Why communism, socialism, etc.?

[AgustoSandino]

While I don't contribute quite as often as I once did, I do ocassionally follow discussion here. I've noticed, specially in this forum, that the communist/marxists/socialists/etc. constantly ask the capitalist to PROVE the value or benefits of their system.
The problem with this question is that the burden of proof does not fall on the capitalists but on you, the communists/marxists/socialists/etc. You see despite all your protests nearly the whole of the world has witness the failure of your ideologies.
Bearing this in mind, the capitalist here bear no intellectual burden. They don't have to prove the worth of their system, reality has done and is doing that. Rather you must prove the worth of your system and ideology.
As I see it many of you often resort to silly flutterings about equality and the disappearance of oppression, but neither propose A WAY TO GET THERE, or rehash old failed ideas.
Furthermore you should not only say that equality is good, you should explain why it is good? And you should show how something is oppressive rather than repeat tired old lines, for instance, corporations are evil and are destroying the environment, tell me how, dont just say it.
Finally you should realize that this is hardly a provocation. I do so enjoy reading the asinine replies most of the capitalist,etc, get here, and expect nothing else out of this question. But I think I propose this question as a favor to all of you. As I've pointed out before, the burden of prove sits heavily on your backs, not only in this forum but in the world at large.

[Son of Scargill]

Well,I'm probably the worst person to reply to this series of questions.I dropped out of school in Thatchers first term due to despondancy at the thought of the future under her insane control.For some reason I,and the British public thought this woman could make a difference(I was very young)......how wrong we were.Anyway,I never voted for the whore of Babylon,so onwards.
You say the burden of proof existswith the"left wing".Why?imperialism,colonialism,capitalism developed quite a while before the idea of communism came into being.Unfortunately,capitalism is very appealing,especially to those who benefit from it,and gain power over others from it.So,when this"absurd"idea of communism appeared,those that benifited from the previous ideal shat their keks.They went on the offensive,food embargo's,trade embargo's,technology embargo's........anything to stop these new ideas working.I mean..if they worked,Christ,I'm gonna have to work for a living........
Now there's nothing wrong in working,we all have to do it.But the division of work was always weighted towards the poorer sections of society.Is this fair,I think not.Everyone should work for the benifit of their fellow humanbeings,and in that,their children,and their childrens children.I would sell myself into slavery if it meant the advancement of society,but under capitalism,there will be no advancement,only the continued status qou.There will be some technolgical advancements,the same as there would be under communism.But it is all to no avail,under capitalism.Short term profit,that's the name of the game.Short term profit is generally bad for the people.Why do you think a lot of the Eastern Bloc are turning back to the former(in the free world,communism is illegal,not to mention EVIL)communist(sorry,Social Democratic)parties.Capitalism fails the majority,always has done,always will.In fact,it won't work without a majority in poverty.But you don't care do you Agusto,most don't who reap the benefits.....
The major problem to me is the indoctrination of capitalist values in the education of our children,which I myself went through in the late seventies/early eightiies.
The"I'm alright Jack"mentallity was forced upon us in the Thatcher years.Blair is worse,his vision is that we can all live in peace and harmony,as long as we do what the corporations want!F**k the 3rd,or even 2nd world.As long as you go along with my plan,you'll be alright.
As for proving that corporations are bad,well...........................Do you want to know about the aviation industry.............'cos it's shit........message me if you never want to fly again,it doesn't bother me,I;m used to it,I like living life on the edge.....But pollution(kerosene or noise)or safety issues(HA!we can't afford to stick to those)..........These are just minor issues that need MAJOR!!!!control.We're just lucky that there's some damn good pilots out there!
As for such minor issues,like global warming,,...well George dubya say's it aint an issue.If that's true,why do I need a Land Rover to get to work these days?I could take the long way round,but I never had to for many years before.Why do I have to wade through 3feet of water to get to work in the past 3 years,when I haven't had to do this for the previous 2 decades?
Maybe more questions than answers,I know Agusto,but I feel they are
relevant nonetheless....
P.s.If you consider this answer asinine,feel free to message me with the description of asinine,"cos at this point in time,I can't be bothered with checking out the dictionary......Shit,I'm just a working class bloke after all......Love,peace&understanding?

