Communism = theft!!!

[Forever capitalism]

many of you have argued that capitalism = theft, however in a communist society where everybody is rewarded equally regardless of what they achieve or do, the hardest working labourer will receive the same as the laziest. That gives the worker no incentive to strive and to work hard as the all powerful state will not reward their efforts on a different level as those who achieve less or nothing.
Regardless of the work you do in a communist society, you don't get rewarded out of merit but on an equal and unjust level as everybody else. That is why there is extremely high absenteesm in Cuba and Cuban workers only produce approximately 1/4 of what they should be. Communism steals from the hardest working and gives on an equal basis the same rewards to everybody, deserving or not.

[Michael De Panama]

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! I think I've lost count of how many times these arguments have been used. Couldn't you come up with something original and challenging? Something to make us think, rather than repeat the same answers we've given thousands of times before? It's exhausting. Come on, capitalist, give us something fresh for a change.

[Forever capitalism]

well what is your reply to this? it has been proven. Hence the failure of communist economics. You are brave enough to claim that capitalism steals for the worker when communism itself is the real thief as i have proven. Without an incentive there is no need to work, treat with care possessions that aren't yours or strive to do the best you can. That is communism, motiveless. The only people that get rewarded is the dictator and his henchmen.

[Capitalist]

I'd like to see these Che Guevara supporters explain to us how Che Guevara "Revolutionized" Cuba's Economy as appointed President of the Cuban National Bank.

He basically ran the Cuban Economy into a dead end.

NOW, Years later - Fidel Castro wants the USA embargo to end, when he and Che Guevara encouraged the embargo in the first place.

Cuba has open trade with every country in the world - however the USA Embargo is the sole reason to blame for Cuba's Economic problems. Even though they have open trade with Mexico, Canada, Europe, Latin America, China, ect.

The money goes to government, big military, and Fidel Castro - NOT THE CUBAN PEOPLE.

Communist are totally ignorant on the issues of economics.

Capitalist System
- Drive up to drive-thru window and purchase enough food to feed a family within minutes on a hour's worth of wages.

Communist System
- Wait in a 2 hour line and purchase a bottle of milk which costs about a day's worth of work.

Capitalist System
Insurance covers the cost of dental surgery

Communist System
Sorry - we have no medical supplies to help you. However if you are a government official or a tourist from overseas with big American Dollars - we can definitely give you 1st class surgery.

Capitalist System
We can give you vouchers so that YOU the parent can choose where to send your child for their education

Communist System
Government will pay the poor needy schools money and you must send your child there if you can not afford education services at a private school.

Or More Severe Communist System
Goverment will take your child away and send them to eductaion camp (we call it brainwash camp) for 9 weeks at a time.

[STALINSOLDIERS]

oh ALLAH help me here im sick of these dam capitalist.....first of all for you sick bastards the leches/vultures of todays society....in real communism people dont work hard and if they have a harder work they work less then the ones that dont work hard.......and for capitalism bastards fast food+grese=sickness cancer FATNESS.....you capitalist are the thieves for everything you got to pay even dentest..and in real communism we have dentest with everything...and for food oh we dont wait in line and we do give food cheap we go to market ....unlike you capitalist which cut down many tress to plant your corperation with so many different super markets..you capitalist waste everything and slowley kill humans and the world...you capitalist also steal for animals like land and the indians.

[FtWfTn]

And for the million upon million times again I agree with StalinSoldiers again and again and again

[pastradamus]

You are questioning the very basis of communism.
But the hardest worker recieves more than the laziest on most occasions.for example a system was in place in soviet russia. it happened that an exceptionaly hard worker would be reported to the local council who would then put the good word foward to the govt & that hard worker would be rewarded with e.g a holiday,maybe something like a car,or other valuables.

the reason cash was not given was because this would upset the equality system.

[Moskitto]

Capitalist System
- Drive up to drive-thru window and purchase enough food to feed a family within minutes on a hour's worth of wages.

