My Odd little description of capitalizum - (by the way i am

[Unknown]

There is a small creature in england im not sure of its name but it is very very small and lives on blades of grass in something that looks like spit but it is not. these creatures have no bones and are filled with some kind of fluid instead. this fluid is quite a delicacy for small ants and every week or so an ant or 2 will climb the balde of grass and squeeze the small defenceless creature untill it is NEARLY but no quite dead the ants then leave these creatures untill they are back to normal then sure enough they come back and they do this for the rest of the poor creatures lives.

this is my Representaion of capitalizum

[Guest]

Nice allegory, just kidding it sucks.

Here is a representation of communism/socialism.

Imagine a nation, where, from an early age you are bombarded with a battery of tests, implemented by strange men in suits. These men work for the state and hold your future in their hands. The tests will determine your place in society. There is no hope of changing professions once the state determines what size cog in the machine to make you. This society remains highly nationalistic, no one questions their role since it is for the greater good. The economy is managed by a similar group of men in suits, called the centralized board of economic planners, which have the job of deciding how society’s resources will be allocated. Shortages persist, vexing the public at large, from heating oil to the food supply. Nothing functions efficiently. Political dissidents have either already been exterminated, like cock roaches, or sent to labor camps upon their discovery. Free press remains nonexistent as state censors, also wearing nice suits, decide what is in the public interest to view. A small group of politically favored individuals never have the same shortage problems, as every commodity is reserved for them first. Meanwhile the majority of citizens are barely meeting subsistence requirements. This is the reality of Marxism. Marxism, also known as communism, exists as the political ideology popularized and implemented in Eastern Nations during the 20th-century. Why would such a noble idea as, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need” produce such catastrophic results? In order to understand what causes these unfortunate results, we must first take a look at Marx himself, his philosophy, the economic principle and the logical results when communism is used as a political tool.

[Guest]

Read the Communist Manifesto. Better yet read Fredrick Engels outline of communist idealogy, Marx was a poor writer and could convey a message if his life depended on it. Such striking statements, which advocate a total reworking of the political and economic structure deserve thorough examination based on their philosophical and ideological merits. Marx’s manifesto is chalk full of contradictions. In order to understand why communism takes such inhumane form when put into practice, it is important to examine these paradoxes.

[Guest]

1st list of contradictions in communist theory

First of all Marx believed that modern capitalism had created a simple two-pronged class hierarchy, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, or upper and lower class. The manifesto also mentions the middle class. However, Marx tried to lump them into either of the two classifications. He believed, by controlling the labor market and hoarding capital the middle class moved into the oppressive bourgeoisie category. Conversely, as these men’s specialties are monopolized by larger firms, they would be put out of business and end up in the proletarian class. Sometimes technological unemployment would have the same effect as being forced out by competition, but as history has proved, the middle class remains the foundation for capitalist economic structure. They are necessary for the smooth operation of a materialistic society, solely based on their discretionary income. Marx’s failure to appropriately acknowledge the middle class helped to create the exact problem he cited with capitalist class structure, when communism was actually put into practice. This being a powerful privileged class, and an overabundance of the lower class who were effectively oppressed.
Secondly, the manifesto is a call to arms, a seditious attack on the status quo. Marx aroused public resentment in order to justify revolution. Contrasting the manifesto with such works as Common Sense and Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence easily shows the true nature of communist philosophy. The manifesto is the antithesis of the ideology that guarantees the security of individual liberties under the U.S. political system. Many people today might argue that neither one is right. Right and wrong don’t exist, they are relative to the society or the individual, therefore they can not be criticized. But when an individual is forced to conform to communist ideology doesn’t that necessarily destroy his relative opinion. Interestingly, the Catholic Church, also known for its repressive nature during the dark ages, has denounced Nazi socialism and communism under Pope Pius XI, in 1937. Agreeing with Lockean liberalism Catholics acknowledge people’s right to their life, ownership of one’s own body as well as property, and the right to pursue means of existence and define one’s own goals. Marx denounces all of these ideals. Marx condoned violent revolution and sought class warfare against the bourgeoisie or anyone siding with the status quo. Communist revolution brought about extermination of life based upon one’s bank account or political affiliation, in contrast with revolution as a means to preserve fundamental human rights when governments fail. As a result, many innocent Russians were arbitrarily exterminated, as Marxist philosophy influenced the Bolshevik revolution in 1917. This method and model was also used in China, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, the Ukraine, Poland, Chezchoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Ethiopia.
In continuation, Marx denounced all private property claiming it essential for the current form of oppression. Marx encouraged theft, by stating that in order to destroy this undesired state all property should be effectively seized, the idea being the equitable distribution among the populous. Moreover, how is private property abolished when it merely becomes the property of the state? Isn’t property in the hands of the state subjected to more regulation, and in effect, kept out of the public’s reach? Marx claimed that he would not abolish the right of man to appropriate the products of labor, but doesn’t controlling one’s level of income effectively do that very thing. In addition, Marx criticized the use of ‘industrial armies’, in the capitalist system, equating industrial workers to slaves. Interestingly enough, under his ten measures for the implementation of communism, he wrote a provision for “Equal obligation for all to work” and “Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture”. This fact eludes to the complete hypocrisy of Marxist philosophy. Under capitalism, at least men are free to choose when to work and what profession they want to work in. Theoretically, capitalism allows for one to quit their jobs at their own discretion. Of course, family and financial obligations may prevent some from having perfect choice. The statement that capitalism creates only slaves as justification for enslaving the world over remains ridiculous in itself.
Marx criticized the bourgeoisie for “centralizing the means of production” and “concentrating property in a few hands”. By contrast, the measures he proposed allow for the centralization of public lands, the monetary system, means of production, transportation, and the people’s labor. This raises the question, how does state confiscation and monopolization prevents centralization? It doesn’t, that is not the point. The point is to prevent private accumulation of capital. Apparently, Marx believed that a governments monopoly of power allows for the monopolization of all other things necessary for the economy, including people’s free-will and hard work. How will a transfer of wealth and equal distribution occur under such a regime? It won’t and this is why communism is actually state capitalism. This is the greatest paradox in the Communist Manifesto. In order to understand the reasoning behind communism’s great failure we must examine Marx’s religious beliefs.

[Guest]

Ultimate hypocracy with communism

Marxist philosophy remains a monumental icon for the relativist perspective. In short, Marx did not have religious beliefs. He thought of religion as a procession throughout history marked by a small ruling class dictating acceptance onto the majority. “Ancient religions were overcome by Christianity”, he noted. These institutions are merely another way to oppress the people. Looking at religious history may provide proof of this. Marx did not stop there, however. He said, ‘All such concepts of morality, religion, politics and philosophy were relative to the ruling class and were subject to change throughout history’. To a large degree, sayings such, ‘he who has the guns makes the rules’, and ‘history is often written by the winners’ remain true. To use such reasoning for the purpose of extruding all ‘eternal truths’, in order to oppose historical patterns by destroying such ideas, hardly seams logical. Marx stated that “religious liberty and freedom of consciousness” gives rise to the free market and competition. Clearly the objective of communism is to own people’s consciousness and extinguish liberty. This was essentially behind Marx’s criticism of Christian socialism and at the heart of the conflict between the Nazis and Communist Russia. Marx thought of religion as not being necessary in order to shape people’s perspectives. Why should anyone believe proletariat political power would automatically dissolve with the abolition of private property? Isn’t this a statement to be taken on faith? In fact, this process has always failed to appear when communism was implemented. One could argue that Marx was intelligent enough to know this was a fallacy, but sought to persuade people to give up religion in exchange for his utopian promises, all the while knowing the resulting consequences. When put into perspective it is easy to see the similarities of both religion and communism, and why they exist in dire opposition. This is the ultimate hypocrisy of communism.

