Some good reasons to advocate communism

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi@Apr 7 2004, 07:32 PM
Wow, Norway is kicking ass. They had like seven straight surpluses. Also, I'd like to add that Canada has much the same polices as Europe and we have I think 6 straight surpluses, so it can be done.

Norway has oilrevenues which flow into a fund. The proceeds of this fund, which has the size of their GDP at this moment, is used to pay for certain things. Very clever move.

But then again, Norway is in the lucky position to not be part of the EU so they can pretty much do whatever they want.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by Hoppe+Apr 7 2004, 04:36 PM--> (Hoppe @ Apr 7 2004, 04:36 PM)

Osman Ghazi

@Apr 7 2004, 07:32 PM
Wow, Norway is kicking ass. They had like seven straight surpluses. Also, I'd like to add that Canada has much the same polices as Europe and we have I think 6 straight surpluses, so it can be done.

Norway has oilrevenues which flow into a fund. The proceeds of this fund, which has the size of their GDP at this moment, is used to pay for certain things. Very clever move.

But then again, Norway is in the lucky position to not be part of the EU so they can pretty much do whatever they want. [/b]

Yes, Norway has oil revenues because the state owns them. If you had your way, the state wouldn't be doing anything, and some businuss owner would drill the oil themselves and pocket billions of dollers that could instead be used to help everyone rather then create a super-rich oil baron. Now...if the US could only see things like that...

[peaccenicked]

Communism has many definitions. Marxian type socialism has never existed.
People mix up transition with achievement. What has happened is national revolutions. These have failed to produce a classless society because the form of transition has never been truly international. A leninist country is a myth. The method is to find a phenonomen the universalise it without actually looking at history.
The idea of a single country achieving communism is ridiculous. The idea of communism is about sharing the world. we have never even been close to it.
We have only experienced in modern times the dominant mode of production which is imperialism and ephemeral societies where the law of value no longer operated in a real sense. The societies have had little or nothing to do with transition but have been entities where counter revolution has brought back the law of value. Money is now operating as money. Even Cuba has had to retreat towards a mixed economy and has much to do in democratic spheres.
Castro has much insight into the world situation.
http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/discurso.../f030104i.html

[Nyder]

Here are the steps towards communism (which is why it will never work):

1. First, the assumption that all the workers will automatically rise up and take over all means of production is entirely ludicrous. Especially in mostly market economies, where private ownership counts for a great deal of production (and a lot of it is small, privately owned business). Also, this would spoil many well established work relationships. Plus the fact that the majority of people in western type economies enjoy very comfortable lives and do not desire communism.

2. Thus, a communist government would have to be elected to enact central planning of the economy. All private property would come under government control - creating mass opposition in western economies (not so much in poor countries where communism style policies are already in place). The Government would need to make mass arrests ala Stalin to enforce it's authority.

3. The Government would become all-powerful, with a dictator at its helm. The economy goes into huge decline as innovation tumbles and output drops.

4. To maintain order and keep up productivity, the Government has to brainwash its citizens into communism and also organise peoples lives to fit into its administration of the economy.

6. Crime from the black market spirals out of control and the Government is constantly at war with its own citizens.

5. Soon it is realised that one large organisation cannot cater to the needs of everybody and there are mass shortages, severe poverty, and the Government ultimately bankrupts itself as it cannot afford to run the country anymore because of the huge drop in productivity brought on by communism. Either the Government remains stubborn and spends most of it's budget on the military (ie. North Korea and the USSR) or it brings on market reforms. Either way, it is inevitable that it will eventually collapse.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr@Apr 8 2004, 12:25 AM
Yes, Norway has oil revenues because the state owns them. If you had your way, the state wouldn't be doing anything, and some businuss owner would drill the oil themselves and pocket billions of dollers that could instead be used to help everyone rather then create a super-rich oil baron. Now...if the US could only see things like that...

Just wait till they run out of oil.

