Results 1 to 20 of 26
in their arguements against communism, the right always seems to want to remind us of the "communism" of the past and present and how corrupt they have been. however, when the left responds by saying that the past 'communists' don't reflect the values of true communism, they ignore us and say this is not true. or they ask "how come no one said that before, when the S.U. was still in power?"
the question is, how do we rid ourselves of the tarnished face of communism? and how do we make people realize that communism isn't about killing and oppresing millions of people rather it is exactly the opposite?
\"One murder makes a villain...millions a hero. Numbers sanctify, my friend.\" -Charlie Chaplin
thats something i really dont understand. I really need to learn a lot more about it, but whenever i try and bring it up to people like me teacher, he just says "well your wrong, and im right . . . communism is evil, blah blah blah". I have called him on a lot of stuff, but he insists hes always right !
\"Offense is your best defense, if your defensive your only limiting yourself.\"
Everyone brings it up, because that is the only argument people seem to have against communism. But then again, if we are going to argue that communism is bad because of its past, then I guess christianity, judaism, islam, great britain, usa, canada, france, germany, etc are all bad because in the past they have had poor leaders make poor decisions. It's the people that make within that make it "bad," not the theory itself.
The answer to changing people's opinion on communism is really hard, I've heard many people change their mind about communism when you explain it to them. But I don't have an answer to that question, somewhere out there there must be though.
<insert quote here>
It takes two to speak the truth...
One to speak and the other to listen.
- Henry David Thoreau
It cannot but be supportive, socialist, communist or whatever you want to call it. Does nature, and the human species with it, have much time left to survive in the absence of such change? Very little time. Who will be the builders of that new world? The
Actually, many communists spoke out against the Soviets Union while it was in power, e.g. the British Communist Party severed it's links with the Soviets in about the 60's i think.
Hey guys I have a problem. Everytime I try to argue about communism I'm always told that It was bad, and corrupt and responsible for the deaths of millions. I mean, is that only argument the capitalist have.
Actually, I've got another one, no where in here has anyone explained how it should work as an economic system. Everyone appears to take it for granted that it would function, running on everyones' benevolance. Im open minded, explain how a communist system would work, I'd sincerely like to know because that aside there are many virtuous aspirations inherent in communism.
I\'m right, and you\'re wrong. -Vox
Well simply tell them that it wasnt really communism (which it really isnt true communism) and its stalinism and tell them that most forms of "communism" in the goverments of the world that are responsible for those deaths was stalins warped version of communism, which i call "arrogant communism" or "idiotic communism"
Che Guevara wannabe
And the fact that the right wing propaganda puts Democracy against Communism even though one is a political system and one is a Economic System.
Capitalism has caused 300 million deaths since the industrial revolution (1846) by the way. And this figure takes out a lot of factors.
The Opium Wars
Western Backed Dictatorships
every 3.2 seconds someone dies of famine. If capitalism is so great wouldn't these people be fed?
The awnser is that Capitalism isn't great. It is corrupt.
3.2 deaths by famine every second is over 9 million a year by the way.
That's more than China supposedly kills in a year (which is capitalist anyway but the capitalist gives it to us)
That's more than the average yearly deaths from "communism" since 1917 (1,063,830)
"Communism" has been claimed to cause 100,000,000 deaths since 1917 (even though all the regimes included weren't communist).
One of my friends says communism hasn't existed and still caused 100,000,000 deaths. If there hasn't been a communist regime then it hasn't killed anyone has it. Stupid Capitalist education system.
Capitalists talk like Mark wanted to cause the deaths but didn't write clearly. Actually Marx said "Workers unite for you only have to loose are your chains and the world to gain" Doesn't sound like he wants to kill everyone does he.
Capitalists then try and claim that Capitalism doesn't oppress because it allows people to move into jobs with better conditions. You can't move if there are no jobs with good conditions in your country and you can't afford to leave.
Capitalists then claim that Minimum wage legislation causes unemployment because "there are jobs where the work is worth less than the minimum wage and means people can't get jobs" However the government uses quotas for minorities (which are allways set higher than the total for that group) to create unemployment, increase demand for jobs and lower wages and increase profits.
There were Corn laws in the Ninteenth century to lower the prices of bread (so the rich could by more) and this lowered the wages for the poor.