[Guest]

Economic comparison

Continuing, if the holes in Marx’s philosophy seem unconvincing, let’s turn to the economic principles behind central planning. Even Frederick Engels and Carl Marx were amazed at the proficiency of the market. Marx stated that capitalist economies remained, “The first to show what man’s activity can bring about”, creating ,”wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman Aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals”. So why then did Marx encourage it’s dismissal. The time period in which the Communist Manifesto was written marked the infancy of the free-market, brought about by the scientific and industrial revolutions. No market is perfect. They all have their problems. This along with the fact that social Darwinism was readily accepted by the robber barons, entrepreneurs and the majority of business people, mark the beginnings of the American communist movement, as the Progressive Party began to form. Labor unions, and social workers took to the forefront combating long hours, ‘unfair pay’, child labor and unsafe conditions. Thus, the beginnings of communism can be somewhat understood. To continue our analysis of communism requires a brief look at the market mechanism in contrast to central planning.
The job of any economy is to allocate scarce resources to the production of certain goods, and to distribute the goods among a given society. In the free-market this is best left to the market mechanism. Where marginal utility of the consumer is equal to the price being charged, and the marginal cost of production. Of course, this is the theoretical model of perfect competition, where there are many different markets with many competitors and customers, who have perfect information about the product, which is all the same. Furthermore, freedom of entry and exit from the market can not be barred. Obviously, not a very realistic world. It is more likely that some markets will be monopolized by large firms, while others resemble that of the perfectly competitive model. Economies of scale sometimes permit this to occur. Still the question remains can any one market be completely monopolized. Surprisingly, not unless it is done by government decree. Any monopoly has the threat of being bought out by larger firms through hostile takeover. Moreover, monopolies don’t get to arbitrarily choose their prices and gouge the customer. If prices are too high the customer will not purchase the commodity desired, leaving the companies bottom line suffering. Markets do not have the capacity to oppress their customers effectively, since they are dependent on their customers to survive. It is better to let economies run on Adam Smith’s invisible hand of supply and demand, because when everyone suites their best interest, an economy’s resources are allocated by price.
In contrast, central planners must decide which outputs to produce, which inputs to use, and how to distribute them without the convenience of an efficient price system. It is easy to see how markets are dependent upon one another. Economies can be stopped dead as a matter of short-sightedness. One industry’s output change can drastically effect other related industries. Input-output equations are often used to solve such problems. The lengthiness and complexity of these problems show the challenge of an economy that is completely controlled by the central government. It is impossible to predict how much of each output is needed and where they will be needed. A process to organize the various information needed to run an economy of interdependent markets is best left to a price mechanism in a free-market economy.
Furthermore, entrepreneurs are motivated by profit. In a market that equalizes income their motivation is taken away. Should it be expected that men will continue to devote their lives to inventing new products and processes of manufacturing when their reason is destroyed. The economic rent paid for such advances insures future innovation. Central planning will insure a stagnation of ideas as the free-thinkers, who generate useful market tools, vanish. Likewise, is the employees ability to work efficiently when he fears the state. People’s likelihood of decision making is directly proportional to the freedom to do so. To illustrate, it was common in the U.S.S.R. that businesses would stand still until state agencies could investigate. Only to find that the shipment wasn’t delivered because the producers were unsure what color the product was to be painted. The operator of the industry was hesitant to make decisions, because he did not answer to himself, but to the state. Looking at the differences in the market mechanism and central planning, it is clear why the communist economic plan is failing around the world.

[Guest]

Human toll of communism

Of course, not all communists or socialists are inherently evil. Many look at the inequality of income and find it unacceptable to have such poverty in an industrial nation like ours. In fact, Marx was highly critical of these disparities of income and used it as reasoning for violent revolution. That is the great danger of Marxist philosophy. The ability the get the majority to condone such violence. In truth, it takes a certain power thirsty mindset to seize control of an economy. Men such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Castro all fit the description. This brand of person has no concern for human rights and will exterminate anyone who opposes their supremacy. To conclude our discussion we will need to take a look at the human rights records of nations who took Marxism to its only logical conclusion.
It has been estimated that between 85 to 100 million people were systematically exterminated under communist rule. Mao’s regime took control, exterminated political opponents, and used public execution as a form of public education. So far, the numbers in China reach 65 million dead. Under his massive attempt to industrialize his nation, 30 million died of starvation. Mao’s industrial campaign is the hallmark of communist crimes, he has proved himself most efficient in ridding the world of population. Terror was also tailored by rulers in Cambodia, North Korea, and Vietnam, and sanctioned by China as a way of expanding communist influence in the West Pacific. These deaths totalled 5 million. The second highest death toll took place in Russia over the course of communist rule. Russia being the first to implement communism became the model for all those who followed. 20 million died here resulting from the combination of the Bolshevik revolution, and various secret police organizations with their systematic removal of political opponents. It is common practice for communist nations to use people’s stomachs as a method of controlling their minds. Stalin invented this despicable method. Many of those 20 million people died of starvation. The methods employed to assure power were also employed in Eastern Europe under the Soviet communist block as well as in Afghanistan. No one was immune to the killing. Party leaders were often disposed of, by state sanctioned murder when their views became politically unpopular. Even Krushchev denounced the many communist crimes in a “secret speech” in 1956. In 1961, Krushchev recommended a monument be constructed for all the forgotten dead. Remarkably, he was not terminated, but relieved of his position as First Secretary. The communist crimes, that were so diligently covered up, were beginning to make it to the forefront. There have been many attempts to compare Nazi war crimes with those of the communist nations. The main difference being the motivations. Nazis used race as the measurement, where communists used class. Instead of genocide, communists used politicide. The fundamental similarity has been the universal dehumanizing nature that must occur for people to support such atrocities. The victims must be thought of as less than human in order for mass murder of such scale to be employed. When studying communism ask yourself which alienates people more, a market mechanism that subjects all parts of the market to the invisible hand of supply and demand, or the depopulating nature of such centralized governments.

[Guest]

Final analysis

Communism remains a complex philosophy that can be examined and refuted on many fronts. ‘How is this question relevant to today? Isn’t communism dead, resulting from the Soviets loss of the cold war?’ The question is just as important today as it ever was. One must decide who to vote for. These decisions can be made based upon the candidates position on the political spectrum. Foreign policy is an increasingly important part of presidential decision making. How should the president react to communist aggression. Currently, hard line communist have reinstated themselves in Russia and are dismantling the only independent news source. The question of allowing China into the WTO, with most favored nation status, has sparked controversy throughout he U.S. and is the cause of civil unrest. It is interesting to note, as our government was finding ways to combat communism during the first and second Red Scare, and throughout the Cold War, the equivalent of the Soviets KGB was being formed as the CIA and the FBI. In effect, methods to fight communism have left a form of policing that could allow for politicide to occur in our nation. With increased technological improvements comes questions of how government will employ these methods.

[Guest]

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE MY POSTS! I HAVE STUDIED COMMUNISM. LET PEOPLE READ AND DRAW THERE OWN CONCLUSIONS. I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO FIND WAYS TO ARGUE AGAINST THE POINTS THAT ARE CAREFULLY LAID OUT IN MY POSTS. SOMEONE WILL. DEBATE IS A GOOD THING. WHEN I DECIDED TO POST THESE I DID IT IN GOOD FAITH SINCE YOUR RULES PERMITTED DISCUSSION IN THIS SECTION.

[Unknown]

I respect your veiws and the fact that you have taken the time to learn and study communisum but no ofence ment i cant be botherd to read all that and i know it sounds ignorent i wish i could be botherd but i get half way through the first section and stop

SO could you please summarise your argument into bullet points or something then i would be honoured to have a debate with such a lerned person as your self

Thank you

[PaulDavidHewson]

So far I've read half this thread and will continue soon to read more.