[TheDerminator]

Must admit, I think Son of Scargill has the right spirit in that there is a great deal of humanity in the arguments, but I also disagree, on one very fundamental point.
Unfortunately, I agree with Augusto Sandino (?No Fucking Way!) on this point. Unfortunately, because it is the only grain of truth in what is otherwise quite a vile piece, that Imperial Power? or Reagan Lives? could have written.
Where, this BORG is right is that the onus is upon the socialist movement to give a credible alternative to Planet Grime. We have a non-movement, at the moment, and no wonder these bastards are cynical.
Pointing one finger at them, points three fingers back at ourselves and our non-movement.
All they can do is harp on about the examples of primitive socialism, as proof that Planet Grime is as good as this beleagured planet can get.
They sneer at every notion of equality, hoping to sustain heinious inequality at every cost. It is a total fucking insult for this bastard to take the name of Sandino. He is spitting on the grave of Sandino. This writer is a fucking BORG!
"Cappie" is too fucking nice!

The Son of Scargill

May the Force be with [b]U[b]!

derminated

[Supermodel]

I'll take a crack at an asinine repoy for you: Sandino I have to agree with your points except I think Capitalism does have to answer for some of its flaws when compared to the concepts in socialism.

I find arguments found on this bb that america is responsible for all the grief in the world today and all the pollution today and that corporations are the scourge of the earth, very pointless. No system is perfect.

The american way is to absorb the best ideas that come along and morph them for a revised use.

For example, I find the country far more socialist than 30 years ago. When you look at the conditions that existed under Truman and Ike, there was clearly a fiundamental right-wing direction set for the nation. This was the reality that Che and Fidel had to face in their times. Times have changed. There are far more solcial policies and curtailments on corporations and far more social and global responsibility placed on americans than ever before.

Therefore I suggest that the death of socialism lies not in the failure of countries that tried to implement it wholeheartedly, but rather it dies when its pieces are implemented in a western way (in particular, without violent overthrow), reducing the contrasts between left and right thinking and mooting the arguments.

[Moskitto]

Sadino, can you help me. I'm looking for some info on Augusto Sadino (the Nicaraguan) do you know anywhere where I can get a biography?

Don't worry i've found one. I must remember to try alternate spellings.


(Edited by Moskitto at 8:58 pm on Feb. 27, 2002)

[poncho]

"In America there are too many
choices. You go to the supermarket and there are 80 different kinds of
cereal when you're just looking for oats. Or you make a call and you
end up talking to a machine when you're looking for a person. Your
health plan covers some drugs, but not others; in Cuba, it's all
free." --Harvard visiting professor of architecture and card-carrying
Cuban Communist Mario Coyula-Cowley.

[Jurhael]

"A question that will bring all you back to reality,hopefully"

Just live in despair. Not many here buy into your notion of "reality". Nor should they have to.

BTW, I agree with Son of Scargil AND the Derminator.

[peaccenicked]

We are here to discuss left wing ideas and promote an understanding of Che Guevara and what he stood for.
Why are the Capi's here. So far to tell us Che was responsible for the deaths of 550 Batista men, that Castro is a dictator, that Stalin and mao etc were mass murderers that communism is finished and that capitalism is fun dabie dosie. You have done that and have nothing else to say ie"Socialism=Stalinism" You merely repeat this to
the point of absurdity.
I have already answered these points, the only concession has been (and I am not sure how stable that will be) is that Socialism necessarily breeds Stalinism. (The ongoing nonsense)
In criticism of capitalism is deflected as left wing propaganda or not being attributible to capitalism. This
is done without consience or argument.
The capi's put profit before people, they do that in their arguments. They are trying to achieve the impossible,
to prove that actually putting profits before people is the only way to put people first.
Freedom to them is individual and is the pursuit of individual aims and ignoring the plight of others.
They say that the poor are to blame for poverty,
then they accuse socialists wanting everyone to be equally poor when Socialism's primary aim has always been to put an end to poverty.
Socialism is the superior system as it puts people first,
and recognises that democracy is indispensable to socialism. There is no need for the suppression of dissent, it is the act of a counter revolutionary or a fascist who has the capitalist ethos of excluding people from the decision making process. Socialism is superior because it want people to be involved with the decision making process at each and every level of the economy, culture, justice, education, and health, not in a four yearly pantomine in which we get two war mongering
millionaire parties getting less votes every time and disillusions millions of young voters with their corrupt
way. Scientific Socialism is superior because it is born out of the enlightenment and absorbs all of the great literature of mankind to bring forth the finest leaders
and writers of our epoch.
Long live Che Guevara.
Death to Imperialism!

[Lardlad95]

[quote]Quote:The capi's put profit before people, they do that in their arguments. They are trying to achieve the impossible,
to prove that actually putting profits before people is the only way to put people first.quote]


A very true statement, now if I could only get some capitalist i know to understand this

[Lardlad95]

oh by the way, I'm Aaron Rodriguez, a fourteen year old who has recently discovered the advantages to democratic socialism as oppose to capitalism.

