Communism - Why was it invented?

[RedThreat]

OK, some people might disagree completely with me on this one. Communism was and will always be the worst way to run a country, it sounds good but then the true working stiffs get...well.....stiffed. It sounds all nice and dandy, everyone equal, like that is going to happen. Seriously equalism is never going to happen unless everyone but 1 person is dead. The rulers will get power hungry and choke the people of there ammenities saying that they are needed for something totally retarded.

[RedPirate]

Ok... Just backing this comrade for a sec... He just stating over a long period what will happen, Just opion dont go postal on the new kids yet man...

[Just Joe]

i agree 100% with redthreat. the Soviet Union was more unequal than some capitalist states. Communism is anti-working class.

(Edited by Just Joe at 9:49 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)

[Xvall]

LOL

Your beautifully written arguments have totally convinced me that an ideology designed to place the means of production in the hands of the working-class is in fact, an ideology that hates to working class. Long live Crapitalism!

I'll write a decent rebuttal when you think of a better argument than:

Communism Sux! It sounds good but it will fail!

[Guardia Bolivariano]

It's funny ,but besides being a thought critic of communism. None of you here give us a better solution.

[Just Joe]

drake dracoli, explain to me how communism puts the means of production into the hands of the working class.

(Edited by Just Joe at 10:16 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)

[Xvall]

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

The Communist Manifesto

I think that explains enough. What the are you trying to ask me? Read the manifesto! It outlines the whole thing! The entire point of communism is to better the conditions for working class! How can you be so blatantly oblivious to this!? This is like me asking the capitalists what capitalism has ANYTHING to do with capital!

[Tkinter1]

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 10:42 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)

[Guardia Bolivariano]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 10:39 pm on Feb. 28, 2003
What is the labor class?

Working class with really bad job conditions

[Xvall]

The Labor Class, I believe, was more commonly used in the Industrial Era; I don't really see it often today. I believe it referred to groups like exploited children forced to work in coal mines, women forced to work in sweatschops, etc.

[Just Joe]

tell me specifically how the working class could take over the economy. don't just tell me they would, tell me how. do you agree with a command economy?

[Spiteful]

[Xvall]

Simple; The means of production would be put in the hands of the workers. The workers would run factories, manufacturing places, etc. as a whole; rather than it being in control of the hands of private individuals. I don't know how you want me to explain this to you. Instead of one businessman controling and deciding what to make and produce; the workers as a whole will produce what the society as a whole needs. If there seems to be a need for shoes; the workers will together decide that they need to create a facility that assembles shoes; and they would do so.

[Xvall]

command economy

Capitalism? Define command economy. Are you saying Socialism and Communism are 'command economies'? I do not like that word. Why are capitalistic economies considered 'free economies'? If anything, Socialism and Communism is the 'free economy'; as it ensures survival for all members of society. Maybe people would not have three cars, and live in mansions; but at least everyone will have a roof over their head and the basic necessities of life. Capitalism is not 'Free' at all. It is under the absolute rule of corporations. One man decides what the company produces, and how much they produce. Socialism and Communism; in these systems the workers and members of society decide as a whole what their needs are, and as a whole, work to fufill these needs. Do not think of Socialism and Communism as a 'command' system, where everyone is forced to be the same as everyone else. Think of it as a society where some have a little more, and some have a little less; but there are no have-nots. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

[Just Joe]

but worker control is not what happened in Marxist-Leninist states. what happened was a command economy in the hands of very few men with no worker input. so when i say i'm against Communism, its not the theory that is the main problem, its the practice. i'll stick with Socialism for now.

(Edited by Just Joe at 11:23 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)

[Just Joe]

ok, to clarify, this is what i support for an economy:

state control of monopolies. all big industries should be democratically planned to meet the needs of the people. smaller companies should be owned by the people who work for them so they can earn the profits from it. and private companies can operate on a small scale basis. thats socialism.

what happened when communism was tried, is too much centralisation and rulers providing for the state, not for the people. the workers did not control the economy.

[Anonymous]

"the Soviet Union was more unequal than some capitalist states"
wrong, actaully, the soviet union was more equal than russia currently is...

Let's see to what extent has capitalism been successful in the x eastern block... :

The data below indicates an index of real Gross Domestic Product in 1999 for individual countries in transition. (1989=100)


1.Poland=121
2.Slovenia=107
3.Slovakia=101
4.Hungary=99
5.Czech Republic=95
6.Albania=91
7.Croatia=79
8.Estonia=79
9.Romania=74
10.Bulgaria=66
11.Lithuania=65
12.Macedonia=60
13.Latvia=60


We see above that Poland has had the greatest growth with an 21% increase in GDP from 1989. The majority of countries however have experienced a severe fall in GDP, with Macedonia and Latvia being at a -40%, a double of the growth of Poland.