No that's America.

In annother capitalist county like Siera Leon it's more like.

Hungry--->See Aid worker--->Give 7 year old daugter to him--->Girl gets raped--->You get food.

Think universally.

[Rosa]

your bloody instrumental mind has a problem with defining the economy, so I will help you: "economy is providing necessary things to the members of society".
Where the hell you see "making more &more profit" or worse: "making artificial needs to a members of society, to make more &more profit"?
You bastards think only in benefit of 1 part of society, and rationalise that evil attitudes.
Evil you are.

[komsomol]

Quote: from Forever capitalism on 4:33 am on Mar. 19, 2002
many of you have argued that capitalism = theft, however in a communist society where everybody is rewarded equally regardless of what they achieve or do, the hardest working labourer will receive the same as the laziest. That gives the worker no incentive to strive and to work hard as the all powerful state will not reward their efforts on a different level as those who achieve less or nothing.
Regardless of the work you do in a communist society, you don't get rewarded out of merit but on an equal and unjust level as everybody else. That is why there is extremely high absenteesm in Cuba and Cuban workers only produce approximately 1/4 of what they should be. Communism steals from the hardest working and gives on an equal basis the same rewards to everybody, deserving or not.


You have a point there, but what about the people who are born into money? They dont have to work a day.

[Moskitto]

Capitalist System
We can give you vouchers so that YOU the parent can choose where to send your child for their education

That isn't capitalism, that's a mixed economy. In Capitalism parents have to pay out of their own pocket for education. No vouchers.

[Forever capitalism]

Quote: from pastradamus on 5:02 pm on Mar. 19, 2002
You are questioning the very basis of communism.
But the hardest worker recieves more than the laziest on most occasions.for example a system was in place in soviet russia. it happened that an exceptionaly hard worker would be reported to the local council who would then put the good word foward to the govt & that hard worker would be rewarded with e.g a holiday,maybe something like a car,or other valuables.

the reason cash was not given was because this would upset the equality system.

So you offer "communists" with a revolutionairy culture and attitude material incentives. Wouldn't moral incentives do the job. That is encouraging inequality as everybody won't have access to free holidays. Unless you are suggesting that if everybody in the USSR worked equally hard they would all get rewarded??

[Forever capitalism]

Quote: from Moskitto on 8:21 pm on Mar. 19, 2002

Capitalist System
- Drive up to drive-thru window and purchase enough food to feed a family within minutes on a hour's worth of wages.

Siera Leon is not a capitalist nation. It is not industrialed or has a strong working class. It is part of the Third World. By definition that means netiher capitalits or communists. Stop using the name of the Third World to try and find faults in capitalism.

No that's America.

In annother capitalist county like Siera Leon it's more like.

Hungry--->See Aid worker--->Give 7 year old daugter to him--->Girl gets raped--->You get food.

Think universally.

[deadpool 52]

Vouchers are just theory.

[Forever capitalism]

Excuse the bad use of the quote button that allows you to rebuttal other people's posts.

[peaccenicked]

communism=lets make everyone rich.

[Moskitto]

No, Capitalism is not a society where everyone is rich, that's called a stong economy. Capitalism is a society based on buying and selling. Therefore the third world is capitalism.

[PunkRawker677]

<<<<<Capitalist System
Insurance covers the cost of dental surgery >>>>

sure.. if you can afford insurance..
and if u cant? ur jaw falls the fuck out of your face while the dentist chuckles and tells you 'theres nothing we can do, you need insurance'..

definitly fair...

whats better? great care for some, or decent care for all?

[Moskitto]

Insurence is bloody expensive in America (Trust me, my dad works in the insurence industry and he keeps getting queries from Americans.) In America they don't have to compete with a free service like they do in Europe.

Another thing he gets is phone calls which are like.

"Hello, PHC how may I help"
"I'm sorry we can't cover you for pre-existing conditions"

Some people don't sound very clever.

