Communism inside capitalism?

[ironguy]

Communism inside capitalism?


Well, that is not necessarily true... but the idea is that, there is some “likeness” of communism inside capitalism. Now I know that communism, by definition is a form of an economic system in which capital is owned by private government. But the philosophy says a little more than that. An equal distribution of goods, services, and needs to the general population, ideally excluding no one. This is all ran by the government. Realy, I FEEL that I might be able to argue that communism can work. While America is surely not a communist nation, their government does include some aspects of communism, as do there capitalistic economic side. Here are the points I would like to argue.



Medicare, and Medicaid. To those who are unaware of the two programs offered by the American government. Medicare is a government funded program of hospital insurance for the elderly, while Medicaid is the same thing, but for the poor. Now, I will not argue the effectiveness of both (as they could both always be better) but the idea that the GOVERNMENT is PROVIDING a service to the PEOPLE, that need this, would this not be an example of communism working?This is a service, a resource the people need. Life insurance, is needed if you hope to live and get PROPPER treatment. It is provided by the government and it does work.

Unions! They are the real backbone of American labor. They argue against the bigger corporations in order to provide the people money, insurance, safe working environments, protection of rights, time off from work, equal treatment and many more things. Its like communism on a smaller scale. Where big corporations are forced to SHARE their resources with the workers. In this case, the resource that is being shared is money. The people simply banded together, and argued for it.

Taxation! You give your resources to the government, which redistributes it to the people in different ways. Now you could argue that modern day America's Income tax goes against this (as income tax needs not be redistributed equally among the people) but before the income tax, this worked just fine. It still does work, but i think the people would be better off if the income tax was redistributed back to the people.
4) Government funded programs in general. They may not controle a resource completely, but they do have enough of it to redistribute it to the people. Most commonly, the working class, as they are the ones who need it the most.


Now, NONE of this is true communism, but could it not prove that communism CAN work? Please voice to me your opinions and any corrections if you feel one needs to be made?

[FireFry]

Uhh.. you labelled all your bullets as "1", which is psychologically fascinating. Because you see the first 3 points as equal, but the last as exceptional.

Now, why is that?

[jake williams]

Uhh.. you labelled all your bullets as "1", which is psychologically fascinating. Because you see the first 3 points as equal, but the last as exceptional.

Now, why is that?
Inexperience with the vBulletin software and/or computers.

Or maybe he's just nutty.

[ironguy]

Inexperience with the vBulletin software and/or computers.


sadly, this is true... i am embarrassed to say. :blushing: I used OpenOffice writer to write my post. (spelling is important, it also helps me to make sure my points may sense)

Sadly when i pasted the thing into the thread, it came out like that. i tried fixing it but it didn't work out, so i figured, why bother. as long as the points are understood, then that is all that matters. sadly, i am worried that this may not be the case, sense we are discussing the representation of the points, and not the points them selves... should i be scared?;):confused:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Now, NONE of this is true communism, but could it not prove that communism CAN work? Please voice to me your opinions and any corrections if you feel one needs to be made?

Well many of these points show that national programs can work. The biggest barrier that I see in "showing people that communism can work" is ideas about "human nature". I think many people don't believe that working people would want or have the ability to carry out a revolution and create a new kind of society.

There is plenty of evidence to show that regular workers have become leaders and revolutionaries in great social upheavals. I think this shows that communism can work.

[Eastside Revolt]

I think that you can always gather in groups with communal ideas (democratic process etc.), but in order to get anything large done, and to affect the world outside the group setting, the monetary system will always end up being used.

[erupt]

Of course it shows that socialistic ideas are capable of working. Now if one was to say "See, look! Socialism isn't bad! It works!" The masses would consider that person to be a lunatic. The majority of the opressed have no idea they are opressed so they believe the propoganda of the elitists.

Not much can be done to get people to know what communism and socialism can accomplish if utilized correctly until the masses are educated on the large, theoretical concept. Most people hear "communism" and think "dictator." That's how it's taught in school. Most people hear "Nazism" and think "dictator." The masses must be educated to the fact that socialism would only democratize the government even more. Most ignorant people believe it's less democratic. I believe once the masses get over that mental block that has been drilled into their heads by massive capitalistic propoganda, then, just then, it will work.