"but worker control is not what happened in Marxist-Leninist states. what happened was a command economy in the hands of very few men with no worker input. so when i say i'm against Communism, its not the theory that is the main problem, its the practice. i'll stick with Socialism for now."
wrong, yoguslavia was marxist-leninist state and it had a economy controled by the proletariat, like in russia in the pre-stalinist times...
the production is always controled by the politbure, it has to be, yet the politburo Must be composed by wroking men and women as well... a really socialist state is composed by working men and women, therefore statual control of the production means popular control of the economy...
you are mixing marxism-leninism with stalinism...

and... socialism is meant to be a stage of communism, if you dont like communism nor you want to reach it then you are a pseudo-socialist...

[Blibblob]

"Ok... Just backing this comrade for a sec... He just stating over a long period what will happen, Just opion dont go postal on the new kids yet man... "

GO POSTAL!!! He obviously came to this site with no background information, and for that deserves to be told!

[Som]

Quote: from Just Joe on 9:48 pm on Feb. 28, 2003
i agree 100% with redthreat. the Soviet Union was more unequal than some capitalist states. Communism is anti-working class.

(Edited by Just Joe at 9:49 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)


You really need to get your definitions straight, besides being completley wrong, they are incredibly irritating to use on a forum that defines the words differently than you do, causing quite a bit of unneeded arguments. Its something that keeps coming up as well.

Your definition of communism is nothing but the usual western simplification of terms in propaganda. The simple minded mentality of 'the soviet union is run by communists, therefore the system they implement is communism'. This is wrong. They called themselves communists because they claimed to believe in an EVENTUAL communist society.

THE SOVIET UNION WAS NEVER COMMUNIST.
There has never been a true communist country for more than isolated periods. Communism is a stateless classless society.

The soviet union was Marxist-leninist. The system you constantly refer to as communism is Leninism. The soviet union ran a socialist or state capitalist economy, and was a one-party system. This is no definite association to be made with marxism and communism, as it is only one branch of marxism, which is one system of socialism.


Get your definitions straight and save us all a lot of trouble.

[Blibblob]

hmm, I hope this doesnt begin another "USSR" debate.

[RedThreat]

In replay to "Guardia Bolivariano", in my mind the democracy in power now here in America ( The World Power) is the most failsafe and sureproof plan, just we have some of the worst people running what geniuses started almost 200 years ago, they have driven the worlds "best" land through poverty stricken times and war, although the so called "poverty stricken" people of America live a kings life compared to Cambodia and other small mis fortunate countries.

[RedPirate]

They say its run by the people for the people. If indeed that was true, we wouldnt go to war. Because, not everyone is ready to lose soliders for a stupid idea. It run by the senate and congress. Dubya just throws out ideas and they tell him what they think. So, i think democracy isn't the real thing. Its just like every other bad idea.

[Blibblob]

Sadly, i have been finding many people who are pro-war. So...

[Xvall]

Really? I haven't. Well; when was the last time 7,000,000 people got off their arses and held a pro-war rally? Didn't think so.

[RedPirate]

The last Pro-War rally I heard of was in Orlando, and only 132 people went... WOW! 7,000,000 just seems a bit more mind changing...

[Xvall]

Right on, Pirate!

[Anonymous]

What gives workers the right?

[Anonymous]

themselfs...

its the people taht make history...
not the rulling classes..
the world belongs to the working class

[RedComrade]

Ahhh Davies an argument often used and even I once fell for it. One must ask oneself though what exactly does the U.S Political model do that is so good or unique. Its results are a country that produces 10% of the worlds wealth but consumes 50%, a state that has concentrate 50% of the worlds wealth in 6% of the worlds hands. Is also has a disgustingly high rate of murders and mental illness not seen in more socialist countries. The problem with the western model of democracy is it does not deal with these economic problems. There can be no such thing as a capitalist democracy, leaders will be chosen by money and not the people, the first lesson of evry political science class is is that the canidate who raises the most money wins the election. The biggest fault of the western democracy is its failure to confront the economic problem and consequently it has not and will not be the final solution. Even on the political model itself the american system is at fault, instead of going by popular vote to determine the winner (whoever gets the most votes wins) america employs an inefficient outdated system that allows tyrants like George W. to take office even though he received thousands of fewer votes than Gore (not that im pro Gore). The fact that on average only 45% of the population votes is a testameant to the failure of the American system to actually involve and work for the people...

[synthesis]

What gives workers the right?

They operate the means of production... it makes no sense to have a person who makes tenfold what the worker does for simply owning the means of production which the worker operates.

We intend to restore democratic control to companies. In other words, we intend to remove the middleman - in more ways than one :biggrin:

[Krobanikov]

What gives workers the right?
Might makes right and so it has for countless ages.In a truly just society a moral ethic based on cooperation and integrity would determine that which is right;however,until then we must accept that the world doesnt recognize what goodness deems right no matter how strongly we are individually given to that goodness.Corporations and executive management has the power over workers but not the right.
Whenever an ideology addresses human issues in all their complexities I myself cant help but feel akin to the spirit it enacts but when such an ideology regresses into nothing more than a bartering table for men possessed with quarrels over money I wish to divorce myself from the very last stitch of such a garment.