40% of all food produced is wasted. This is because multinationals think desire everything to look the same, and be the same length. And anything that isn't within about 1 mm of the set size is discarded. This food that's wasted could be vital in releaving famine.
We have wine, butter, milk and meat mountains in the west while people starve in Africa. Why not give them to Africa. But noo this isn't capitalist.
We set the prices for raw-materials. This means we get em cheap, earn loads of money and everyone else starves.
And remember the ultimate holocaust of capitalism will be 6,000,000,000 people dying from environmental degradation.
The sick thing is that most people still think that this system is nice.
(Edited by Moskitto at 7:04 pm on Oct. 13, 2001)
(Edited by Moskitto at 6:28 pm on Oct. 14, 2001)
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11
agusto, there is no benevolence in communist economics whatsoever. it is purely rationalist (though i loath to use that hated term). in the communist economy workers control the means of production and the economy is in turn regulated by the state. basically, according to marx, the alienation of workers from their work and the product is removed from the economy and workers are free to enjoy the fruits of their labour without exploitation. this is why russia, before red october, was a poverty stricken agrarian feudal state with no industry and by the end of ww2 was the equal of the us and a world superpower. it is also the reason why china is today's fastest growing economy. all of this was achieved without the so-called impetus of capitalism. and note agusto, before you begin ranting, that i make distinctions between the economy of the communist state and the social nature of the state in practise, which has tended to be authoritarian in the past.
an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
Augostos i will do by best to explain the marxist theory as i understand it. I will start frist by pointing out that it has never bin truly try so there is no poof where it works or not. And even if it where tryed and it failed that would not constitute absolute and difinitive *proof* that it couldnt work.
Nations and people are interdependante, this is the reason for trade, both among nations and within them. What is pretended is not to abolish the trading of goods because this would be foolish. This would mean that each small comunity would have to produce everything and this is impossible. The objective is to eliminate *trade* as you understand the concept in a capitalist system: private or public inciative with the intention of providing capital that can be again *traded* in a circular system. Here trade exists and a mean to provide all people with the goods they need in equality. Also this distribution is made with equality as its main concern, maybe absolute equality is impossible but grave unjustice is eliminated. There is social distribution of work, this means everyone must work for the community and maybe carry out different jobs depending on community needs. For example if there are to many docters in "Village A", then they would alternate this job with farming and thus be more usefull to there fello contrymen. Now let us supose that village A`s main product is food from agriculture and this village is in Portugal for example. Village A would suply portugal with its food and would be suplyed by portugal in other goods without the interferance of profit in these transactions. Of course if you dont want to work and give to the community you do not get back, you can live on you own, in short you are free to do what you want. One problem stands out here, and that is trade between nations. Now if this is a trade between comunist and capitalist contrys i dont see how it is possible without compremising the system of the frist since the second will do nothing if there is not capitalist profit involved, be it from investements or simple trade. So this kind of dependance is very dificult to over come. Trade between two comunist nations should work as trade within them, in other words goods should be traded in acordace with the needs of each and without the profit elemente. How is this possible? well it is really quite simple, If america needs bananas and brazil needs coats they trade them equaly acording to need and surplus. In affect coats are not worth more than bananas in this system because there is no "comercial value". Further more this is not a private inciative, its is rather two enormus communities trading goods in acordance to needs and avalatility of products. since Trading proffit is not a factor exploration of one by the other is not possible nore aceptable.
Democracy is of course a must but this fundamental economic system stays unchanged.
As you said El Che, trade in or between communistic societies is regulated by need and availability as opposed to commercial value. If Brazil needed coats and America needed bananas, who actually handles the transaction? Who makes sure that the "goods" get where they're needed? My first guess would be the folks in the coat factories and banana crops that produced the goods, but I don't really know.