(Edited by Moskitto at 9:37 pm on Mar. 20, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

communism=theft
communism=everybody equally poor.
FC
Do you see communism like robin hood
No, we dont want more share of the cake
we want the whole bakery

[Forever capitalism]

Quote: from Moskitto on 6:32 pm on Mar. 20, 2002
No, Capitalism is not a society where everyone is rich, that's called a stong economy. Capitalism is a society based on buying and selling. Therefore the third world is capitalism.


Moskitto the third world BY DEFINITION means neither communist or socialist! Don't use it to try and find faults in capitalism that don't exist. Buying and selling equal capitalism according to you? Then Cuba is capitalist as well as Castro has let some capitalist measures into the island such as the ability to own a restaurant that setas on 12 people to revive a dying economy. Is that what you are suggesting?

[Michael De Panama]

Though my comrades have made some fine points, I don't think they've really tapped into your perspective on the whole issue.

The most common argument that the capitalist brings is that "people are lazy" and "nobody would work if they did not have social mobility" and "it's just human nature for people to be greedy".
To respound to these arguments would need me to clarrify something with you:
Communism is a system run by the proletariat.
You are looking at the system through bourgeois eyes. The bourgeoisie is greedy. It is bourgeois nature to be greedy. When some mother in Burma is stitching up YOUR clothing for pennys a day, do you think she has the OPTION of just being lazy? Do you think she has the OPTION of personal social mobility? Hell no. The working class is what this entire fucking world is dependant on, and yet it the bourgeoisie, a greedy class that contributes nothing but intimidation, that controls the working class. It is false authority. The workers do not in any way need the bourgeoisie.

If there was a system of social and economic equality within the bourgeoisie, you would just have a group of greedy, self-concerned opportunists manipulating it to suit their needs in the best way possible, which would in turn develope social class and then inevitibly turn to capitalism. In that case, communism doesn't work. But that is not what communism is.

As for Castro, quite personally I think he's another fucking idiot. I don't really consider anybody a "communist hero" unless their communism has succeeded. Cuba, Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam...all these countries were preindustrialized during the time of their revolutions. That is like a communist miscaraige. And I will not celebrate a nonexistant baby.
Besides, communism and socialism are intended to be completely global, not national.

[Forever capitalism]

Michael i don't view human nature as greedy or selfish. I think that is a pessimitic misconception. However the fact that in a communist system everybody apparently gets rewarded equally despite their contribution is theft from the hardest working and equal reward from the least. Not only is it theft in that sense but the fact that man is not allowed to own anything, meaning his house, farm, factory and automobile are all possessions of the state that has absolute control, even to a point where it rations food and tells you how much of a particular item you can buy.
Capitalism you work you get rewarded based on how you perform. You don't see a doctor who sees hundreds of patients a day getting paid the same as window cleaner. That would be absurd. Capitalism is the most rewarding system.

[peaccenicked]

Karl Marx
Critique of the Gotha Programme


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1. "Labor is the source of wealth and all culture, and since useful labor is possible only in society and through society, the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society."



First part of the paragraph: "Labor is the source of all wealth and all culture."

Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. the above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.

Let us now leave the sentence as it stands, or rather limps. What could one have expected in conclusion? Obviously this:

"Since labor is the source of all wealth, no one in society can appropriate wealth except as the product of labor. Therefore, if he himself does not work, he lives by the labor of others and also acquires his culture at the expense of the labor of others."

Instead of this, by means of the verbal river "and since", a proposition is added in order to draw a conclusion from this and not from the first one.



Second part of the paragraph: "Useful labor is possible only in society and through society."

According to the first proposition, labor was the source of all wealth and all culture; therefore no society is possible without labor. Now we learn, conversely, that no "useful" labor is possible without society.

One could just as well have said that only in society can useless and even socially harmful labor become a branch of gainful occupation, that only in society can one live by being idle, etc., etc. -- in short, once could just as well have copied the whole of Rousseau.