I hope the communists will read it as well and give some comment soon.

[Unknown]

I READED IT ALL!!!!!

I Have Denounced That You Sir Have Biased Your Argument....

you have looked only at communist history not only that you have only looked at the violent "millions have died" side of it, What you fail to see is every political system starts of badly, there is a saying 'Try Try and Try some again' your own political system is not perfect by a long shot your famed america with its "liberty and freedom" were built on the foundasions of death murder and personal superiority the indean race was nearly extinct because of your endevers in all logic you stole amerca it dosent belong to you there have been civil wars, just look at bushes forgin policy basicly "Bomb them all and let God sort them out" maybe you dont support this i dont know but my point is you can point out holes in our econemy but you said your self 'No econemy is perfect' also you put communisum in the context of a religion although Marxs was against it, i am not to me communisum is a religion its not perfect like every thing in this world but it is my answer other people may not agree which is why i dont belive in communist globalization but how can capitalizum keep crushing communism if capitalists belive in freedom THAT my learned frend in the greatist hypocrisy


Also you say a capitalist market cant oppres its customers this may be true, but let us put this in another context a person cant kill a plant beacuse it needs it to survive NOT TRUE many people just step on plants, a person cant kill the environment yet we still do why beacuse the way we destroy the environment makes us comfy, But back to the point a market can oppres its consumers to an extent of lying to them but what a market can do best is oppres the supplyers, (oppresion do not mean destroying them) instead bankroupting a country so its people are at deaths door then exploiting them by paying them next to nothing, there is a great oppresion also you say that a capitalist market can achive any thing like great invensions look again at how they achive this if a person is inspired by money they will do anything to get more there for explotation is born greed is its mother and capitalizum its farther

You Say marx inspired violent revelotions but again compare this to capitalizum look at bush he was bombing innocent civilians in another country trying to fish out one man do you thnck just before those children on that bus were thincking about how lucky they were to be free when a bomb hit NO do you thinck the women in a mud hut makshift hospital with her legs blown off and the abilty to have children stripped from her do you think she was glad capitalizum was the major power no, she may not either if communisum were in power.... perhaps communisum is wrong, but then again capitalizum isnt exactly a shining becon of light
earlyer in your writings you talk of communist supremise and violence from it but look again at bushes actions these are all directed back to superiority,..

Let us look back communisum isnt perfect Nor is capitalizum BUT both hate each other shorley if they were both a good as they say they are then we could live in peace but no and im going to tell you the couse of all the problems not just in our argument but for every thing listen carfully........

Every one is just trying to get noticed

Every one wants to be at the top every one wants to be the best football player every one just want more money every one wants a biger boat but WHY beacuse they other people to acknowlage the fact of there superiority.........

But is this human nature or is this the fault of society and the modern world i belive it to be the fault of the modern world i dont care about being noticed, at least i think i dont but i look back why im i a social rebel and not like every one else why is my hair long why do i were shby clothes to get noticed

Please reply

[Unknown]

I hope you have the time to post another paragraph we cant end this debate now it was just getting started

[Menshevik]

Damn, are you trying to write a research paper here? I read most of your post, frankly I dont see how it holds much water, but you raise some very good points. I also disagree with much of Marxism.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Menshevik on 10:24 pm on May 23, 2002
Damn, are you trying to write a research paper here? I read most of your post, frankly I dont see how it holds much water, but you raise some very good points. I also disagree with much of Marxism.

What do you mean, not hold water? It makes perfect sense.

[Nateddi]

I don't like guests, people have to be responsible for what they say. The guest should have registered first.

[El Che]

What guest wrote is laughable lol, im laughing my ass off at his flawed argumentation. But if you think im going to take the time to prove him wrong on every single point he trys to make your out of your damn mind, if you have one to begin with.

(Edited by El Che at 3:13 am on May 24, 2002)

[Unknown]

i hate his ideals but must respect his logic, marxisum is not perfect and niether is the communist ecomnemy but niether is a capitalist one, what is better an oppresive economey or a weak one, so dont slur him i would of enjoyed to finish this debate he raised good points some flawed some not, but i agree he should of joined as a member

PS.. what do you thinck to my analergy of capitalizum

[Unknown]

Is there a way to find out who that guest was and if he ever comes back again,,,

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Nateddi on 2:23 am on May 24, 2002
I don't like guests, people have to be responsible for what they say. The guest should have registered first.


Translation: That makes to much sense, I can't submit a legitimate rebuttal to his arguements.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from El Che on 3:12 am on May 24, 2002
What guest wrote is laughable lol, im laughing my ass off at his flawed argumentation. But if you think im going to take the time to prove him wrong on every single point he trys to make your out of your damn mind, if you have one to begin with.

(Edited by El Che at 3:13 am on May 24, 2002)


Translation: That makes to much sense, I can't submit a legitimate rebuttal to his arguements.

[Robin Hood]

A challenge, how nice.
Ok, seems Guest 65... has been doing some serious studying into Marxism or more correctly Marx and Engels ideas. Still, thats kind of trying to attack evolution by debunking Darwins scripts.
First, at the first post what you describe sounds more like an Orwels 1984 and has nothing to do with communism/socialism/anarchism. I wont get into Marx as I can debunk that part by stating that Marx and Engels together with Baukini and other political philosophers mainly started the idea of a new society free from capitalism. Debating Marxism itself is kind of like going onto Adams and trying to attack capitalism based on what he wrote. Capitalism has evolved beyond his ideas even if they are still based on them just as modern communism is based on Marx idea of a capitalist free society ruled by the workers something that today has evolved to libertarian socialism.
As for communism murdering millions..comon, for that I can start with the slaughter of native americans, 80 million africans, countless asians all this from sometimes around the 15th century continuing until todays refuse to implement a marshal plan to finish starvation in Africa and the rest of the third world. Actually the whole concept that there is a starving third world today.
How many has capitalism killed?

Whats wrong with todays capitalism.
A society based on the whole concept of greed and ones own selfish survival is not logical for the continual evolution of the human race.
Just look at technology today, we have reached an incredible high level and yet we have achived so little. We have the means and resources yet society is evolving at snail phase with countless suffering for lack of resources and this planets ecology in near ruins.
By capitalist logic everything that doesnt evolve short sighted economic gain for a small share of stockholders is of zero importance. Problems are dealt as they appear and more than often shuffled away and ignored. Why bother? I have it good, why bother about the next generation when I wont be around?
This is the typical capitalist, without morals or second thoughts.
Then we have the religious capitalist who hides behind some god, sure that when he/she dies all will be forgiven. Heck, if Jesus appeared today there would be some serious whipping of the merchants at the temple.
Another fault with capitalism is its endless search to keep the stockholders happy by increased stockvalue, everything else be damned even the survival of the company. Just look today at home more and more factories are moved into the thirdworld in an attempt to get the stocks up just another cent. Where will they go when they reached the max value they could milk out?
Note that I personaly dont have anything against religion, if god is all powerfull he may both exist or not, wont be up to us. x=>infinit as so x can have any value, even zero. Leave that to judgment day whenever that happens.
Else the worst product of capitalism is racism, something that was invented to keep people apart. When class was not enough, the concept of the superior race was defined.
So the whole bug with capitalism is the constant profit hunt, if it was based on consumption it might had been a bit more stable but todays capitalist system is protected by the same fascist idea that gave it birth. The whole greedish me me me and all for me is a depraved version of natures survival instinct. No animal in nature would pollute and destroy its habitat and source of food.
Me I work for a multinational oil company, a company that today tries to move into the Amazonas in search of oil and today is busy cutting down Indonesias rainforests to get the last drops of whats left there. Well there is some more there, wont end next year exactly but in the whole large perspective.
As for getting the resources from other planets, well, if it would be profitable...will take alot of time for capitalism to take that step. No company really have the balls to take that economic risk.

