Communism in todays world.

[Fiskpure]

Hello everyone, I have something to ask, communism in todays world.

I have been studying Russia before the revolution and post-revolution and I have come to the decision that communism in todays world, is simply not possible without a state.

I know communism is about a stateless society, but how does this work in todays world? If you want the world to shine red, you'd need to have major revolutions in every G8 country countries in order to get it implemented, as I do not see using force to implement as an option possible.

Even if the world would shine red, in a free, stateless, there would still be 'greediness', you cannot simply remove that part of a human being. Also I read about your discussions about 'security' measures, how do you have any guarantees that this 'security' force will not claim power and create an army and pinn everyone down under their will?

In my point of view there needs to be a state, ran by the people. Now I'm not talking about having multiple parties, but one single party, which the people could join and from there they could join the regime through elections. Don't you think this is the most secure way to up-hold the communistic ideology?

As I consider myself an extremist and rationalist, I belive that during the 21st centuary, we will have communism (Yes, communism) implemented to Russia, and after that we will wait for revolutions against the states all over the globe.

As I said, I'm totally new to this, and to be honest with you, I don't see any benefits in a stateless nation. What if another country attacks? You totally lack organization over your nation, who is going control the resources? Who is going to make sure no-one groups up with a few people and declares their own nation, which will later lead to civil war?

In my opinion, if the state exists, it will always present a risk that someone (Stalin as an example) declares himself the supreme leader and can do whatever he wants!

Now I have probobly missed a great deal, but I'd appreciate if you'd bring it down easy on me, at least for the next few months :P


Dear regards,
Fiskpure.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Hello.


I know communism is about a stateless society, but how does this work in todays world? If you want the world to shine red, you'd need to have major revolutions in every G8 country countries in order to get it implemented, as I do not see using force to implement as an option possible.

Your comment about there having to be revolutions in [practically] every G8 country is exactly what most of us already believe.

It's not that absurd of an idea when you consider both the impact neo-liberalism has on individual markets and the 60s social revolution which swept across North America, Europe, and even East Asia to a degree.


Even if the world would shine red, in a free, stateless, there would still be 'greediness', you cannot simply remove that part of a human being. Also I read about your discussions about 'security' measures, how do you have any guarantees that this 'security' force will not claim power and create an army and pinn everyone down under their will?

Greed is over-emphasized by a system which not only rewards it, but is built on the principle of taking as much you can just 'cuz that makes you better. There would certainly have to be a shift in thinking, but for Marxists this can be dealt with during the primary stages of socialism when the state and capital still exist. As the phrase goes, there is plenty on this Earth for man's needs [and wants], but not for his greed.


In my point of view there needs to be a state, ran by the people. Now I'm not talking about having multiple parties, but one single party, which the people could join and from there they could join the regime through elections. Don't you think this is the most secure way to up-hold the communistic ideology?

Why does there even need to be a party? Remember communism is stateless, not law-less. The concept of a single party has been tried in every Leninist-Stalinist country in the world, and it's churned out bad results. Granted none of these countries was prepared for the implementation of socialism, but I don't think a single party state anywhere can work without corruption.



What if another country attacks? You totally lack organization over your nation, who is going control the resources? Who is going to make sure no-one groups up with a few people and declares their own nation, which will later lead to civil war?

The people.

Statelessness does not equate to orderless communities simply trading with another as a Dark Power looms in the distance. We believe in federations of autonomous communities working together to prevent such a thing from happening. Remember, scientific communism has it that the state does temporarily exist. The biggest threat to communism is the rise of capitalism in what are now viewed as the non-industrialized countries. It would of course be essential that these communities progress into industrialization, but we'd keep a military until these countries are ready for their own transition.

[Fiskpure]

Your comment about there having to be revolutions in [practically] every G8 country is exactly what most of us already believe.

It's not that absurd of an idea when you consider both the impact neo-liberalism has on individual markets and the 60s social revolution which swept across North America, Europe, and even East Asia to a degree.

Even if there have swept a lot of social revolutions through the G8 countries, bringing out communism/socialism to these countries would be very hard, to get the nation couped, you'd have to go through a long bloody civil war.


Greed is over-emphasized by a system which not only rewards it, but is built on the principle of taking as much you can just 'cuz that makes you better. There would certainly have to be a shift in thinking, but for Marxists this can be dealt with during the primary stages of socialism when the state and capital still exist. As the phrase goes, there is plenty on this Earth for man's needs [and wants], but not for his greed.


Leaving the system out of this, let's go to more simple things, such as love and jealousy (as examples) towards people, these bring out greediness too, which will later lead on to more serious threats.


Why does there even need to be a party? Remember communism is stateless, not law-less. The concept of a single party has been tried in every Leninist-Stalinist country in the world, and it's churned out bad results. Granted none of these countries was prepared for the implementation of socialism, but I don't think a single party state anywhere can work without corruption.

You're right, but you can't just simply have a few persons running a multi-million country, later on when globe is covered in red and the borders withdrawn, this can be left out, but this future is very dark, afterall, I'm being realistic.