[Lenin II]

I think, perhaps, it is a mistake to associate the welfare state with socialism. This wealth is “redistributed” by a bourgeoisie government, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, rather than a workers’ state, the dictatorship of the proletariat. Through the flaming hoops of bourgeoisie democracy reformism only has the working class made himself known politically, manifested in a growing interest in center-left pretensions and the weakening of its revolutionary sentiments. These programs are a form of charity by the Democrat aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, classes which are inherently anti-working class.
While charity is by no means a bad thing, I think Marx made clear in his text, "The Attitude of the Bourgeoisie Towards the Proletariat (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch13.htm)" the defects of charity in certain contexts: "The English bourgeoisie is charitable out of self-interest; it gives nothing outright, but regards its gifts as a business matter, makes a bargain with the poor, saying: 'If I spend this much upon benevolent institutions, I thereby purchase the right not to be troubled any further, and you are bound thereby to stay in your dusky holes and not to irritate my tender nerves by exposing your misery. You shall despair as before, but you shall despair unseen, this I require, this I purchase with my subscription of twenty pounds for the infirmary!'"
In other words, the Democrats, bourgeoisie socialists, want all the advantages of modern conditions without the struggles and dangers that necessarily result thereof. They desire the existing state of affairs without revolutionary elements. They want a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. We oppose reformists because they seek to depreciate every revolutionary element in the eyes of the working class. They dismiss our ideas as too radical and forever apologize for the crimes of the ruling class. They are appeasers, not the liberators they claim to be. That said, these programs are a prime example of redistribution and the benefits to the economy. But only a change by revolution of the conditions of existence, not a political reform, will help the working class.

[Eastside Revolt]

I think, perhaps, it is a mistake to associate the welfare state with socialism. This wealth is “redistributed” by a bourgeoisie government, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, rather than a workers’ state, the dictatorship of the proletariat. Through the flaming hoops of bourgeoisie democracy reformism only has the working class made himself known politically, manifested in a growing interest in center-left pretensions and the weakening of its revolutionary sentiments. These programs are a form of charity by the Democrat aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, classes which are inherently anti-working class.
While charity is by no means a bad thing, I think Marx made clear in his text, "The Attitude of the Bourgeoisie Towards the Proletariat (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch13.htm)" the defects of charity in certain contexts: "The English bourgeoisie is charitable out of self-interest; it gives nothing outright, but regards its gifts as a business matter, makes a bargain with the poor, saying: 'If I spend this much upon benevolent institutions, I thereby purchase the right not to be troubled any further, and you are bound thereby to stay in your dusky holes and not to irritate my tender nerves by exposing your misery. You shall despair as before, but you shall despair unseen, this I require, this I purchase with my subscription of twenty pounds for the infirmary!'"
In other words, the Democrats, bourgeoisie socialists, want all the advantages of modern conditions without the struggles and dangers that necessarily result thereof. They desire the existing state of affairs without revolutionary elements. They want a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. We oppose reformists because they seek to depreciate every revolutionary element in the eyes of the working class. They dismiss our ideas as too radical and forever apologize for the crimes of the ruling class. They are appeasers, not the liberators they claim to be. That said, these programs are a prime example of redistribution and the benefits to the economy. But only a change by revolution of the conditions of existence, not a political reform, will help the working class.


I think the welfare state is but a playing feild on which to demand, and at the same time advocate radical politics. Communal living, and communist decision making should not ever be confused with the welare state.

[Tatarin]

Now I know that communism, by definition is a form of an economic system in which capital is owned by private government.

I'm not sure what you mean by private government, but it sounds more like socialism than communism. In socialism there is a state that is controlled and run by the great majority of the people, and largely functions as a transitional stage to communism. In communism, there is no one state, but instead communities with (I guess) their own councils.


An equal distribution of goods, services, and needs to the general population, ideally excluding no one. This is all ran by the government.

The authority that is given to the state is a sort of oversight of where goods are needed. Military is another thing, which will probably be a in form of militias, while law would be decided on the local level.


While America is surely not a communist nation, their government does include some aspects of communism, as do there capitalistic economic side.

I guess you could argue that there are social benefits for people in the US, but those are pretty small. In that case, the US also has some nazism in it - the worship of the great president who only cares for his country, the colonization of other countries, the thought of some "more sucessful" people who made good business choices, and so on. Well, more fascist like I would say.

Another point is that the capitalist state must sedate it's people in one form or another. They can't just turn their backs on the people and expect them to accept their situation without taking action.


Now, I will not argue the effectiveness of both (as they could both always be better) but the idea that the GOVERNMENT is PROVIDING a service to the PEOPLE, that need this, would this not be an example of communism working?

But hasn't every government done this? The nazis did take care of "their" people too, that doesn't mean they were communists.


This is a service, a resource the people need. Life insurance, is needed if you hope to live and get PROPPER treatment. It is provided by the government and it does work.

The idea in itself may not be bad, but the practice is, because of the propaganda. People pay taxes to the government who in turn give that money to those who can not afford. That is the problem. Because it reads like you are giving your money to someone you may never even meet in person, and who could be a murdurer, or drug abuser, etc.

But since money does not exist in communism, services are exchanged instead. I give you food, and you give me entertainment, etc. So, the case must be made that society is to be changed to work by people for themselves, not for a government.


Now, NONE of this is true communism, but could it not prove that communism CAN work?

I would say that it is an underlining of how socialism can work.