[AC-Socialist]

Look Hoppe, countries borrow to invest, simple as that. There are very few companies, especially the more profitable ones, that are cash rich. These eu countiries have chosen not to 'refinace' there PSDR. About 80% of all those countries have experiences sustained steady economic growth throughout the nineties since Black Wednesday. These govenments will pay pack when they see fit, or keep investing, it hardly meens there annual PSBR is unsustainable.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Nyder@Apr 8 2004, 07:20 AM
Here are the steps towards communism (which is why it will never work):

1. First, the assumption that all the workers will automatically rise up and take over all means of production is entirely ludicrous. Especially in mostly market economies, where private ownership counts for a great deal of production (and a lot of it is small, privately owned business). Also, this would spoil many well established work relationships. Plus the fact that the majority of people in western type economies enjoy very comfortable lives and do not desire communism.

2. Thus, a communist government would have to be elected to enact central planning of the economy. All private property would come under government control - creating mass opposition in western economies (not so much in poor countries where communism style policies are already in place). The Government would need to make mass arrests ala Stalin to enforce it's authority.

3. The Government would become all-powerful, with a dictator at its helm. The economy goes into huge decline as innovation tumbles and output drops.

4. To maintain order and keep up productivity, the Government has to brainwash its citizens into communism and also organise peoples lives to fit into its administration of the economy.

6. Crime from the black market spirals out of control and the Government is constantly at war with its own citizens.

5. Soon it is realised that one large organisation cannot cater to the needs of everybody and there are mass shortages, severe poverty, and the Government ultimately bankrupts itself as it cannot afford to run the country anymore because of the huge drop in productivity brought on by communism. Either the Government remains stubborn and spends most of it's budget on the military (ie. North Korea and the USSR) or it brings on market reforms. Either way, it is inevitable that it will eventually collapse.

You really havn't got a fucking clue have you Nyder? Why have still not addressed my post?

[Osman Ghazi]

Firstly Nyder, we usually put 5 BEFORE 6 but I guess you're so smart that your way must be better.

1. We never said it would be automatic. Also, it isn't like it is going to happen tomorrow. It requires a little something called the immeriseration (to make miserable) of the proletariat. That means that no, they will not have comfortable lives when the revolution comes which is precisely why they will revolt. Way to show your ignorance.

2. Actually, the U$ is really the only Western country without socialist type policies. Canada and most of Europe have state-owned rail, mail, water nad other services, as well as universal healthcare and social security. So if anything, opposition would be much less in Western countries.

3. If you have ever looked at a single socialist country, you will see that production usually goes up at first. This is usually because they only have to manufacture simple products. Once their economies become more advanced, they tend to decline due to the innefficiency of their complex economy.

4. I have a newsflash for you: every system educates their people to believe that their system is the end all be all. I love this one though. When people fanatically believe in capitalism it's because they are right; if they fanatically belive in communism, it's because they are brainwashed. You really are naive to believe that.

6. Sorry, I just found it funny that you are lecturing me and don't even know what number comes next. This does actually happen though. Obviously, the black 'market' is opposed to socialism and thusly the dictatorship of the proletariat mut destroy it, just as they must destroy all bourgeois influences to prevent counter-revolution.

5. Well, besides the fact that the USSR spent less of it's GDP on the military in the Cold War years, this is the general trend with the downfall of socialism. However, since they decided to have a revolution more than a hundred years too early, it is to be expected that they fail. However, they can still teach about the practical applications of socialist economic theory. Need I remind you that the first democracy eventually turned into an oligarchy? That the second democracy turned into a dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell. Or that the third democracy turned into an empire under Nabolione Buonaparte? Did people say that democracy would never work? Hell yeah they did. Were they right? You tell me.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by AC-Socialist@Apr 8 2004, 11:13 AM
Look Hoppe, countries borrow to invest, simple as that. There are very few companies, especially the more profitable ones, that are cash rich. These eu countiries have chosen not to 'refinace' there PSDR. About 80% of all those countries have experiences sustained steady economic growth throughout the nineties since Black Wednesday. These govenments will pay pack when they see fit, or keep investing, it hardly meens there annual PSBR is unsustainable.