The people.

Statelessness does not equate to orderless communities simply trading with another as a Dark Power looms in the distance. We believe in federations of autonomous communities working together to prevent such a thing from happening. Remember, scientific communism has it that the state does temporarily exist. The biggest threat to communism is the rise of capitalism in what are now viewed as the non-industrialized countries. It would of course be essential that these communities progress into industrialization, but we'd keep a military until these countries are ready for their own transition.

The people, we, as leftists see that we do not need a nice car, a new phone, a new house, because we are here for the cause. Convincing someone that has a nice and rich life that has never heard of communism is going to be a major problem, simply put, capitalist nations.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 02:14 pm
Even if there have swept a lot of social revolutions through the G8 countries, bringing out communism/socialism to these countries would be very hard, to get the nation couped, you'd have to go through a long bloody civil war.


This has happened numerous times in the past, and will happen again. Capitalism cannot last forever. It is either going to be replaced by socialism or it will degenerate into barbarism. As an optimist, I believe the former is going to happen.


The people, we, as leftists see that we do not need a nice car, a new phone, a new house, because we are here for the cause. Convincing someone that has a nice and rich life that has never heard of communism is going to be a major problem, simply put, capitalist nations.

But socialism will lead to better living conditions, not worse. The only class that has a lot to lose in a revolution is the capitalist class. And a revolution will happen only once a significant portion of the population realizes that, to quote Marx, they have "nothing to lose but their chains."

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Even if there have swept a lot of social revolutions through the G8 countries, bringing out communism/socialism to these countries would be very hard, to get the nation couped, you'd have to go through a long bloody civil war.

That will be the fault of the bourgeoisie and their puppet governments. If we are truly democratic and the population is so solidly against the current structure that it is openly rebelling, they should comply to the wishes of their constituents.

I wouldn't necessarily believe there has to be too much blood, but I have nothing to speculate from.


Leaving the system out of this, let's go to more simple things, such as love and jealousy (as examples) towards people, these bring out greediness too, which will later lead on to more serious threats.

Can you go into detail by what you mean? There are conditions where love could drive someone to act greedy, but this is called obsession, or, as you said, jealousy.


The people, we, as leftists see that we do not need a nice car, a new phone, a new house, because we are here for the cause. Convincing someone that has a nice and rich life that has never heard of communism is going to be a major problem, simply put, capitalist nations.

Uh, if "working" socialism were to bring about worse living conditions for workers than capitalism, I will look at an alternative, and yes one of them will be capitalism. I sure hope we have a future where everyone has their own car and phone.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Fiskpure+October 25, 2007 02:41 pm--> (Fiskpure @ October 25, 2007 02:41 pm) I know communism is about a stateless society, but how does this work in todays world? [/b]
It doesn't. Communism states the need for a transitional period of state socialism.


Originally posted by Fiskpure+--> (Fiskpure)In my point of view there needs to be a state, ran by the people. Now I'm not talking about having multiple parties, but one single party, which the people could join and from there they could join the regime through elections. Don't you think this is the most secure way to up-hold the communistic ideology?
[/b]
Sounds good to me.


[email protected]
As I said, I'm totally new to this, and to be honest with you, I don't see any benefits in a stateless nation. What if another country attacks? You totally lack organization over your nation, who is going control the resources? Who is going to make sure no-one groups up with a few people and declares their own nation, which will later lead to civil war?

The state socialist transition must defeat the other countries or lead them to communism first. It must also destroy all opposition to communism for a stateless society to work.


Fiskpure
Now I have probobly missed a great deal, but I'd appreciate if you'd bring it down easy on me, at least for the next few months :P
NO--NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:
(allright, fine)

[Fiskpure]

The people, we, as leftists see that we do not need a nice car, a new phone, a new house, because we are here for the cause. Convincing someone that has a nice and rich life that has never heard of communism is going to be a major problem, simply put, capitalist nations.


Uh, if "working" socialism were to bring about worse living conditions for workers than capitalism, I will look at an alternative, and yes one of them will be capitalism. I sure hope we have a future where everyone has their own car and phone.

Yes, I agree with you. But by that statement I mean't that during pre-revolution and during the revolution there might show up economical problems, and post-revolution. As an optimist myself, I am looking forward for these advantages too, afterall, why would we degrade our techonological advantages?

The problem is that the capitalist class belives this will happen (as they will surely take up the low-living standards in USSR and Com. China), don't you think?

During the "Cold war", in USSR there were not really many people driving any 'luxury' cars (except the elites) or even low-quality cars, due to no-one recieveing any capital.

Now wouldn't this become a problem? I know the state was working under the "state capitalism" idea at this time, but in a communist world, I don't see how this would work unless you create an entirely new economical system...



As I said, I'm totally new to this, and to be honest with you, I don't see any benefits in a stateless nation. What if another country attacks? You totally lack organization over your nation, who is going control the resources? Who is going to make sure no-one groups up with a few people and declares their own nation, which will later lead to civil war?