And what is "useful" labor? Surely only labor which produces the intended useful result. A savage -- and man was a savage after he had ceased to be an ape -- who kills an animal with a stone, who collects fruit, etc., performs "useful" labor.



Thirdly, the conclusion: "Useful labor is possible only in society and through society, the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society."

A fine conclusion! If useful labor is possible only in society and through society, the proceeds of labor belong to society -- and only so much therefrom accrues to the individual worker as is not required to maintain the "condition" of labor, society.

In fact, this proposition has at all times been made use of by the champions of the state of society prevailing at any given time. First comes the claims of the government and everything that sticks to it, since it is the social organ for the maintenance of the social order; then comes the claims of the various kinds of private property, for the various kinds of private property are the foundations of society, etc. One sees that such hollow phrases are the foundations of society, etc. One sees that such hollow phrases can be twisted and turned as desired.

The first and second parts of the paragraph have some intelligible connection only in the following wording:

"Labor becomes the source of wealth and culture only as social labor", or, what is the same thing, "in and through society".

This proposition is incontestably correct, for although isolated labor (its material conditions presupposed) can create use value, it can create neither wealth nor culture.

But equally incontestable is this other proposition:

"In proportion as labor develops socially, and becomes thereby a source of wealth and culture, poverty and destitution develop among the workers, and wealth and culture among the nonworkers."

This is the law of all history hitherto. What, therefore, had to be done here, instead of setting down general phrases about "labor" and "society", was to prove concretely how in present capitalist society the material, etc., conditions have at last been created which enable and compel the workers to lift this social curse.

In fact, however, the whole paragraph, bungled in style and content, is only there in order to inscribe the Lassallean catchword of the "undiminished proceeds of labor" as a slogan at the top of the party banner. I shall return later to the "proceeds of labor", "equal right", etc., since the same thing recurs in a somewhat different form further on.



2. "In present-day society, the instruments of labor are the monopoly of the capitalist class; the resulting dependence of the working class is the cause of misery and servitude in all forms."

This sentence, borrowed from the Rules of the International, is incorrect in this "improved" edition.

In present-day society, the instruments of labor are the monopoly of the landowners (the monopoly of property in land is even the basis of the monopoly of capital) and the capitalists. In the passage in question, the Rules of the International do not mention either one or the other class of monopolists. They speak of the "monopolizer of the means of labor, that is, the sources of life." The addition, "sources of life", makes it sufficiently clear that land is included in the instruments of labor.

The correction was introduced because Lassalle, for reasons now generally known, attacked only the capitalist class and not the landowners. In England, the capitalist class is usually not even the owner of the land on which his factory stands.



3. "The emancipation of labor demands the promotion of the instruments of labor to the common property of society and the co-operative regulation of the total labor, with a fair distribution of the proceeds of labor.

"Promotion of the instruments of labor to the common property" ought obviously to read their "conversion into the common property"; but this is only passing.

What are the "proceeds of labor"? The product of labor, or its value? And in the latter case, is it the total value of the product, or only that part of the value which labor has newly added to the value of the means of production consumed?

"Proceeds of labor" is a loose notion which Lassalle has put in the place of definite economic conceptions.

What is "a fair distribution"?

Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?

To understand what is implied in this connection by the phrase "fair distribution", we must take the first paragraph and this one together. The latter presupposes a society wherein the instruments of labor are common property and the total labor is co-operatively regulated, and from the first paragraph we learn that "the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society."

"To all members of society"? To those who do not work as well? What remains then of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor? Only to those members of society who work? What remains then of the "equal right" of all members of society?

But "all members of society" and "equal right" are obviously mere phrases. The kernel consists in this, that in this communist society every worker must receive the "undiminished" Lassallean "proceeds of labor".

Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion -- namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.

The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.

Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.

Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

I have dealt more at length with the "undiminished" proceeds of labor, on the one hand, and with "equal right" and "fair distribution", on the other, in order to show what a crime it is to attempt, on the one hand, to force on our Party again, as dogmas, ideas which in a certain period had some meaning but have now become obsolete verbal rubbish, while again perverting, on the other, the realistic outlook, which it cost so much effort to instill into the Party but which has now taken root in it, by means of ideological nonsense about right and other trash so common among the democrats and French socialists.

Quite apart from the analysis so far given, it was in general a mistake to make a fuss about so-called distribution and put the principal stress on it.

Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?



4. "The emancipation of labor must be the work of the working class, relative to which all other classes are only one reactionary mass."

The first strophe is taken from the introductory words of the Rules of the International, but "improved". There it is said: "The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves"; here, on the contrary, the "working class" has to emancipate -- what? "Labor." Let him understand who can.

In compensation, the antistrophe, on the other hand, is a Lassallean quotation of the first water: "relative to which" (the working class) "all other classes are only one reactionary mass."

In the Communist Manifesto it is said:


"Of all the classes that stand face-to-face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of modern industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product."

The bourgeoisie is here conceived as a revolutionary class -- as the bearer of large-scale industry -- relative to the feudal lords and the lower middle class, who desire to maintain all social positions that are the creation of obsolete modes of production. thus, they do not form together with the bourgeoisie "only one reactionary mass".

On the other hand, the proletariat is revolutionary relative to the bourgeoisie because, having itself grown up on the basis of large-scale industry, it strives to strip off from production the capitalist character that the bourgeoisie seeks to perpetuate. But the Manifesto adds that the "lower middle class" is becoming revolutionary "in view of [its] impending transfer to the proletariat".

From this point of view, therefore, it is again nonsense to say that it, together with the bourgeoisie, and with the feudal lords into the bargain, "form only one reactionary mass" relative to the working class.

Has one proclaimed to the artisan, small manufacturers, etc., and peasants during the last elections: Relative to us, you, together with the bourgeoisie and feudal lords, form one reactionary mass?

Lassalle knew the Communist Manifesto by heart, as his faithful followers know the gospels written by him. If, therefore, he has falsified it so grossly, this has occurred only to put a good color on his alliance with absolutist and feudal opponents against the bourgeoisie.

In the above paragraph, moreover, his oracular saying is dragged in by main force without any connection with the botched quotation from the Rules of the International. Thus, it is simply an impertinence, and indeed not at all displeasing to Herr Bismarck, one of those cheap pieces of insolence in which the Marat of Berlin deals. [ Marat of Berlin a reference to Hasselmann, cheif editor of the Neuer Social-Demokrat]



5. "The working class strives for its emancipation first of all within the framework of the present-day national states, conscious that the necessary result of its efforts, which are common to the workers of all civilized countries, will be the international brotherhood of peoples."

Lassalle, in opposition to the Communist Manifesto and to all earlier socialism, conceived the workers' movement from the narrowest national standpoint. He is being followed in this -- and that after the work of the International!

It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle -- insofar as its class struggle is national, not in substance, but, as the Communist Manifesto says, "in form". But the "framework of the present-day national state", for instance, the German Empire, is itself, in its turn, economically "within the framework" of the world market, politically "within the framework" of the system of states. Every businessman knows that German trade is at the same time foreign trade, and the greatness of Herr Bismarck consists, to be sure, precisely in his pursuing a kind of international policy.

And to what does the German Workers' party reduce its internationalism? To the consciousness that the result of its efforts will be "the international brotherhood of peoples" -- a phrase borrowed from the bourgeois League of Peace and Freedom, which is intended to pass as equivalent to the international brotherhood of working classes in the joint struggle against the ruling classes and their governments. Not a word, therefore, about the international functions of the German working class! And it is thus that it is to challenge its own bourgeoisie -- which is already linked up in brotherhood against it with the bourgeois of all other countries -- and Herr Bismarck's international policy of conspiracy.

In fact, the internationalism of the program stands even infinitely below that of the Free Trade party. The latter also asserts that the result of its efforts will be "the international brotherhood of peoples". But it also does something to make trade international and by no means contents itself with the consciousness that all people are carrying on trade at home.