What communism?
Well, today the ideas of Marx have evolved a bit and are varied.
The modern ideas are based on the princips of:
freedom of religion for all
right to good living conditions
right to work
right to a share of the worlds resources
(dont mean like 10Kg of oil but to the products, like everyone should be able to have a computer, if they want one)
right to opinions that go for the good of mankind
right to ones own body
equal rights for everyone regardles of age, sex, race
If you are living on this planet you should be able to enjoy it.
Direct democracy

Basicly, against racism, against capitalism, against homophobia, against sexism
Taken from AFA statments.

An utopian society at it best, maybe a dream but sure worth fighting for and by all means sure alot better than the crap we have today.
How it all should work is a good question, got some ideas on it...

[Robin Hood]

Or just to simplify modern communism.
Just as a family works, so should society.
Based on equal respect, equal share and responsabilites for the house.

[Guest]

always good in theory, always good on paper, never translates in real-world application. History shows us the best system in place, one which accounts for human nature, is capitalism. Real world hidstory and events justify and prove it.

[Guest]

Yes, the old addage that communism is 'good in theory', I have heard that before. Sorry, all good theories work to some degree when put into practice. Take the Ideal Gas Law, a calculation that works so well under certain conditions that it was been dubbed a Law. How about kinetic theory and how well it describes thermodynamic principles? Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, the special theory of relativity, both great theories that accurately describe a physical situation. Hell, if it weren't for the theories of Sir Isaac Newton, Descartes, and Galileo we would not have the burden of worrying about an industrial age.

We can also look to Thomas Jefferson and his theory of government, a philosophy borrowed from John Locke. He held a new fangled idea of self governance and accountablity. This controversial view that all men have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of property. How well has the classical liberal view held up? It was the very foundation of this nation and allowed for the freedoms that we each enjoy. The type of freedoms that are being extinguished by the neo-liberal views that seem to grow like a cancer. Isn't property the very thing that communism aims to destroy? With out property would there be freedom? How free am I if the fruits of my labor fall into the lap of some worthless degenerate?

The things that I support are good ideas. This is why I do not support welfare, socialism, or communism.
*********************************************

For the environmentally conscienctious among you, who use the environment as an excuse for supporting an immoral economic and political system, take a good look at the environmental record of the former Soviet Union. Anyone who does this will realize that the environmental policy of a communist country is not what they desire.
********************************************

Someone mentioned that my description of communism resembled that of 1984. Yes, there was a striking similarity, but I wasn't writing fiction. If you were intrigued by 1984, I suggest that you compare it to "We the Living" by Ayn Rand. She was a philosopher and fiction writer who defected from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. "We the Living" is the classic tale of the collective against the individual. Some of the real world propaganda campaigns she describes in her book are eerily reminiscent of 1984.

[Guest]

Convenient how the communists views have changed to gain more popularity for the underlying principle, or lack there of. That is an old trick that many corrupt politicians use on a regular basis. The ideas are still the same. You say that everyone should have the same amenities as their neighbors. Everyone is entitled to a new computer and a place to live. What, no Volkswagon?

The problem with your system is that it fails to account for who will build the houses and computers for all the people. Furthermore, what facility will manufacture a good computer when no profit is allowed. Utopian socialism promises that everyone can sit at home on their new computer, but who will do the work the is required to manufacture these goods? What about research and development? Right now the turn over time for a design team to complete and easily manufactured processor that is twice as quick as its predecessor is 6 months. What will the design turn over be under your system? Will there even be any new designs?

The reason we beat Russia during the Cold War is not solely because of overspending. Much of it had do with the fact that they were constantly following our lead. They used borrowed technology many times, rather than starting at the drawing board.

[James]

Unknown i'm afraid your proving my belief that you are a wanker. Why not try reading the conlcusion thing? The second to last post of his/hers (i think). I'll read it all when i'm not revising, i suggest you do read it all as well unknown. They went to the time and effort of writing it all out for people like us, yes, me and YOU. So show some respect. Or don't bother saying "i can't be arsed" or whatever shit you said.

James

[Unknown]

FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!

I AM FEAD UP TO MY TITS WITH YOU I READ IT ALL.........

DO YOU POURPOSELY FOLLOW ME AND POINT OUT MY ERRORS ARE YOU FUCKING STALKING ME.. DONT EVER REPLY TO ONE OF MY POSTS AGAIN BECAUSE ALL YOU DO IS FUCK TALK THE PISS

YOU DICK LESS MOTHER FUCKER
YOU KOREAN ***** SMAKIN DICK LICKER

LEAVE ME ALONE YOUR LIKE A FUCKING BAD SMELL

I GOT KICK OUT OF COMMIE CLUB BEACUSE YOU AND YOUR OPPRESIVE FRENDS DIDNT AGREE WTH WHAT I WAS SAYING

(THIS IS A METAPHOR)

"THEY DONT GOTTA BURN THE BOOKS THEY JUST REMOVE THEM"

REMOVING BURNING ALL THE SAME YOU WALK INTO THE LIBARY PICK UP THE FIRST BOOK WRITTEN BY AN AUTHOR YOU DISPIZE READ IT ALL THEN GO AND MOAN HOW BAD IT WAS

WHY NOT, SKIP THE BOOKS BY THE AUTHOUR YOU DISPIZE AND READ THE BOOKS YOU LIKE

DICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDI CKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICK DICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICKDICK

[Unknown]

(sORRY ABOUT MY EARLYER OUTBURST!)


How can you say land is freedom land is not owened by any one land is merly dirt and rock if we just let down all our bourders and stoped claiming bits of land to be ours the world would be a peaceful place land belongs to mother earth what you are calling land is merley a bit you pissed on so other dogs wouldnt come in... hell i could say i own the entire of america dosent make it mine if you admit you own nothing all you own is what you make then you begin to work to make more

Polution

you cant just say look they did it to "look a former soviet...." i admit it was polution pacted but that was around the industreal "steel age" nower days there are atleast 15 or more renewable non damaging sources of energy such as solar wind biogass biomass such such the only reason they are not used majorly is beacuse the (capitalist) petrol companies dont want to go out of bussiness so buy up ever thing to do with energy litrealy they will introduse "good" energy when they want it, and theres no petrol left basiclly saying FUCK YOUR OZONE IM DEAD IN 30 YEARS, WHAT THE FUCK DOSE IT EFFECT ME NO!!! its morelly wrong now lets not get into saying wear were stalin or marx morells because quiet frankly they wernt perfect but commies have come a long way since the cold war i personally try to be pasafistic and communist (whch means im a commie who puffs the magic dragon) so im not imorel like many other commie leaders.. basicly back in the cold war it was a problem but not any more


communisum is good in therory but every time we get a chance to be tested in the real world cappies keep us down or we have a mean bstrd for a leader

(no offense ment to Stalin or marx but they were a bt mean)

[Capitalist]

Capitalism = Free Enterprise = Freedom

Reward for Contribution to society = Competition = Efficiency

"Robin Hood" - interesting username to pick

Robin Hood was a communist.

He also admired King Richard the Great.

King Richard the Great killed thousands of muslims (including children) during the Crusades.

[Capitalist Fighter]

nice post, Capitalist, blunt, short and sweet, factual :)

[Capitalist Fighter]

"YOU KOREAN ***** SMAKIN DICK LICKER"

Unknown you racist scum. Answer for yourself right now. I don't see how comments like these can be tolerated.

[Guest]

It is evident that Unknown is extremely dumb.
I do not say this to be mean. People should be help accountable for there viewpoints. If this were not true what would be the purpose of public discourse. Think before you speak Unknown.