The state socialist transition must defeat the other countries or lead them to communism first. It must also destroy all opposition to communism for a stateless society to work.


Are you talking about offensive manuvers? Let's try to be realistic, you can't bring offensive manuvers (nation versus nation) if we're talking about going towards a superpower or any other 'great' power, simply due to their military advantages and let's not forget the nuclear arsenal that is available to most of the G8 countries.

Quickly thought, wouldn't the only, effective way to run communism into a nation by couping the nation as fast as possible? Not just by the fact that you don't have to spill millions of lives in a nation versus nation, but it is bad for morale (Let's take Iraq as an example), it increases patriotism for your "free" nation and increases the hatred towards communsim (Cold war, simply put).

As I said, if you want to force someone something, it will take ages to get it through, if ever (Nazi Germany failed in this and so is the USA in Iraq).


Cheers for your posts so far,
fiskpure.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:41 pm
I have been studying Russia before the revolution and post-revolution and I have come to the decision that communism in todays world, is simply not possible without a state.

Well, as a Libertarian Communist I completely disagree. But discussion is important so I'll simply explain why I disagree and you can consider my points. I will say at this point that there two main traditions Authorotarian (or pro state) communists and Libertarian Communists (anarchists, Syndicalists etc)

I think it's agreable that in some way, the Russian revolution failed, If it didn't we wouldn't be having this convosation.I think we can also agree that the goal of the Russian revolution was workers control of the means of production. Having accepted that, I would say it was the Bolsheviks who basically defeated the revolution.

Within one month they banned Union meetings, banned Libertarian Communist groups from orgtanising, distributing papers etc. They declaired that workers councils were no longer fit to make economic decisions, and instead gave overall control of the economy to foreign capitalist advisors.

Many workers formed millitas to defend the workplaces called "The Black Guards" (named after the anarchist, black flag) and consiquently the Bolsheviks formed a terror group (who later became the Cheka) who would attack unionists and workers who were defending their free-soviets - in one night 300 communist agitators were killed and imprisoned by the Bolsheviks. At this point, all of Ukraine had been liberated by the Anarchist-Communist army headed by Makhno (The Makhnovists) and the Red army eventually decided to declaire war and invade, despite the fact that Makhno had worked with Trotsky during the civil war. The Makhnovists were eventually defeated.

Another famous example, would be when when the sailors of Kronstadt (whom trotsky ahd described as "pride and glory of the Russian Revolution.") demanded that power be returned to the workers councils, Trotsky massacred them, loosing 10,000 men in the attack...

Personally I see the centralisation of power as inherantly antagonostic to the idea of workers power. And was infact the idea of the state that caused the failure of the Russian Revolution. And the inability of the Workers to fight this centralisation, though they managed it in Ukraine from 1917 to 1921.


As I said, I'm totally new to this, and to be honest with you, I don't see any benefits in a stateless nation. What if another country attacks? You totally lack organization over your nation, who is going control the resources?

Firstly communism cannot function in a single nation, the revolution ahs to spread or it fails. Secondly, during the Libcom Revolutions in Ukraine, Spain, and Korea, the Libertarian Communist federations and unions managed to organise fairly large millitary bodies. The Makhnovists (who had no state) managed to fight off the Austro Hungarian army, the White army, and the Red army for 4 years before it finally got kicked in. It had artillery divisions, a cultural department, cavalry, etc.

And the civillian society was organised with a federation of workers assemblies, which was well organised.

Anarchist Organised Trams during the anarchist revolution in Spain
http://libcom.org/files/imagecache/article/files/images/library/Collectivised-CNT-tram[1].jpg
Anarchist Solidiers In Catalonia, Spain
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/militia.jpg
Makhnovists in Ukraine
http://www.nestormakhno.info/images/08.jpg


Here are some sources.
Russian Revolution - The Workers Opposition (http://libcom.org/history/1919-1922-workers-opposition)
The Makhnovist Movement In Ukraine (http://libcom.org/history/1917-1921-the-ukrainian-makhnovist-movement)
The Kronstadt Rebellion (http://libcom.org/history/1921-the-kronstadt-rebellion)

[Fiskpure]

As you said yourself, communism cannot survive in one nation alone. According to Lenin, a strong communist ally in europe, Germany, would be required in order to meet the next stage of revolution and start the industrialization. But the communist uprising in Germany was defeated and they were forced to think of something else, something that would distance itself from the communist ideology.

Now, everyone might not have understood this and the state needed all of the power focused to their intentions, placing the whole nation under their control in order to gain maximum organization and control.


Firstly communism cannot function in a single nation, the revolution ahs to spread or it fails. Secondly, during the Libcom Revolutions in Ukraine, Spain, and Korea, the Libertarian Communist federations and unions managed to organise fairly large millitary bodies. The Makhnovists (who had no state) managed to fight off the Austro Hungarian army, the White army, and the Red army for 4 years before it finally got kicked in. It had artillery divisions, a cultural department, cavalry, etc.