The international activity of the working classes does not in any way depend on the existence of the International Working Men's Association. This was only the first attempt to create a central organ for the activity; an attempt which was a lasting success on account of the impulse which it gave but which was no longer realizable in its historical form after the fall of the Paris Commune.

Bismarck's Norddeutsche was absolutely right when it announced, to the satisfaction of its master, that the German Workers' party had sworn off internationalism in the new program.

[Forever capitalism]

peacenicked you need to learn how to summarise.

[peaccenicked]

Well thats too much hard work right now but I hope that
those who really want to know what marx's position really is instead of your inane version of it, might appreciate, how different it is, in its entirety.

[Guest]

Capatilism is the manifestation of the biggest single destructive factor in human nature, greed. Without greed we would all be happy. I agree that comunism is an almost-impossible ideal, but with a little effort of a lot of people happiness (what I consider to be the true ideal) could occur.

[Forever capitalism]

Fact remains it was attempted and failed. The greed of the dictators to remain and unrelenquish power manifested itself in communism moreso in capitalism where people strive to produce products that meet the needs of society. In communism the peasants toil in the fields to meet the ends of the dictator whilst they subsist on rations of food.

[guerrillaradio]

The truth is that neither true capitalism or true communism have ever been achieved, so this is merely conjecture. Still, I would like to contest Forever Capitalism's idea that capitalism rewards depending on how hard you work. You used the example of a doctor. In the UK, that is certainly not the case. In fact, most of the doctors and nurses here are hideously underpaid and overworked. The same with teachers. And the country wonders why there is a shortage of all three at the moment??

Communism = theft
Capitalism = theft

Get over it, they're as bad as each other...

[pastradamus]

Communism was attempeted,it proved to be an economic success!
in russia they were producing 4times the amount of coal,steel,lumber,oil & capital goods.
why do you think the czars system of running a poverty stricken govt was better?

[poncho]

"In communism the peasants toil in the fields to meet the ends of the dictator whilst they subsist on rations of food."--Forever Capitalism

Yes Cuba does have food rations for sharing the fruits of the labor of the community. But you are not limited to only receiving those "supplements", you can purchase more with your salary. Extra non-rashioned purchases are also at a reduced substadized rate to make it so that the people get full value for the hard earned dollars they spend. The Cuban government is not living off of slave labor, it is truelly a peoples power "A government for the people by the people"....

[Michael De Panama]

Quote: from Forever capitalism on 10:02 am on Mar. 21, 2002
Michael i don't view human nature as greedy or selfish. I think that is a pessimitic misconception. However the fact that in a communist system everybody apparently gets rewarded equally despite their contribution is theft from the hardest working and equal reward from the least. Not only is it theft in that sense but the fact that man is not allowed to own anything, meaning his house, farm, factory and automobile are all possessions of the state that has absolute control, even to a point where it rations food and tells you how much of a particular item you can buy.
Capitalism you work you get rewarded based on how you perform. You don't see a doctor who sees hundreds of patients a day getting paid the same as window cleaner. That would be absurd. Capitalism is the most rewarding system.


Again, I will agree that capitalism is the most rewarding system...but only to the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is the minority. Just like a dictatorship is the most rewarding system only to the dictator.

And I also agree that communism is theft. However, the only thing the communists steal are what has been taken from us.

Karl Marx wrote,
"We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the ground work of all personal freedom, activity and independence.
Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
Or do you mean modern bourgeois private property?
But does wage labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labour, and which cannot increase except upon conditions of begetting a new supply of wage labour for a fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour."

You percieve communism to act too much like capitalism does. There is no capital in communism, that would be silly. So a doctor doesn't make the same amount of money as a window cleaner. Neither of them make any money. Besides, tedious jobs such as window cleaning are for the people who either are not compotent enough to be something like a doctor, or for people who just happened to be assigned a window-cleaning shift.