[Guest]

Unknown,

I have to give you credit for at least listening to an opposing viewpoint. That makes you more intelligent than many of these pretentious types who are ostracizing you

[Stormin Norman]

Americana,

Here is the post I referred you to. If any of you leftist care to, have a crack at it as well. It never initiated a good debate. Perhaps you don't give guests as much attention, because it is less personal. Vox, Peacenicked, Lardlad, and James have at it. Pick it to pieces.

[Kilian]

I just wanted to say it is Friedrich Engels not Fredrick

[Stormin Norman]

Fuck! I can't edit it now because I posted it as a guest. You will have to forgive me. It appears I am not as perfect as I think I am.

[abstractmentality]

i just saw this thread today. SN, that guest was you back in the day before you were registered? ok, im only going to write a little about the economic portion on the first page of this thread.


Moreover, monopolies don’t get to arbitrarily choose their prices and gouge the customer. If prices are too high the customer will not purchase the commodity desired, leaving the companies bottom line suffering. Markets do not have the capacity to oppress their customers effectively, since they are dependent on their customers to survive. It is better to let economies run on Adam Smith’s invisible hand of supply and demand, because when everyone suites their best interest, an economy’s resources are allocated by price.

When america was beginning, through the time that it became a strong power, it practiced heavy protecionism in its economy; a free market capitalist society was not present. it is necessary for a developing nations economy to advocate protectionism in order to develop their economy. a laize fair (sorry, been a while since i used that frase and i dont know if its spelled right) economy does not help a developing nation. so, in there, we have a flaw in capitalist economic thinking. but, in order to make it work a little better, it must be transformed a little to help the theory that is now being practiced to a certain extent. and thats kinda how i see the transformation of the classic communist thought to something adapted to grow with the times, so i dont really think you can down the adaptions made by the left.

a monopoly can price gouge if the product is a necessity with no other substitutes like water. in this rather extreme case, the company with a monopoly can price gouge because we all need water, and if they are the only suppliers of it, then they can do whatever they choose to do.

capitalism may be efficient, but that is not saying much. a dictator can come to power, institute a form of economy we will call "x", and have it work completely efficiently. not much of a difference.

[Stormin Norman]

abstractmentality,

It is true that the United States used tariffs after it was created. The purpose for this had less to do with protecting domestic suppliers, than it had to do with the government levying taxes. Developing countries do not necessarily employ tariffs to stabilize their economies, as our economy was booming due to our abundant supply of natural resources. The newly formed government had to generate revenue for its own operation. Tariffs remained the easiest way to do so. It remains more difficult to levy taxes on people’s incomes, sales, and property, especially in a period when technology was less developed.

Furthermore, one could look at the underlying reasons for the American Revolution, and deduce that the new government was a little wary of taxation. Recall the phrase "taxation without representation". Even though we had our own elected officials, I am sure it would have been hard to impose a heavy tax burden on the citizens. The Whiskey Rebellion remains a good case in point.

Finally, the concept of a free market was in its infancy, and the science of economics was still forming. There were many cause and effect relationships that had not been made apparent. Few people if any knew how detrimental tariffs are to the consumer. It wasn't until later that economists found that tariffs allow domestic suppliers to increase their sales, but the result is a loss in consumer surplus. In effect, consumers lose more than governments gain and producers profit, combined. If you look to the history behind tariffs you can see a natural reduction in its use, as this revelation became apparent to economists. From 1790-1860 most of the governments revenue came from tariffs. Then it started to decline to about 50% of the federal revenue by WWI. Now the total percentage of the federal revenue generated by tariffs is less than 2%. Of course, this decline was offset by the payroll tax, which is another form of taxation that hurts the consumer by decreasing take home pay.

When one considers the factors mentioned above, it is clear the history of tariffs doesn't provide evidence for a failure in the market system. It could be said that the problem was identified and solved to a certain extent. The market evolved to a more efficient system, where most educated people concede that protectionism hurts the consumer. Today, advocates of tariffs use three main arguments to support their view. These arguments consist of national defense, reducing domestic unemployment, and helping the growth of newly formed industries. These arguments don't change the economic impacts of tariffs. They simply make it sound good to their constituents, which happen to be the consumers who are hurt by such measures.

[Stormin Norman]

Micheal,

Here is a serious topic discussed last night. What are your views on tariffs? Do you have anything to add, or do you take issue with anything that I wrote?

[abstractmentality]

Stormin Norman:

The point I was trying to make with America being a highly protectionist economy in its development is that if it would not have practiced protectionism, the industries of the united states would not have been able to develop as they did. The theory of free market capitalism is just that, a theory. To quote Chomsky in this case, “take the fact that there is not a single case on record in history of any country that has developed successfully through adherence to ‘free market’ principles: none.” Here is an excerpt from Paul Bairoch’s Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes:
The important point to note here is not only that the depression [in Europe beginning around 1870] started at the peak of liberalism [i.e. the period of Europe's experimentation with laissez faire] but that it ended around 1892-4, just as the return to protectionism in Continental Europe had become really effective. . . . In those years the United States, which, as we have seen, was increasing its protectionism, went through a phase of very rapid growth. Indeed this period can be regarded as among the most prosperous in the whole economic history of the United States.

Another example would be the steel industry of the 80’s:
[F]or most of the 1980s America's steel industry was heavily protected from foreign competition. Starting in 1982, after a series of anti-dumping complaints against foreign suppliers the government negotiated a series of "voluntary" export restraints (VERs) with the E.C. [European Community], Japan, South Korea and others. The agreements limited the foreign supplier's share of the American market; thus sheltered, the industry rebuilt itself. . . . The policy of protection -- much criticised by economists at the time -- seems to have worked. It gave the industry the time (and extra profits) it needed to adjust.

Now lets look at what Herman Daly, the former World Bank Senior Economist has to say:
My major concern about my profession today is that our disciplinary preference for logically beautiful results over factually grounded policies has reached such fanatical proportions that we economists have become dangerous to the earth and its inhabitants.

[Stormin Norman]

I will get back with a reply sometime, Abstractmentality.
I promise.

[Guest]

shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Stormin Norman]

Abstract Mentality,

Sorry it has taken me awhile to respond, I have been busy with other issues. Since I promised you a response, I thought I would revisit the topic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Before we were discussing tariffs. You postulate that there has never been a developed economy that has not evolved from a projectionist environment. In addition you believe that this development would not have been possible without measures designed to meet the interests of a countries domestic industries. I contend that tariffs used in the early history of the United States were not designed specifically for that purpose, but rather as a way for an emerging nation to levy taxes. Economics were not well understood, and the idea of a free-market economy was in its infancy. The principles that describe negative impacts caused by protectionism were not well understood by the politicians responsible for those policies. Sadly, this still holds true today, in many cases. This revelation leads to the question that you have posed.

Predictably, you asked me to explain the protectionism that the U.S. has been guilty of in recent history. This is a very good question. It also shifts our discussion from tariffs to import quotas. After all, voluntary export restraints are not taxes on imports. They are a reduction in the amount of the market share that an importing country is allowed to hold. You are wise to question the benefits of such policy. If one is to engage in protectionism, tariffs are a superior way to go about doing it. The reasons for this are easy to recognize. When quotas limit goods, prices increase as they do with tariffs. Both practices allow the consumer to be hurt, but tariffs are better because the country imposing them gains tax revenue and industries at home benefit (there will be more jobs available in that industry). The benefits of higher prices caused by import quotas usually go exclusively to the manufacturers of the protected good, foreign and domestic alike. These gains come at the detriment to the consumer who pays the higher prices, and the government who looses out on revenue generated by maximizing an industries full potential.

If import quotas are so much worse, why then do we use them? I have no answer for that question, because I do not defend the practice. The best explanation is that import quotas are perceived as being less projectionist than tariffs. Why are they imposed? Many interested parties lobby their congressmen for these measures from both sides of the aisle. Unions do it because they want security in jobs. Corporations do it because they desire the benefits of higher prices and less competition. By far the best argument for any kind of protectionism lies in national defense.