And the civillian society was organised with a federation of workers assemblies, which was well organised.


I guess I'm just being too pessimist about this issue, I am having a hard time placing trust into people and giving them responsibility.


Thanks for your quick responses, looking forward to discuss more later on,
fiskpure.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 12:07 pm
According to Lenin, a strong communist ally in europe, Germany, would be required in order to meet the next stage of revolution and start the industrialization
By that point workers power had already been smashed in Russia.

Most people use the excuse of the civil war, but again, stateless communism had worked in Ukraine parallel to the Russian Revolution, and the destruction of workers power happened even before the civil war. Trotsky also proclaimed that had the war not happned this process of centralisation and destruction of soviet democracy should have been done much sooner.


I guess I'm just being too pessimist about this issue, I am having a hard time placing trust into people and giving them responsibility.

Why are you pessimisitic about the idea of Workers Federations working as opposed to a workers state, when the idea of centralised power leading to 'decenteralised power' has historically shown a 100% failrue rate over a period of nearly 80 years.

I have far more confidence in the ability of people to govern themselves, than for a small elite to govern everyone. Isn't that common sence?

[Fiskpure]

State capitalism was the early stage of the revolution, in my point of view if Lenin would have lived on another decade I'm pretty sure that he would have succeeded in destroying the state, changing the out-come of the history, entirely.

Going back, let's assume the G8 countries would be successfully couped, we will still face arguments that will escalate to larger things such as:

- Shall the international language be English or Russian?

- Refusal of withdrawing border lines and uniting into 1 global union (patriotism towards your country)

- The old and troublesome part of human being: Greed.

These are just a few facts I came up with fast, all these problems will be met in the future, without doubt.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 03:25 pm
State capitalism was the early stage of the revolution, in my point of view if Lenin would have lived on another decade I'm pretty sure that he would have succeeded in destroying the state, changing the out-come of the history, entirely.

What religious nonsense.

The early stages of the revolution, would be described as democratic workers control. The workers largely took over the means of production themselves, the bolsheviks pushed themselves to the forefront of this struggle, falsely adopting popular slogans like "all power to the soviets" and then crushed it all with a state.


Going back, let's assume the G8 countries would be successfully couped

You seem to have totally misunderstood communism. It's not about taking power (a coup is when a small group takes control of the state, and pushes the ruling cabinet or party out) it's about workers self-organisation and control of the means of production. Communism cannot be imposed from above, because it is by definition the pro-action of the bottom against the top.


- Shall the international language be English or Russian?

Why do we need an international Language when we have the joy of translators? And why was Russian an option? The worlds most widely spoken language is Mandarin while English and Spanish are the two most dominant languages.


- The old and troublesome part of human being: Greed.

Why is that a problem? I am greedy as fuck. I am not a communist for some silly altruistic reason, it's not a charity. I am a communist for me and myself.!

[blackstone]

State capitalism was the early stage of the revolution, in my point of view if Lenin would have lived on another decade I'm pretty sure that he would have succeeded in destroying the state, changing the out-come of the history, entirely.

The revolution is the process of abolition of the class system and the transition to a classless society. It involves workers' self management of production and direct democracy and participatory planning in the communities and workplaces as the basis of the new social and economic structure.

As William stated


The early stages of the revolution, would be described as democratic workers control

This holds true for the Russian Revolution and show the character of any future genuine proletariat revolution. Lenin is not the driving force of history, but class struggle is.


Going back, let's assume the G8 countries would be successfully couped

The revolution will derive from mass movements and mass organizations built by the working class in their communities and workplaces, not from coups in G8 countries. It's about worker's self-management of production, not party management.


Shall the international language be English or Russian?
As, William pointed out. We have translators, there is no need for an international language. Especially, Russian for reasons already stated. Relations between England and North Korea isn't due to language but because of difference in politics.



The old and troublesome part of human being: Greed.
Communal societies didn't seem to have a big problem with this, why should we?

[Rawthentic]

Why is that a problem? I am greedy as fuck. I am not a communist for some silly altruistic reason, it's not a charity. I am a communist for me and myself.!
William, is this viewpoint generally applicable to all anarchists?

Because its a wholly reactionary one.

[Fiskpure]

Going back, let's assume the G8 countries would be successfully couped



You seem to have totally misunderstood communism. It's not about taking power (a coup is when a small group takes control of the state, and pushes the ruling cabinet or party out) it's about workers self-organisation and control of the means of production. Communism cannot be imposed from above, because it is by definition the pro-action of the bottom against the top.

I never meant for this to come from above, I just typed it out in short to spare all the typing.


- Shall the international language be English or Russian?

These were just examples, none too serious calculations took place, just took the 2 first languages I could think of.


This holds true for the Russian Revolution and show the character of any future genuine proletariat revolution. Lenin is not the driving force of history, but class struggle is.
QUOTE


You're right, but Stalin seized power and murdered anyone that could follow Lenis footsteps and sealed the faith of Soviet Union.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:32 pm
I never meant for this to come from above, I just typed it out in short to spare all the typing.
A coup de etat is an entirely different political concept to a revoltuion.