[Forever capitalism]

Yes the Soviet Union was producing alot more and industralised in the space of 30 years but you must remember at what cost. Stalin sacrificed 30 million innocent people in order to make the USSR prosperous for a time being. When he died and Krushchev, Breznov, Andrikov, Chirnikov and Gorbachouv, (excuse spelling of names) took over they did not continue such an inhumane and sadistic method. When they attempted to build communism without sacrificing anyone the failure of the communist econimics was manifested by the lack of money of the USSR. The USSR was rich but that "evil empire" died within 80 years. Now under capitalism Russia is steadily improving as it had a 5% economic growth last year.

[Michael De Panama]

Thanks for ignoring my last post, Forever Capitalism, it really shows your stubbornness to remain ignorant.

Russia is not a good representation of the communist ideology. It was a pre-industrialized nation with no real bourgeoisie for the proletariat to rebel against. Hell, there wasn't even a real proletariat. It at least needed to go through a stage of capitalism before going through a stage of socialism. That is how Marx directed it. And it was just closer to fuedalism than it was to capitalism. Joseph Stalin was no more than a giant fuedal ruler.

And you'd better respound to my last post, or you will yield to the victory of the commies in this thread.

(Edited by Michael De Panama at 2:56 am on Mar. 24, 2002)

[Nateddi]

I hope you are kidding you fucking swine.

Capitalist russia is a failure. I was born in the USSR, I sure as hell dont consider them an ideal socialist nation, however as compared to Russia (and the newly independant republics) in the present time, the USSR was heaven.

My family's friends are starving, electricity is poor and goes out quickly. They witness people commiting suicide out of desparetness. Suicide rate has went up 50% since capitalism took over. Infant mortality rate skyrocketed. Drug overdose rose 80%. Doctor visits dropped because of a more privatized health system. 300,000 people are now homeless in Moscow. Unemployment rates rose 30%, there is no longer a right to have a job. Consumer spending dropped 38% (it only dropped 21% during the great depression). By August 1996, 10,000 coal miners stopped working because they were tired and hungry. In Capitalist Hungary, felonies tripled and homicide rose 50%. The number of women killed by husbands or boyfriends rose from 5,400 to 15,000. Less than two years after Capitalism (1993), only 23% of Russians preffered a market economy. Ukraine (my home) is now a capitalist force for sweatshop labor of big name designers. There are also fascists sitting in parlimentary positions in Ukraine. A few people start to own mercedeses at the expense of thousand of newly unemployed and empoverished people.

Don't get me started with your factless bullshit, Forever Ignorant. Econmic growth my ass, at the expense of people there will always be economic growth.

After Glasnost, capitalist press propagated russia with the good side of ameriKKKan living, and the USSR was collapsed very soon in the name of that. They landed on the list of the majority of capitalist countries, impoverished third world shit.

[Michael De Panama]

"The Free Market" = The freedom to buy what one cannot afford.

[Forever capitalism]

Mike and Nateddi i will not respond to your threats and abuse. Get a life. Hack that a debate includes difference of opinion to yours. The way you carry on reminds me of a 5 year old spoilt child who doesn't get their way. I am boycotting both of you from now on because of your antics. When you grow up and mature, then talk to me.

[PunkRawker677]

FC, that was pathetic indeed.. you made a false, and just plain out stupid claim about capitalist russia being better than 'so-called-communist' soviet union and Nateddi provides you with stats, and proof... and you respond by 'boycotting' him?

[Forever capitalism]

Quote: from PunkRawker677 on 6:19 am on Mar. 24, 2002
FC, that was pathetic indeed.. you made a false, and just plain out stupid claim about capitalist russia being better than 'so-called-communist' soviet union and Nateddi provides you with stats, and proof... and you respond by 'boycotting' him?