If the domestic steel industry were allowed to fold, what would happen to the infrastructure and efficiency of that industry? It would disappear. Imagine what would happen if we relied entirely on foreign steel. What would happen if the major importer became our enemy? They would cut the supply; thereby reducing our capacity to create the machines needed to readily resist. We would most definitely spend valuable time trying to shift a large portion of our economy to filling that gap, and we would not be efficient enough to seriously compete. That equates to the enemy having a sizable advantage on the battleground. When put into this prospective, it is easy to see why our government has an interest in keeping our steel industry competitive.

Economics can be used a war tactic. Dumping steel at prices lower than they are able to produce it and making up for it in other areas of their economy could result in a contraction of our industry at home. As we have just seen, this can make the difference between winning and losing a war. Therefore, shouldn't our policy makers be suspicious of any country that appears to be using this tactic. The purpose of dumping is not always war-like. It could simply be a means to increase your profit by reducing competition. After your competitors have died off, you can later mark your prices up to more reasonable levels, and you will also benefit from the growth of your market share. However, how is one to honestly tell the difference? As this could be a precursor to war, shouldn't prudent measures be taken to ensure that a percentage of our economy could be readily allocated to the war mode? I don't know if import quotas are the best way to accomplish this, but I do believe that potential war is a major factor in deciding to use them.

To conclude, you are correct in that a perfectly competitive free-market has never been achieved. In fact, it is the ideal situation that economists use a model to predict patterns and behavior, and also to determine where economies are doing poorly. It is recognized by virtually all of the world's economists that this model does a better job of answering the three main questions of any economy than communism. The main purposes of any economy are to determine what goods to produce and in what quantities, how these goods are distributed, how to accomplish the first two goals in an efficient manner with a limited number of resources. It just so happens that the closer an economy resembles the ideal model, the healthier the economy.

Economics is a very interesting topic. One can make a comparison of this social science to the hard sciences. The job of the theoretical scientist is to arrive at theories that explain certain phenomenon. The job of the laboratory scientist is testing the assertions of theory. The difference between the idea of communism and the ideal of a perfectly competitive free-market lies in the fact that one is an actual model that has proven itself in theory and in practice, while the other is some fanciful dream with no real world application. Communism is a hypothesis not supported by experimental data. The free-market has withstood experimentation and been dubbed a law. Again I ask you, if you were to design an airplane, would you prefer the one based on science or the one based on intuition?

[abstractmentality]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 3:57 am on Nov. 9, 2002
I contend that tariffs used in the early history of the United States were not designed specifically for that purpose, but rather as a way for an emerging nation to levy taxes. Economics were not well understood, and the idea of a free-market economy was in its infancy. The principles that describe negative impacts caused by protectionism were not well understood by the politicians responsible for those policies. Sadly, this still holds true today, in many cases.
Whether or not the policies of economics was understood to the degree that we "understand" them today is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the protectionist thought was prevailing, as well as the american economy. And you stated correctly that protectionism does cause inefficiencies in production (when compared with someone who can make it cheaper), but cheaper is not always better. look at the sweat shops being used now in places where things can be made cheaper, or the factories that are paying people inhuman wages because it is cheaper. although the consumer "benifits" from lower cost, the workers (people creating this stuff) are being harmed. And as i also stated previously, the degree of efficiency should not be the number one thing when speaking of an economic system. A dictatorship is the most efficient, but you and i both will not give our support for this option.

It just so happens that the closer an economy resembles the ideal model, the healthier the economy.
But I disagree on this statement here, and history does as well. A noted case in my previous post, concerning the european depression is an example that does not play into this statement. The closer europe was getting to the "ideal model" the worse the economy was getting. As i said in my previous post as well, your "ideal model" of an economics system is a theory, and you recognze this yourself when you say "a perfectly competitive free-market has never been achieved." And if it has never been achieved, then it is a theory. With this in mind, the last few sentences of your post, in which you speak of the communist economic system as being flawed because it is theoretical and not shown to have real substance through practice and say that the "ideal model" is not flawed because it "has withstood experimentation" is completey false. If the "ideal model" has never been acheived, then how can it withstand experimentation and make itself a "law?"

Although i believe my old economics teacher to have been a stout republican, he always made sure to tell us that when we look at free-market economies, everything was in theory.

(Edited by abstractmentality at 11:14 am on Nov. 9, 2002)


(Edited by abstractmentality at 12:52 pm on Nov. 10, 2002)

[bolshevik1917]

It appears Norman is no longer willing to defend his 'exposure' of Socialism!

Perhaps he would like one more chance, here is my argument in full so far - although every time I read it I find flaws so we are by no means finished yet.

Take a look at some of these fatal blunders..

"There is no hope of changing professions once the state determines what size cog in the machine to make you."

"how is private property abolished when it merely becomes the property of the state? Isn’t property in the hands of the state subjected to more regulation, and in effect, kept out of the public’s reach?"

"how does state confiscation and monopolization prevents centralization?"

Now for someone who claims to have studied communism these are shocking mistakes to make! Should the author of this 'exposure' read my post I would recommend he returns to his books and educates himself.

Look at his first quote for instance, can anyone provide me with a quote from any great Marxist which talks about 'the state choosing jobs for people' ??

No, and that is because no such quote exists!

In order to see how flawed the rest of his article was we can refer him to Lenin's 'The State and Revlution' which explains how the 'bourgoise state' is abolished as soon as it is put under workers controll. In replacement a 'workes state' is established, but as soon as production commences it ceases to be a state in itself, the 'state' withers away.

Take a look at this quote from Engels.

"The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection -- nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase 'a free people's state', both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists' demand that the state be abolished overnight."
(Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science [Anti-Dühring], pp.301-03, third German edition.)

This section of Lenin's 'State and Revolution' which follows up Engels words is also worth quoting. Although I would recommend that Norman and his friends read the book in its entirity!