You're right, but Stalin seized power and murdered anyone that could follow Lenis footsteps and sealed the faith of Soviet Union.

Under lenins rule (before stalin) many communists had already been killed and put in prison for oposing the bolshevik party, and the taking of power from the workers councils (giving them to the foreign capitalists, and ex tsarists) The "everything was great until stalin" argument is old, and simply doesn't hold up. The entire bolshevik programe was anti-working class trash.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 26, 2007 08:30 pm
William, is this viewpoint generally applicable to all anarchists?

No.


Because its a wholly reactionary one.

In what way? It's my motivation for revolution, not a reason to react against it.

I want what I earn, I want political power in common with everyone else, I do not want a political elite to have those things. That sounds pretty self-satisfying to me.

Im not a communist out the goodness in my heart. That position is wholly liberal,

[Rawthentic]

In what way? It's my motivation for revolution, not a reason to react against it.

I want what I earn, I want political power in common with everyone else, I do not want a political elite to have those things. That sounds pretty self-satisfying to me.

Im not a communist out the goodness in my heart. That position is wholly liberal,
Thats the sort of viewpoint that I was speaking to.

Communists are not "in it for themselves", they are in it for the emancipation of humanity from all forms of oppression and exploitation. In socialist society, production, and all spheres of society, need to be done with this in mind. Not some bullshit like, "oh, I'm in this revolution for myself. I didn't get what I wanted under capitalism so now I get some revenge." I, as a communist, am speaking of the abolition of all forms of oppression, and you are still stuck within the narrow confines of bourgeois right, something we want and need to move beyond. Imagine every proletarian and peasant under socialism who declare that they were in it for themselves! What incentive would their be to achieve a stateless, classless society when such a society means a collective effort to emancipate all humanity? You won't get to that society with capitalist mentality.


I do not want a political elite to have those things. That sounds pretty self-satisfying to me.
That sounds pretty liberal to me. Its what my Democrat government teacher is speaking about. "Political elites", with no class content or connection to reality of course. ;)

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 30, 2007 10:59 pm
Communists are not "in it for themselves", they are in it for the emancipation of humanity from all forms of oppression and exploitation.
Im not some spiritualist in it for the good of complete strangers. I said it once I'll say it again, communism isn't a charity. The only thing that concerns me is my material and psycological well-being, it's called evolutionary imperitive. Though I would add that in order to be materially and psycologically happy humans generally require the well-being of others.

Capitalism deprives me of what I earn for myself, and also denies me the right to have a say in decisions that effect my life. That is why I oppose it, there are other reasons to oppose it, (in that it fucks everyone else up worse) but my understanding of the world starts with me. Sorry if that upsets your inner hippy. I do however recognise that I cannot achieve autonomy and freedom without working with all those who are in the same position as me.

After the revolution it will be in my self-interest to work with everyone in common, as I need their expertise to survive, as they may need mine.

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought, in the case of boots I defer to the authority of the bootmaker" - bakunin

I'm not a communist because I want to live in a fucking care-bare society. I only care about other people because what happens to them effects me also. If I had no material conenction to them I wouldn't give a fuck, if I did I'd join Oxfam.


That sounds pretty liberal to me. Its what my Democrat government teacher is speaking about. "Political elites", with no class content or connection to reality of course. ;)

By "elite" I mean the capitalist class.

[4real]

Help me understand this.
"Capitalism deprives me of what I earn for myself, and also denies me the right to have a say in decisions that effect my life."

So, when you leftists demand that I, as a business owner, pay higher taxes, this will make your life better? So far, higher taxes have only caused me to be unable pay my employees as much as I'd like to, and made it impossible for me to hire as many employees as I need. And this is fair to you? This is your idea of equality and non oppression?
How, exactly does capitalism prevent you from earning more for yourself, especially when there is absolutely nothing preventing you from starting your own business?

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:23 pm
Help me understand this.
"Capitalism deprives me of what I earn for myself, and also denies me the right to have a say in decisions that effect my life."

So, when you leftists demand that I, as a business owner, pay higher taxes, this will make your life better? So far, higher taxes have only caused me to be unable pay my employees as much as I'd like to, and made it impossible for me to hire as many employees as I need. And this is fair to you? This is your idea of equality and non oppression?
How, exactly does capitalism prevent you from earning more for yourself, especially when there is absolutely nothing preventing you from starting your own business?
Sorry, but trickle down economics doesn't fly. What has been the result of the lowering of taxes on US corporations; in addition to corporate welfare? These companies continue to move their factories overseas, instead of paying their workers higher wages. Plus, the extent to which taxes can be raised hinges on the private sector being successful(read: profitable), and this in turn relies on the corporations' ability to get higher profits via the exploitation of labor, which they do via outsourcing.