Not that that is really the point of this thread but I assume that it isn't right to just pop into a disscussion with out introducing your self first(if you are a newcomer)

[peaccenicked]

Comrade, you have done nothing really wrong but
I suggest that you go to the Lounge and we will
give you a proper welcome there.
Welcome anyway.

[vox]

"They don't have to prove the worth of their system, reality has done and is doing that. "

Do capitalists have to answer for the failures of their system? It's a question you left unasked, like a Stalinist or a Leninist would do.

It is, however, a valid question, given the very real, and undisputable, facts of Western, and specifically, US, interference across the globe, which was, of course, meant to preserve capital supremecy.

Indeed, Agusto. Isn't it true that all "liberal" reforms to capitalism were actually RESPONSES to capitalism's failures? Would we have needed a "War On Poverty" in the USA without an economic practice that allowed, and in some cases, encouraged poverty?

Your Cold War examples are out of touch, baby.

You're dealing with a different Leftist now.

The facts, as they say, are the facts. And the fact is that Welfare was a response to the POVERTY CAUSED BY CAPITALISM.

Unless, of course, you wish to argue that poverty in the US was caused by Communists. Hee!

vox

[peaccenicked]

''Do capitalists have to answer for the failures of their system? It's a question you left unasked, like a Stalinist or a Leninist would do."
I am getting sick and tired of Vox's gobshite innuendo
and accusation, there is no idiotic question of yours I
cant answer. Vox continues to tell lies about Leninism and in doing so tries to defraud the proletariat of one of it most useful tools. It is an insult to the memory of Che.
From 'Man and Socialism in Cuba'
All of this means that for total success a series of mechanisms, of revolutionary institutions, is needed. Fitted into the pattern of the multitudes marching towards the future is the concept of aharmonious aggregate of channels, steps, restraints, and smoothly working mechanisms which would facilitate that advance by ensuring the efficient selection of those destined to march in the vanguard which, itself, bestows rewards on those who fulfill their duties, and punishments on those who attempt to obstruct the development of the new society.

This instintutionalization of the revolution has not yet been achieved. We are looking for something which will permit a perfect identification between the government and the community in its entirety, something appropriate to the special conditions of the building of socialism, while avoiding to the maximum degree a mere transplanting of the commonplaces of bourgeois democracy - like legislative chambers - into the society in formation"




(Edited by peaccenicked at 4:39 pm on Feb. 28, 2002)

[AgustoSandino]

Yup new leftists. You see vox, the problem is you define leftism by a laundry list of beliefs you hold.

[TheDerminator]

A laundry list?
You are the one with the dirty laundry. Freedom of speech, if you are fucking Rupert Murdoch!
Great equality in that Freedom.
Freedom to starve if you are in some parts of the world. Great fucking freedom of choice that one.
Freedom to have fifth rate medical care!
Freedom to have a fifth rate education!
Freedom to wear rags!
Freedom for child prostitution!
Freedom to be a heroin addict!
Freedom to execute criminals!
Freedom to own a gun!
Freedom to possess nuclear arms!
Freedom to live in poverty!
Freedom to be treated like a piece of shit!
Freedom to be a piece of shit. Well you have used that freedom particulary well..
Where are the solid foundations of your crummy mentality? Looks like a very soiled laundry list to me, and smells like shit to me. You are wrong and Vox is right. Can smell you ten thousand miles away.
BORG.
Resistance is Futile!

derminated

[vox]

"Yup new leftists. You see vox, the problem is you define leftism by a laundry list of beliefs you hold."

Is this the same Agusto? Is this really the best you can do?

I didn't give a laundry list of beliefs I hold. Indeed, Agusto, I challenged you on the very real historical facts of the capitalist epoch in Western society.

Don't worry, though, I'm used to you not answering posts. In fact, you've a long history of not answering posts that are too difficult for you. I believe I called you on this before, didn't I? I think I'm still waiting for your favored sock producer to have his say. Hee!

vox

[El Che]

lol whats the matter augostos? cant take the heat!?

[AgustoSandino]

I could never accumulate an actual list of beliefs you hold and use to discriminate who is a leftist and who is not. I can only ascertain that from your treatment of Peacenicked you don't consider his theories as relevant as yours, and from your treatement of supermodel, you don't consider her a "leftist" by your definition, despite her many "leftist" opinions.

