They always bring up Vietnam and Iraq and the death toll there. Question: How many of those who were killed in Iraq and Vietnam died in US government organized death camps or ordered up and carted off to gas chambers?

Answer: None.

I&#39;m not saying that NO one in uniform has ever committed misconduct. But that&#39;s a far cry from referring to all as war criminals. At least I am willing to allow due process take its course, and allow for a fair trial to take place. You on the other hand are eager to act as a Communist regime would, declare them all guilty, put a bullet in thier head and charge the family for the cost of the bullet.

Of course, those weren&#39;t communist regimes, I will probably get.

I don&#39;t know what idealized version of communism you are studying, but Miriam-Websters.com defines communism thus:

1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/communism

The rest of that mindless gobbledy-gook is full of mushy thinking void of how life is in the real world.

Just because the USSR was misnamed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, didn&#39;t make them so. It was a Communist nation, ruled by the Communist Party for some 70 years.

But what about Sputnik and their nuclear capabilities?

Well, what bout them? The Soviets are the "proud owners" of the only nuclear power plant in history to nearly self-destruct and kill thousands and poison millions more.

But then, there is the case of India....

India is a nuclear power today, and has been for some 30+ years.

It is the world&#39;s largest democracy, and its economy is the world&#39;s 4th largest, and growing at an astonishing rate of over 9%.

It is a largely Hindu nation with a large Muslim minority (13%) and a highly educated middle class which masters English and advanced mathematics, not to mention a gazzillion computer engineers.

A "poor peasant country with a religious caste system" is largely the India of yesterday.

Maybe its time to "snap out of it", and realise "achievements" of 50 years ago, and not much else, are rather irrelevant in the world of the 21st century.

Anybody wanna buy a Russian car these days? Or a washer/dryer? Cell phone? TV? Is there ANYTHING on the open market that the Russkies make that anyone WANTS?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Just reminding everyone about my reply before it&#39;s forgotten due to the flood of recent thread submitted by General Patton.

[red team]

It is a largely Hindu nation with a large Muslim minority (13%) and a highly educated middle class which masters English and advanced mathematics, not to mention a gazzillion computer engineers.

In privilege enclaves where they have luxury condos and maid services recruited from the urban poor. Rest of the country still consists of poor peasant farmers and petty street vendors.


advanced mathematics

Sort of a contradiction in skills. In the age of programmable high speed computers the skill to to do mental gymnastics manually becomes increasingly irrelevant. I suspect Ted Kaczynski who was a PhD level mathematician was rebelling against the loss of his aristocratic academic privilege of being one of the elite few that can master manual techniques for advanced math. It sort of explains why he targetted mostly high-tech engineering students and his hatred of "industrial civilization" for taking away the power of the individual. Already, computers programmed with problem-solving rules are coming up with their own novel proofs of math theorems.


A "poor peasant country with a religious caste system" is largely the India of yesterday.


Nope. Still has a class system with many dalits (untouchables) and lower castes. Majority of the educated middle class members are of the upper brahmin caste.

Recently there was a vocal protest for a quota system in admitting some members of the lower castes into the education system which is largely privatized and unaffordable to those of lower castes without government help. This token gesture will be little more than "affirmative action" for the lower castes, but will still keep the caste system intact.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 10:36 PM



Any revolution, including a capitalist one, requires some immoral act unless it is purely democratic, the latter of which is extremely hard to accomplish. Others have said that they would line capitalists up and shoot thim; I am horrified that people find that acceptable. Morally, no man should even be put in jail, but if you deem someone a threat (such as a capitalist counterrevolutionary, for instance) I find prison an acceptable answer, but not execution.

the only way communism won&#39;t turn into some sort of civil war would invovle everyone beign for it. a communsti revoltuion that actualy revolts will just turn into a war with no real communism as a revolt.



In communist societies in the past, the will to work has been voluntary and welcomed Under a centralized system, however, people find that the work they do simply benefits the few - whether it be a corporation or a state. This encourages apathy towards work, and an inclination towards laziness. Erich Fromm described lazness as a disease of capitalism.

then eric fromm is an idiot.
Your arguments are illogical and ignore the points that I make. I&#39;ll just call you an "idiot" as you did Fromm.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Don&#39;t bother addressing my other points red team.

[Janus]

Stop spamming; if you don&#39;t want someone to address certain parts of your post then you shouldn&#39;t have posted them in the first place.