"It is safe to say that of this argument of Engels', which is so remarkably rich in ideas, only one point has become an integral part of socialist thought among modern socialist parties, namely, that according to marx that state "withers away" -- as distinct from the anarchist doctrine of the "abolition" of the state. To prune Marxism to such an extent means reducing it to opportunism, for this "interpretation" only leaves a vague notion of a slow, even, gradual change, of absence of leaps and storms, of absence of revolution. The current, widespread, popular, if one may say so, conception of the "withering away" of the state undoubtedly means obscuring, if not repudiating, revolution.
Such an "interpretation", however, is the crudest distortion of Marxism, advantageous only to the bourgeoisie. In point of theory, it is based on disregard for the most important circumstances and considerations indicated in, say, Engels' "summary" argument we have just quoted in full.
In the first place, at the very outset of his argument, Engels says that, in seizing state power, the proletariat thereby "abolishes the state as state". It is not done to ponder over over the meaning of this. Generally, it is either ignored altogether, or is considered to be something in the nature of "Hegelian weakness" on Engels' part. As a matter of fact, however, these words briefly express the experience of one of the greatest proletarian revolutions, the Paris Commune of 1871, of which we shall speak in greater detail in its proper place. As a matter of fact, Engels speaks here of the proletariat revolution "abolishing" the bourgeois state, while the words about the state withering away refer to the remnants of the proletarian state after the socialist revolution. According to Engels, the bourgeois state does not "wither away", but is "abolished" by the proletariat in the course of the revolution. What withers away after this revolution is the proletarian state or semi-state.
Secondly, the state is a "special coercive force". Engels gives this splendid and extremely profound definition here with the utmost lucidity. And from it follows that the "special coercive force" for the suppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, of millions of working people by handfuls of the rich, must be replaced by a "special coercive force" for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (the dictatorship of the proletariat). This is precisely what is meant by "abolition of the state as state". This is precisely the "act" of taking possession of the means of production in the name of society. And it is self-evident that such a replacement of one (bourgeois) "special force" by another (proletarian) "special force" cannot possibly take place in the form of "withering away".
Thirdly, in speaking of the state "withering away", and the even more graphic and colorful "dying down of itself", Engels refers quite clearly and definitely to the period after "the state has taken possession of the means of production in the name of the whole of society", that is, after the socialist revolution. We all know that the political form of the "state" at that time is the most complete democracy. But it never enters the head of any of the opportunists, who shamelessly distort Marxism, that Engels is consequently speaking here of democracy "dying down of itself", or "withering away". This seems very strange at first sight. But is is "incomprehensible" only to those who have not thought about democracy also being a state and, consequently, also disappearing when the state disappears. Revolution alone can "abolish" the bourgeois state. The state in general, i.e., the most complete democracy, can only "wither away".
Fourthly, after formulating his famous proposition that "the state withers away", Engels at once explains specifically that this proposition is directed against both the opportunists and the anarchists. In doing this, Engels puts in the forefront that conclusion, drawn from the proposition that "the state withers away", which is directed against the opportunists.
One can wager that out of every 10,000 persons who have read or heard about the "withering away" of the state, 9,990 are completely unaware, or do not remember, that Engels directed his conclusions from that proposition not against anarchists alone. And of the remaining 10, probably nine do not know the meaning of a "free people's state" or why an attack on this slogan means an attack on opportunists. This is how history is written! This is how a great revolutionary teaching is imperceptibly falsified and adapted to prevailing philistinism. The conclusion directed against the anarchists has been repeated thousands of times; it has been vulgarized, and rammed into people's heads in the shallowest form, and has acquired the strength of a prejudice, whereas the conclusion directed against the opportunists has been obscured and "forgotten"!
The "free people's state" was a programme demand and a catchword current among the German Social-Democrats in the seventies. this catchword is devoid of all political content except that it describes the concept of democracy in a pompous philistine fashion. Insofar as it hinted in a legally permissible manner at a democratic republic, Engels was prepared to "justify" its use "for a time" from an agitational point of view. But it was an opportunist catchword, for it amounted to something more than prettifying bourgeois democracy, and was also failure to understand the socialist criticism of the state in general. We are in favor of a democratic republic as the best form of state for the proletariat under capitalism. But we have no right to forget that wage slavery is the lot of the people even in the most democratic bourgeois republic. Furthermore, every state is a "special force" for the suppression of the oppressed class. Consequently, every state is not "free and not a "people's state". Marx and Engels explained this repeatedly to their party comrades in the seventies.
Fifthly, the same work of Engels', whose arguments about the withering away of the state everyone remembers, also contains an argument of the significance of violent revolution. Engels' historical analysis of its role becomes a veritable panegyric on violent revolution. This, "no one remembers". It is not done in modern socialist parties to talk or even think about the significance of this idea, and it plays no part whatever in their daily propaganda and agitation among the people. And yet it is inseparably bound up with the 'withering away" of the state into one harmonious whole.
Here is Engels' argument:
"...That force, however, plays yet another role [other than that of a diabolical power] in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society which is pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument with which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilized political forms -- of this there is not a word in Herr Dühring. It is only with sighs and groans that he admits the possibility that force will perhaps be necessary for the overthrow of an economy based on exploitation -- unfortunately, because all use of force demoralizes, he says, the person who uses it. And this in Germany, where a violent collision -- which may, after all, be forced on the people -- would at least have the advantage of wiping out the servility which has penetrated the nation's mentality following the humiliation of the Thirty Years' War. And this person's mode of thought -- dull, insipid, and impotent -- presumes to impose itself on the most revolutionary party that history has ever known!
(p.193, third German edition,
Part II, end of Chap.IV)
How can this panegyric on violent revolution, which Engels insistently brought to the attention of the German Social-Democrats between 1878 and 1894, i.e., right up to the time of his death, be combined with the theory of the 'withering away" of the state to form a single theory?
Usually the two are combined by means of eclecticism, by an unprincipled or sophistic selection made arbitrarily (or to please the powers that be) of first one, then another argument, and in 99 cases out of 100, if not more, it is the idea of the "withering away" that is placed in the forefront. Dialectics are replaced by eclecticism -- this is the most usual, the most wide-spread practice to be met with in present-day official Social-Democratic literature in relation to Marxism. This sort of substitution is, of course, nothing new; it was observed even in the history of classical Greek philosophy. In falsifying Marxism in opportunist fashion, the substitution of eclecticism for dialectics is the easiest way of deceiving the people. It gives an illusory satisfaction; it seems to take into account all sides of the process, all trends of development, all the conflicting influences, and so forth, whereas in reality it provides no integral and revolutionary conception of the process of social development at all.
We have already said above, and shall show more fully later, that the theory of Marx and Engels of the inevitability of a violent revolution refers to the bourgeois state. The latter cannot be superseded by the proletarian state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) through the process of 'withering away", but, as a general rule, only through a violent revolution. The panegyric Engels sang in its honor, and which fully corresponds to Marx's repeated statements (see the concluding passages of The Poverty of Philosophy and the Communist Manifesto, with their proud and open proclamation of the inevitability of a violent revolution; see what Marx wrote nearly 30 years later, in criticizing the Gotha Programme of 1875, when he mercilessly castigated the opportunist character of that programme) -- this panegyric is by no means a mere "impulse", a mere declamation or a polemical sally. The necessity of systematically imbuing the masses with this and precisely this view of violent revolution lies at the root of the entire theory of Marx and Engels. The betrayal of their theory by the now prevailing social-chauvinist and Kautskyite trends expresses itself strikingly in both these trends ignoring such propaganda and agitation.
The supersession of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent revolution. The abolition of the proletarian state, i.e., of the state in general, is impossible except through the process of "withering away".
A detailed and concrete elaboration of these views was given by Marx and Engels when they studied each particular revolutionary situation, when they analyzed the lessons of the experience of each particular revolution. We shall now pass to this, undoubtedly the most important, part of their theory."

This small passage alone ridicules Norman’s argument, however he has many more howlers to expose over the next few days. As ive said I will need to fish for some quotes, I would like to include something on dialectics and historical materialism - something he has ignored completely.

As Lenin said IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND MARXISM WITHOUT A KNOWLEDGE OF DIALECTICS. Norman has not only thought he has understood Marxism without a knowledge of dialectics, he has also had the cheek to critiscise it.


You use the USSR and China as examples, this is flawed for two reasons.

1. The Russian revolution was not brought to a conclusion, the conclusion being a worldwide revolution. Lenin and Trotsky were always stressing the need for revolution in western capitalist countries, this never happened (for many reasons that we could spend hours talking about) Stalin also had his chance with events in Germany before Hitler came to power. Stalin proved he was anti-Marxist however when he curbed the German workers revolution. In effect, the Russian revolution died with Lenin.

2. China, Yugoslavia, Cuba and anything else were not Marxist revolutions. There was never democracy in these countries. I cannot argue for them, they are nothing to do with me.

I see you are using the tactic of 'history proves everything' this is very ridgid. Say you were living 100 years ago and writting about the cloning of animals. At that point it had never been attempted or even thought about. Therefore would you say that 'cloning will never happen as it has not happened in the past'?

The difference between Russia in 1917 and Britain/America in 2003 is that productive forces have been raised to the point in which there is enough food and materials for everyone. For example in the farming industry where farmers in order to keep prices high, stockpile surpluss grain and put blue dyes through it to make it unusable.

In total the world produces almost TWICE enough food and materials to give everyone a good life. Under capitalism we should be able to all live comfartably, the capitalists will not let us however. People die of starvation every day in every country, there is not one country on earth without poverty. Humanity must move to its next stage - socialism!