[4real]

I gues it's all how how you define "exploitation of labor".
You mean working for a living as opposed to being given a free ride?
My business is not suitable for outsourcing overseas, but if it was feasible, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I have a hard time getting people here to give me an honest days work. But I've also hired people from other countries that work their asses off as hard as I did in building my business.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Small business owners suffer the consequence of capitalism, whether it be unrestrained capitalism or social democracy. In the former case cartels and monopolies emerge for the sole purpose of snubbing out any small competition that poses a great threat. In the latter they have to deal with the same regulatory policies that are meant to keep corporations at bay.

The best solution, under capitalism at least, would be drawing a distinction between corporations and partnerships/sole proprietorships. Have a renewable contract between small business owners and the community that establishes expectations on both sides. Then democratize all corporations. I actually feel sympathetic towards small business owners. They're royally screwed up the butt by some of the regulation going on.

However, when the population decides land and the economy should operate on a public basis, all private enterprise becomes null. The people have the right to decide what type of economy they want.

What type of business do you own? I don't see "lazy" employees as a bad thing, because most of the time (90%+) they're stuck in a market where the only available jobs are the ones they don't want to do for the rest of their lives. Not to mention in today's economy it's either going with a small business owner at the expense of benefits or going with a corporation and losing your soul.

Foreigners from industrializing nations are just happy to have a job because they're not as technologically advanced as us. It's not wrong to demand more, especially when you know you're being screwed.

We want all people to be their own business owners, enjoy the work they want to do. Not pick the "best option" out of a list of crap. A lot of the service industry doesn't draw too much interest from people. Building, teaching, discovering, designing, writing, developing -- those are things people are naturally drawn to. Being the bitc* to someone else? No.

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:23 pm
How, exactly does capitalism prevent you from earning more for yourself, especially when there is absolutely nothing preventing you from starting your own business?
Why are you even here? Why are you at this forum? You clearly have little understanding of capitalism, communist theory, or perhaps just economics. If your question can be taken seriosly, it sounds like you want to understand communist ideology. I'd suggest you start with Marx, Lenin, Mao, Trotsky, etc. They should be able to explain why you are totally wrong.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

How, exactly does capitalism prevent you from earning more for yourself, especially when there is absolutely nothing preventing you from starting your own business?

Money.

Oh sure, you can work to get a loan from a bank if you spent credit properly and were lucky enough to be born in a good, safe community, but the odds are still overwhelmingly stacked against you. When your business starts to crumble, that's when the banks say gotchya!

Also, not everyone aspires to be a business owner. The idea they should suffer because their wants are different is inherently flawed.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 02:47 pm
I gues it's all how how you define "exploitation of labor".
You mean working for a living as opposed to being given a free ride?
My business is not suitable for outsourcing overseas, but if it was feasible, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I have a hard time getting people here to give me an honest days work. But I've also hired people from other countries that work their asses off as hard as I did in building my business.
:!: CAPITALIST ALERT :!:

[4realagain]

So, it seems Comrade Crum has a problem with freedom of speech. Hmm. Isn't freedo of speech one of communism't most precious tenants? Besides, what's the point of having a discussion if there are no counterpoints?

And GeneCosta, why do you feel you have to get a loan to start a business? That would mean you'd have to pay interest, and the bank wins.
The only loan I ever got was for a car. I'll never do that again. By the time it was over, my twelve thousand dollar car depreciated to about half that, and I still owed the bank. Not a winning proposition.

So far, all I've seen from this site are takers. I haven't seen one giver yet. I see people who don't want to work, who expect the government to provide them with a life.
Quit thinking like that. Build something yourself, then for others.
I've made enough money to be able to help people from third world countries build something for themselves without any idealistic garbage from idealists, and it's working very well:
http://www.wings-of-hope.org/
Stop being idealists, and start being realists.

[Dimentio]

Would you be happy if someone started a business with the only purpose to fuel the revolutionary movement in question? ;)

[4realagain]

"Would you be happy if someone started a business with the only purpose to fuel the revolutionary movement in question?"

And then of course, once your revolution is over, so too would your business. Right back to square one. You'd have absolutely nothing.

Can you demonstrate how many successful business startups there have been in Cuba, under Fidel's "communist dicatatorship" lately?

I sponsered one of my Cuban employee's naturalization into the United States years ago. 1978 to be exact.
His father was a political prisoner, tortured and killed by Fidel's communist goons in the early seventies, simply for speaking out for democracy. My Cuban American refugee employee/friend would rather die than return to communist Cuba. He is one of my best workers btw, and owns 8% of my company, and gaining more. I fully expect him to be able to buy me out in a few years, and then I can retire. He started with nothing more than the ragged clothes on his back.

You want to talk about "exploitation and oppression of the worker"?
Ask my friend how he felt working the communist Cuban cane fields when he was an eight year old kid.

[Dimentio]

Since when did I say that I supported Cuba?

Of course, I would not personally start a business to benefit myself, since I am completely indifferent to whether or not I am even alive. It is impossible to make me interested in something "internal" in order to do something.