Do capitalists have to answer for the failure of their system, yes certainly. The advantage is that capitalism is not ideological, it is pragmatic. There is nothing in capitalism that says that Welfare, for example, is incompatible. Capitalists answer for the failures of their system by coming up with solutions. Socialists, if the crowd at che lives can be seen as a representative cross section of socialists, don't answer for their mistakes, they simply deny that those who committed them were socialists, or put the blame on "capitalist counter revolution". I don't think there is anything incompatible with this lack of intellectual responsibility and socialism.
Just as in its economic prescriptions socialism attempts to relieve people of their responsibility for their own well being, from each according to his ability to each...yadayadayada. I am not surprised that intellectually, socialists would relieve their ideology of the responsibility it holds over the most heinous crimes of history.

Capitalism has its faults vox, namely that it isn't universally implemented yet, but socialism is itself a "fault".



Quote: from vox on 4:31 am on Mar. 3, 2002
"Yup new leftists. You see vox, the problem is you define leftism by a laundry list of beliefs you hold."

Is this the same Agusto? Is this really the best you can do?

I didn't give a laundry list of beliefs I hold. Indeed, Agusto, I challenged you on the very real historical facts of the capitalist epoch in Western society.

Don't worry, though, I'm used to you not answering posts. In fact, you've a long history of not answering posts that are too difficult for you. I believe I called you on this before, didn't I? I think I'm still waiting for your favored sock producer to have his say. Hee!

vox

[El Che]

"Capitalism has its faults vox, namely that it isn't universally implemented yet"

Is that so? indeed. I supose you think china isnt capitalist. Indeed. Despite your intelectual facade your no different from Imperial Power, or Reagan Lives for that matter. How disapointing. I thought those who actualy waste time replying to you people with finaly have something to play with. Nop guess not. Oh well, what did u expect from a "right winger"? "communism" is evil yes! ooh run here come the baby eating commies!!

Try using your brain before deteriorates from lack of use.

[peaccenicked]

capitalist ideology are those ideas which serve to maintain it.
1)it is human nature to be greedy
2)capitalism =freedom
3)competition is the only way to avoid economic stagnation
4)socialism leads to stalinism
5) at least under capitalism we have freedom of speech
6)socialism bans religion
7) under socialism the workers are all lazy
8)Under socialism there are big queues
9)socialism is okay in theory but it has never worked in practice.
10)socialism is ok in theory but it can never worker in practice.
11)under socialism everybody has to dress the same.
12) under socialism everybody is made to be the same.
13)Everybody cant be equal because people are different.
14)skilled workers cannot be paid the same as unskilled workers.
15)the poor deserve to be poor because they dont work
16)everybody can make it if they can work hard enough.
17)humans are too corruptible
It is basically a pile of lies that the media, the education system, and the church use to keep people tied to
the capitalist system.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:52 am on Mar. 4, 2002)

[Jurhael]

90% of it is bullshit.

Capitalism is ALREADY global. That sounds pretty universal to me.

[AgustoSandino]

Quote: from El Che on 6:01 pm on Mar. 3, 2002
"Capitalism has its faults vox, namely that it isn't universally implemented yet"

Is that so? indeed. I supose you think china isnt capitalist. Indeed. Despite your intelectual facade your no different from Imperial Power, or Reagan Lives for that matter. How disapointing. I thought those who actualy waste time replying to you people with finaly have something to play with. Nop guess not. Oh well, what did u expect from a "right winger"? "communism" is evil yes! ooh run here come the baby eating commies!!

Try using your brain before deteriorates from lack of use.


are chinese citizens afforded fair and efficient private property rights that are enforced by an efficient and impartial judiciary which upholds the legal sanctity of fair negotiated contracts. I dont think so, so they are not capitalists.
Furthermore I hardly think communism is evil, its just not beneficial. You should be a bit more introspective and realize that communism itself is based on a grand manichean vision, a generalization about good and evil in class relations, which doesn't exist.

[El Che]

What communism is based on is liberation. To think communism has every existed in any from betrays your misunderstanding of concept. It is a myth. China is capitalist and so is the rest of the world, capitalism is implemented in the hold world. With possible exception to tribal soceities that still exist in some parts of the globe. What you have to ask your self agustos, is not wheather totalitarianism is a price worth paying for liberation, but rather what can be done, to change the crimes and injustices that you will observe around you if you just open your eyes, without embracing totalitarianisms. After that task is done, your childern will ask them selves this, "very well, we have reformed capitalism in many ways, but some injustices remain, what then must we do?" The answer is a new mod of production, and with it, with the end of the apropriation of surplus value by the detainer of the means of production, with the end of wage slavery, with that end something will come that will be best described as communism. Perhaps this will be done without intention, and will come about naturaly, as a natural response to the problems that humanity faces, perhaps it will come rather from the efforts of those who fight for such a cause. Men we call socialists. But either way, I have faith such a day will come. And you know what? I even have faith that you will see the light and join the cause of humanity before its too late.