Incredible how you can twist my words. I said that Russia's economy was improving because of capitalism by 5% annually. I didn't say at the present stage it was better then when communist culminated in the USSR. If you go back and read what i wrote you'll realise that for yourself. Also i had provided evidence with that statement. I don't however respond to people who abuse and threaten me. Notice how i have never abused anyone before, NOT ONCE. I expect to be treated the same way i treat others. Nateddi and Michael are the types of people whom i don't associate with.

[Nateddi]

Quote: from Forever capitalism on 4:54 am on Mar. 24, 2002
Mike and Nateddi i will not respond to your threats and abuse. Get a life. Hack that a debate includes difference of opinion to yours. The way you carry on reminds me of a 5 year old spoilt child who doesn't get their way. I am boycotting both of you from now on because of your antics. When you grow up and mature, then talk to me.


You are such a pathetic twit you know that FC.

You have on other threads and on this one avoided the subject and used an excuse.

This is just another one of your lame excuses you wanker. You never reply to any points, and for some reason you must assume that we are immature and cannot debate. You always have something like this to say whenever you cannot properly reply.

I never threatened you. I said "I hope you are kidding", not "I will kill you". But that is a good excuse to disregard everything I said. Don't expect me to be passive when my relatives and friends are starving as a result of your little economic growth.

Oh yea, you boycotted me, so don't reply to this.

[TITOMAn]

many of you have argued that capitalism = theft, however in a communist society where everybody is rewarded equally regardless of what they achieve or do, the hardest working labourer will receive the same as the laziest. That gives the worker no incentive to strive and to work hard as the all powerful state will not reward their efforts on a different level as those who achieve less or nothing.
Regardless of the work you do in a communist society, you don't get rewarded out of merit but on an equal and unjust level as everybody else. That is why there is extremely high absenteesm in Cuba and Cuban workers only produce approximately 1/4 of what they should be. Communism steals from the hardest working and gives on an equal basis the same rewards to everybody, deserving or not.



Example:

There are 5 people in a village:-
farmer, blacksmith, miner, scientist, cook

Farmer produces food, and all other 3 praise him, because he gives them food.

Blacksmith makes nice iron tools, so they all other 3 praise him, because he makes life for others easier.


Miner mines iron, but someone will say that only blacksmith praise him, but all praise him because, without him there would be no blacksmith and no tools.

Scientists makes new discoveries and all praise him for that....

Cook cooks, ....


One man will maybe say. What if Blacksmith can´t make tools as fast as miner mines iron, or what if blacksmith has already made enough tools. It is simple answer. He would go to farmer to help him make more food, and miner to scientist to invent faster. One will now say, but miner is stupid and can´t invent anything. It is not necessary that he is, but what if he was (stupid)? He would go to cook and help him with cooking.


That would be in isolated "country", where trading with other "countries" is prohibited. But if trading would be allowed. Miner would be in mine and mine all the time. If scientisc would have no work, he would help him, and also others....
If farmer produces too much food, he will either trade it to other "country" or help other members of community.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I just want to tell you that beginners of mankind circles are way more important than people that make final products. Example: Farmer could survive without . But we can not say that bosses can survive without farmers.




Althought it looks simple we must not make it simple.

[Michael De Panama]

Quote: from Forever capitalism on 4:54 am on Mar. 24, 2002
Mike and Nateddi i will not respond to your threats and abuse. Get a life. Hack that a debate includes difference of opinion to yours. The way you carry on reminds me of a 5 year old spoilt child who doesn't get their way. I am boycotting both of you from now on because of your antics. When you grow up and mature, then talk to me.

You are the one acting like a child. Not once did I "abuse" you. Not once did I insult your argument. Not once. However, I will admit to opposing your argument. I merely proved it to be false. I spent some of my own time to guide you in a better direction regarding communism. I do not appreciate the childish disrespect you show me when you ignore such important arguments.

I am very interested in having a civilized debate with you that does not include childishly ignoring arguments, or abuse and threating as you accused me of. I only want to teach you, not elevate myself. So, if you could please respound to my arguments I would appreciate it.