Therefore, I could of course theoretically discuss the idea of starting a cooperative firm with the sole purpose of for example buying land and acquiring resources to help the movement I am working with to start to establish something.

I am of course not a marxist-leninist, but a technocrat (http://en.technocracynet.eu), so emotional arguments about the fallacies of states who have been run or are run by communist parties do not apply on anything within my argumentation.

I am more interested to speak about the general future of this planet, of which our solution to labor is a part. By the very nature, the price system strives to reach economic growth for the sake of growth itself, thus leading to an eventual overstretch of exploitment of the resources.

[Faux Real]

And then of course, once your revolution is over, so too would your business. Right back to square one. You'd have absolutely nothing.
But you'd have socialism! :lol:

No more need for a business, its operations would be turned over to the community if it was a previously a productive business that could serve the interests of the community.

His father was a political prisoner, tortured and killed by Fidel's communist goons in the early seventies, simply for speaking out for democracy.
How do you define democracy? Simply voting for a differet political party? His parents wishing to keep their business running, or keeping the surplus of their employee's work?

Communism, not Fidel's communism, is the ultimate form of democracy. There will not be a state, a "dictator", or a party. Cuba was modeled heavily upon the Stalinist and Kruschev USSR. It has many faults, namely party bureaucracy.

Do you realize there's such a thing as inter-party democracy whereby the divisions set up by multi-party systems make working towards solutions infinitely more difficult than a one-party system?

My Cuban American refugee employee/friend would rather die than return to communist Cuba.
Whatever happens, I could care less.

He is one of my best workers btw, and owns 8% of my company, and gaining more. I fully expect him to be able to buy me out in a few years, and then I can retire. He started with nothing more than the ragged clothes on his back.
Yeah, because sham "democracy" is obviously all about the money.

Great job. I've heard of businesses like yours. The company collects donations in the form of auto parts, airplane parts, and airplanes themselves. What the fuck does that have to do with helping the poor and oppressed? How exactly are you helping "alleviate poverty", and on what scale? It must be minuscule compared to the profits derived from the donations you receive.

Charities do not solve poverty nor virtual poverty. They do not help solve the alienation of the worker from their labor, or the real value they were supposed to earn from working.

You want to talk about "exploitation and oppression of the worker"?
Ask my friend how he felt working the communist Cuban cane fields when he was an eight year old kid.
Cane fields are communists now?

You have no idea what exploitation and oppression mean in Marxist terminology. I suggest you go read a book.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:47 pm
I gues it's all how how you define "exploitation of labor".
You mean working for a living as opposed to being given a free ride?
My business is not suitable for outsourcing overseas, but if it was feasible, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I have a hard time getting people here to give me an honest days work. But I've also hired people from other countries that work their asses off as hard as I did in building my business.
Strange dichotomy you propose. Nobody is suggesting anyone get a free ride. Quite the opposite actually- everyone works.

Exploitation of labor is not just some kind of idealistic, moral term. The rate of exploitation is an economic concept and can actually be calculated in a given case.

[4realagain]

I have no interest in marxist terminology, other than they'd like to take my land and kill my family.
Where communism is fundamentally flawed is the fact that money still rules. No matter what form of government you choose to call it. It may start off as a nice warm fuzzy, but human nature will always produce your haves and have nots.
Just look at Chavez's "agrarian reform". Total failure. Now Chavez is filthy rich and his people are starving in poverty. Happens every single time. From Batista to Castro, to Stalin and Marx, they've all ended up with nothing but dead people. And let's not forget China's one party system. Yet another totalinarianism disguised as socialism. And of course, how can we ignore North Korea's single party totalinarianism. Forced labor camps, human traffiking; oh, I'm sorry, the farmers DO own their land, but everything they produce goes directly to Kim Jong Il, who sells it and uses the proceeds to buy weapons. They can't even grow food for their own families. Some have even sold their children to be eaten.
This is your idea of freedom?

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Originally posted by 4realagain+November 02, 2007 03:01 pm--> (4realagain @ November 02, 2007 03:01 pm)
Originally posted by 4realagain+--> (4realagain)I have no interest in marxist terminology, other than they'd like to take my land and kill my family.[/b]

According to whom? And why is it "your" land?


Originally posted by 4realagain

Where communism is fundamentally flawed is the fact that money still rules.

Huh? That would have been news to the entire world back in the feudal and pre-feudal eras. Money rules under capitalism- after the transition to communism, money goes out of existence.


Originally posted by 4realagain

No matter what form of government you choose to call it. It may start off as a nice warm fuzzy, but human nature will always produce your haves and have nots.

There is no such thing as "human nature". Humans today are different in virtually every way than they were 500 years ago, and they were then different than they are today.


Originally posted by 4realagain

Just look at Chavez's "agrarian reform". Total failure.

When did Chavez become a Communist?


Originally posted by 4realagain

Now Chavez is filthy rich and his people are starving in poverty. Happens every single time.