"Everyone knows that politicians routinely exaggerate,
distort, and make promises that they know full well
they can never fulfill .... Woodrow Wilson campaigned
in 1912 promising to keep the United States out of
World War I. Franklin Delano Roosevelt campaigned
in 1940, very careful not to appear as if he wanted to
take the nation into World War II on the side of the
British. Lyndon Johnson promised in 1964 that American
boys would not die in Vietnam. Once elected, each of
these presidents did lead the nation into wars in which
hundreds of thousands of young American soldiers
died." -- John Stockwell, The Praetorian Guard, p. 26
hey, did you forget?
the opressed have the right and should use violence against the opressor.
many practical problems are presented when trying to solve the problem of nation interdependance though trade, whithout incuring in the same errors that capitalism takes for granted. Marx was in favor of a progressive elimination of borders to extend the brotherhood that should exist in each contry to a global brotherhood. This way no trade is necessary. But this is difficult to atchive, maybe in a later stage of development it could be implemented. Until then i think the best bet would be for a trade between nations, handled by goverments that should abstain from trying to make a profit from this. If one nation has alot of oil and another alot of bananas they trade with each other keeping in mind that those same two products should not be handled as merchandises. If this is observed then they have no subjective value (value of trade) and thus banana nations is not exploited by oil nation. This is not utopian it is responsible. I refuse to belive that it is utopian to consider that humans have the resbonsibility not to exploit each other, if i did i would not waste my time with such matters. The fact is we have still a lot to learn and evolve until the day that small minded ppl will undersand that we should live together in equality of wealth and conditions. Not 1/4 of the worlds population living off the rest in a shamefull way.
I have a lot of ideas on how we can rid ourselves of that image. Read my opinion on "Communism in America"
Leave me a message.
(Edited by Jose Noe at 9:42 am on Oct. 18, 2001)
el che, i think you misunderstand the notion of trade as an interaction that is exclusive to nation states. Its not, it pertains to individuals as well. If you have a job you are partaking in trade, an exchange of goods or services. You are given money in return for labor. Therefore your notion that you could eliminate trade and end up at a pragmatic utopia is silly. Trade is one of the most basic human functions, save what we do biologically. It is based on the principles of comperative advantage, in which, if handled correctly, and not hindered by government trade regulation, i.e. tarriffs and quotas and other things that free trade agreements would abolish, everyone gets something of greater value in return for something of lesser value. I've realized that when I explain something once, i have to continue repeating it multiple times, so i'll stop there in anticipation of your replies...
I\'m right, and you\'re wrong. -Vox
you an Anarcho-Capitalist then Agusto?
I find much appeal in the smith capitalis model, but if any of you read smith you'd realize that rather than proposing a hands off government approach he gives government a crucial role in the economy. Smith is innacurately sized up with the phrase laissez-faire, it implies that government is a hindrance, rather he hopes government is strong enough to combat UNNATURAL monopoly and preserve competition by sudsidizing PUBLIC NON-RIVAL goods. If you wish to call me an anarcho capitalist do so at the peril of not only misenterpreting me, but nearly everybody on this planet that partakes in economic social interactions. I dare say, you too are a trader.
I\'m right, and you\'re wrong. -Vox
I missunderstand nothing, you can eliminate trade within a nation with colectivisation. I know what your going to say: it doesnt work, its contrary to human nature, etc etc etc. I think i can work, however i do not concern my self to much with its viability or not because i think it is not for my time. I am not in favor of radical violente revolutions and these theories must be tried in practice, through experimentation and error, and because i think we have still alot to do before we can "evolve" out of capitalism and trade as you understand and defend it. I think for the moment what we need is reform, we need to restrain the capitatist dogs and abolish tyranical corporate power, etc etc etc. Reform my boy reform, these theories mean nothing in the ar, we need to act and start acting now with activism and our vote, and case by case with our ideals to guide us build a better society that the capitalist one you hold as virtuous and inexsorable.
Viva la revolution! patira ou muerte!
I didn't read much what comrades said about this topic...
I just want to say that we should be ashamed of communist past! We should be ashamed of some parts of communist past but we should also say that some countries after WW2 survived because of socialism. My grandma said that they would starved to death if there wasn't colectivism COMMUNISM, AS WE KNEW IT HAD IT'S TIME. WE COULD SAY THERE WASN'T ALTERNATIVE IN THAT TIME... We should also say that communism was uniting people all over the world. No mather to skin color or nation. People had a HOPE then! They were together trying to build a better world. But they couldn't... They couldn't find a better way. Tragedy happened because of it.
\"Those from the East, and those from the West must know that we won\'t abandon the path of Non-Alignence\"
Josip Broz Tito
MISTAKE MISTAKE MISTAKE
LAPSUS LINGUA... I wanted to say that we SHOULDN'T be ashamed of communist past
\"Those from the East, and those from the West must know that we won\'t abandon the path of Non-Alignence\"
Josip Broz Tito