Take a look at what you have written here.

"Even Frederick Engels and Carl Marx were amazed at the proficiency of the market. Marx stated that capitalist economies remained, “The first to show what man’s activity can bring about”, creating ,”wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman Aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals”. So why then did Marx encourage it’s dismissal. The time period in which the Communist Manifesto was written marked the infancy of the free-market, brought about by the scientific and industrial revolutions."

No one can deny capitalism was a neccesary step forward from feudalism. Marx and Engels were well aware that capitalism was needed to raise production to the point of which there is enough to go round - the trouble is this happened nearly 300 years ago!

Humanity has went through several stages - slavery, feudalism, serfdom etc. Each time though these stages outlived its usefullness and humanity moved on. The trouble now however is capitalisms grip on everything we see and read. They can tell people anything, it makes it harder for Marxists to spread our ideas which have been slandered for 150 years.

In order to understand the process of historical materialism visit http://www.marxist.com/Theory/study_guide2.html

You have also failed to understand the economic side of things. You state that

“If prices are too high the customer will not purchase the commodity desired, leaving the companies bottom line suffering. Markets do not have the capacity to oppress their customers effectively, since they are dependent on their customers to survive. It is better to let economies run on Adam Smith’s invisible hand of supply and demand, because when everyone suites their best interest, an economy’s resources are allocated by price.
In contrast, central planners must decide which outputs to produce, which inputs to use, and how to distribute them without the convenience of an efficient price system. It is easy to see how markets are dependent upon one another. Economies can be stopped dead as a matter of short-sightedness. One industry’s output change can drastically effect other related industries. Input-output equations are often used to solve such problems. The lengthiness and complexity of these problems show the challenge of an economy that is completely controlled by the central government. It is impossible to predict how much of each output is needed and where they will be needed. A process to organize the various information needed to run an economy of interdependent markets is best left to a price mechanism in a free-market economy.”

Again “If prices are too high the customer will not purchase the commodity desired, leaving the companies bottom line suffering”

Lets use Record Stores as an example. A CD costs around 5p to make, CD’s are sold to shop’s in bulk, but work out roughly at about £4 per CD (at the very most). Each CD then sells for around £12.

From 5p to £12, could this be considered a ‘high price’ ? Of course, but as all shops will sell for roughly the same price the consumer has no choice but to buy the CD for more than £10 than it costs to produce. Shops will never decrease prices for any great length of time (there will be short term ‘sales’ etc) and as the ‘boom and bust’ laws of capitalist economy exist inflation will sooner or later bulk these prices up.
I assume you have read all 3 volumes of ‘das kapital’ as you have decided to critiscise Marxist economics. However as I pointed out in my last post “As Lenin said IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND MARXISM WITHOUT A KNOWLEDGE OF DIALECTICS.”

And because the first chapter of ‘das kapital’ was infact nothing to do with economics but ALL THEORY you have read this massive work WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST UNDERSTANDING OF DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM.

I can see this from your ‘history is everything’ tactic, and for a few other reasons which I will cover in my next post (I want you to digest this so im not going to rant on in one huge post)

Untill then I suggest you read (as well as historical materialism) this introduction to Marxist economics http://www.marxist.com/Economy/theory_of_value_1.html which, written only last year is a very modern up to date development of Marx’s brilliant economic works.

What about your views on the ‘middle class’


“First of all Marx believed that modern capitalism had created a simple two-pronged class hierarchy, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, or upper and lower class. The manifesto also mentions the middle class. However, Marx tried to lump them into either of the two classifications. He believed, by controlling the labor market and hoarding capital the middle class moved into the oppressive bourgeoisie category. Conversely, as these men’s specialties are monopolized by larger firms, they would be put out of business and end up in the proletarian class. Sometimes technological unemployment would have the same effect as being forced out by competition, but as history has proved, the middle class remains the foundation for capitalist economic structure. They are necessary for the smooth operation of a materialistic society, solely based on their discretionary income. Marx’s failure to appropriately acknowledge the middle class helped to create the exact problem he cited with capitalist class structure, when communism was actually put into practice. This being a powerful privileged class, and an overabundance of the lower class who were effectively oppressed.”

Interesting quote. Marx recognised the role of the middle class as counter revolutionary. If we consider the middle class to be small buisnessmen, shopkeepers and suchlike then how do they merge in with the working class after revolution?

One of the great things about communism is the cut in the working day and working week. If everyone in society was to contribute then there would be less for us all to do. Say after the revolution OR in the event of a socialist government being elected, the working class has taken over the ‘bourgeois state’ which is now a ‘proletariat state’ nationalises all major supermarkets (which it would). Then allows the ‘middle class’ shopkeepers to continue running their buisness (simply to avoid violence).

The nationalised supermarkets would be paying such good wages, with such good hours that the ‘middle class’ shopkeeper would be stupid not to simply ‘shut up shop’ and seek employment in a supermarket. All surplus value now made is not ‘surplus’ as such, but can go towards health and suchlike. With all the money available to the ‘proleteriat state’ the prices in these supermarkets would be incredibly low. All ‘middle class’ shopkeepers (should they remain shopkeepers) would have no custom left!

So what becomes of them? They in effect become ‘proletariats’

And flush goes your argument down the toilet!


But that’s not all

“Of course, not all communists or socialists are inherently evil. Many look at the inequality of income and find it unacceptable to have such poverty in an industrial nation like ours. In fact, Marx was highly critical of these disparities of income and used it as reasoning for violent revolution.”

Should we not ‘find it unacceptable to have such poverty in an industrial nation like ours’? (I would have said industrial world but there you go)

This does not mean ‘we’ want to go around shooting everyone, waving red flags and shouting freedom. I think I speak for every Marxist here when I say all I want is democracy, equality and access to the means of production.

You then go on to say

“That is the great danger of Marxist philosophy. The ability the get the majority to condone such violence. In truth, it takes a certain power thirsty mindset to seize control of an economy. Men such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Castro all fit the description.”


Stalin, Mao and Castro might have claimed to be Marxists but the proof was in their actions – if they were Marxists then I certainly am not! As for Hitler, what has he got to do with anything?

And could you have been talking about George Bush or Tony Blair when you claimed

“This brand of person has no concern for human rights and will exterminate anyone who opposes their supremacy.”

Your next ‘exposure’ of Marxism is to rattle of some stats about ‘how many people have died under communism’. Another fatal flaw. How can people have died under something that has never existed? Lenin and the Bolsheviks started to lay the foundations for socialism, but Lenin’s death, the failure of world revolution, and the rise of Stalin all contributed in the TEMPORARY setback of communism for now. You have given stats for people dying under dictatorships, whether these dictators were ‘inspired’ by Marx or not is irrelivant. I wonder if you have any stats for the amount of people who have died under capitalism, or even under George W Bush in his short reign??

Its rather amusing Norman (what an adequate name) that you thought this pathetic ‘exposure’ of Marxism was ‘educated’ and ‘read up’

I have one word for it – GARBAGE

[Stormin Norman]

[/quote]From: bolshevik1917
In total the world produces almost TWICE enough food and materials to give everyone a good life. Under capitalism we should be able to all live comfartably, the capitalists will not let us however. People die of starvation every day in every country, there is not one country on earth without poverty. Humanity must move to its next stage - socialism![/quote]

-I don't expect that you would care to prove this point, bolshevik1917. I would really like to see the data that supports this claim so generically thrown out by most leftists.

-As for the rest of your points, I will get to them in due time. I have been preoccupied with other issues lately, but would very much like to point you to the flaws in your thinking. Be patient. Don't jump to the conclusion that because I have yet to respond you somehow won the debate. That would be the sort of foolishness I would expect from antieverything.