Says who exactly?


Originally posted by 4realagain

From Batista to Castro,

Batista wasn't a Communist, he was the US puppet whom Castro defeated, and Castro wasn't even a Marxist until he claimed that in 1961.


Originally posted by 4realagain
to Stalin and Marx,

Uh...what? Marx never held any political power.


Originally posted by 4realagain

they've all ended up with nothing but dead people.

And free healthcare, and growing populations, and industrialization, and literacy, and women's rights, and doubled-life expectancies(which have shrank since the restoration of capitalism), and so on.


Originally posted by 4realagain

And let's not forget China's one party system. Yet another totalinarianism disguised as socialism.

China was revisionist, and is a capitalist country. Your freedom-loving capitalist countries love China's system.


Originally posted by 4realagain

And of course, how can we ignore North Korea's single party totalinarianism.

North Korea is revisionist.


Originally posted by 4realagain

Forced labor camps, human traffiking;

That's some Chutzpah there, given that human trafficking has largely been a product of capitalism, and it has in fact literally exploded all over the world after the collapse of the East Bloc.


Originally posted by 4realagain

oh, I'm sorry, the farmers DO own their land, but everything they produce goes directly to Kim Jong Il, who sells it and uses the proceeds to buy weapons.

According to.....?


Originally posted by 4realagain

They can't even grow food for their own families. Some have even sold their children to be eaten.
This is your idea of freedom?

All aboard the ignorance train!!! CHOOO CHOOO! But seriously; had you read any books on North Korea, you would have found that after the severe flooding, peasants were some of the best prepared people BECAUSE THEY HAD PRIVATE PLOTS OF LAND on which they fed themselves.

[/b]

Originally posted by 4realagain
I have no interest in marxist terminology, other than they'd like to take my land and kill my family.

According to whom? And why is it "your" land?


Originally posted by 4realagain

Where communism is fundamentally flawed is the fact that money still rules.

Huh? That would have been news to the entire world back in the feudal and pre-feudal eras. Money rules under capitalism- after the transition to communism, money goes out of existence.


Originally posted by 4realagain

No matter what form of government you choose to call it. It may start off as a nice warm fuzzy, but human nature will always produce your haves and have nots.

There is no such thing as "human nature". Humans today are different in virtually every way than they were 500 years ago, and they were then different than they are today.


Originally posted by 4realagain

Just look at Chavez's "agrarian reform". Total failure.

When did Chavez become a Communist?


Originally posted by 4realagain

Now Chavez is filthy rich and his people are starving in poverty. Happens every single time.

Says who exactly?


Originally posted by 4realagain

From Batista to Castro,

Batista wasn't a Communist, he was the US puppet whom Castro defeated, and Castro wasn't even a Marxist until he claimed that in 1961.


Originally posted by 4realagain
to Stalin and Marx,

Uh...what? Marx never held any political power.


Originally posted by 4realagain

they've all ended up with nothing but dead people.

And free healthcare, and growing populations, and industrialization, and literacy, and women's rights, and doubled-life expectancies(which have shrank since the restoration of capitalism), and so on.


Originally posted by 4realagain

And let's not forget China's one party system. Yet another totalinarianism disguised as socialism.

China was revisionist, and is a capitalist country. Your freedom-loving capitalist countries love China's system.


Originally posted by 4realagain

And of course, how can we ignore North Korea's single party totalinarianism.

North Korea is revisionist.


Originally posted by 4realagain

Forced labor camps, human traffiking;

That's some Chutzpah there, given that human trafficking has largely been a product of capitalism, and it has in fact literally exploded all over the world after the collapse of the East Bloc.


[email protected]

oh, I'm sorry, the farmers DO own their land, but everything they produce goes directly to Kim Jong Il, who sells it and uses the proceeds to buy weapons.

According to.....?


4realagain

They can't even grow food for their own families. Some have even sold their children to be eaten.
This is your idea of freedom?

All aboard the ignorance train!!! CHOOO CHOOO! But seriously; had you read any books on North Korea, you would have found that after the severe flooding, peasants were some of the best prepared people BECAUSE THEY HAD PRIVATE PLOTS OF LAND on which they fed themselves.

[4realagain]

Are you stuck on an island somewhere? Do you not pay attention to current events?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...0/28/wkor28.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=FSTUPYLVXGI4ZQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/news/2001/10/28/wkor28.xml)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...6/08/wkor08.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=FSTUPYLVXGI4ZQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/news/2003/06/08/wkor08.xml)

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/22/050822crbo_books

There are dozens upon dozens of reliable sources telling ALL about the "socialist" life you seek.

Go ahead and join your "Worker's Party". ENJOY...

Good Lord. And I thought iliterate inbreds only came from Arkansas.

[4realagain]

More starving socialists: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/03/17/nkorea15516.htm

I'll keep my capitalist apple pie thank you.

[Dimentio]

Now you aren't really debating.

Just like 100% of the members here all supported Castro, Kim and the Soviet Union...