I would hardly call spending money on welfare (or war, like the US) "investing". And I can't see why you as a socialist are in favour of this. Public debt means a huge transfer of money from the working class to the bourgeoisie who generally hold these bonds.

Tell me, why is Greenspan keeping interestrates so low? Or why is the ECB keeping interest rates so low? Where does the money come from to payback the debt (out of thin air?)?

[Som]

1. First, the assumption that all the workers will automatically rise up and take over all means of production is entirely ludicrous. Especially in mostly market economies, where private ownership counts for a great deal of production (and a lot of it is small, privately owned business). Also, this would spoil many well established work relationships. Plus the fact that the majority of people in western type economies enjoy very comfortable lives and do not desire communism.

Pieces of history that are 'ludicrous': see Catalonia 1936, The Paris Commune, Russia 1917, Ukraine 1917, France may 1968, as well as a good deal of working class revolts around the world that were usually shot down.

Spoil? We're hoping to completely demolish them.

Eventually those very comfortable lives will turn sour, the ruling classes will usually bring about their own end, and people will change their minds.

2. Thus, a communist government would have to be elected to enact central planning of the economy. All private property would come under government control - creating mass opposition in western economies (not so much in poor countries where communism style policies are already in place). The Government would need to make mass arrests ala Stalin to enforce it's authority.

Nonsense, you've made a few leaps here, first assuming revolution is impossible, and will perpetually be unwanted, then assuming that no matter the nature of that party, which could be anti-authoritarian to its core, would turn into an authoritarian dictatorship as by if right wing magic swept it up. Then the little hole where if a communist government were elected, but people would somehow not want it there. For any far left wing government in a capitalist country to be elected, they have to have far more genuine support than would be traditionally needed in the political arena of capitalist parties, considering the forces of all the wealth and their allies in government, will be dead set against them, they control the media, in the decrepit state capitalism will be in for a majority socialist movement, their control of the government will probably be rather overt as well.
To be elected in spite of this would be quite an accomplishment in popular support, so basically your premise here goes against your assumption that a left wing government would not be wanted.

So now, with your own premise, you're going to have justify why a popular government would start shooting and arresting its citizens.

4. To maintain order and keep up productivity, the Government has to brainwash its citizens into communism and also organise peoples lives to fit into its administration of the economy.

Every socioeconomic system justifies itself that way. The stuff in american high school economics textbooks in any objective outlook are probably just as biased as one in Maos china.
Likewise in a capitalist system, if one doesn't organize their lives within that capitalist system, they just might starve.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana@Apr 8 2004, 07:07 PM
Debt is not a good thing, but it's rediculous to put it ahead of public health, education and welfare.

Debt reduction is not a pressing issues for industrialized nations, I don't believe that any of them are debt-free... ever.

The key is to balance it, so you don't end with 7.1 trillion dollars, or a spending spree of 1.85 billion per day when you're cutting taxes.

You have to be reasonable about it, raising taxes if you have to. What you don't do is cut your losses and sell the poor.

Just wait till the next crash of our monetary system, it happened about 230 times before. The poor will be even worse off thanks to your short-term policies.

[AC-Socialist]

I would hardly call spending money on welfare (or war, like the US) "investing".

I certainly would!!! Investing in the future wellbeing and social harmony of the people mabye?

Public debt means a huge transfer of money from the working class to the bourgeoisie who generally hold these bonds.

I really cant see where your coming from here...

Tell me, why is Greenspan keeping interestrates so low? Or why is the ECB keeping interest rates so low? Where does the money come from to payback the debt (out of thin air?)?

Because the borrowing by these countries is sustainable!!! And please dont talk about mr greenspan, we are discussing europe, not those alantacist bayliffs!

And as for the ECB, i rather think they are aiding the european countries as a whole by lowering them, and not lowering them as a result of spending!

Borrow-refinance-borrow-refinance........

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana@Apr 8 2004, 07:36 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHA

You're blaming the crashes of Capitalism on Socialism?

My dear, but misguided, friend. America, and its debt and right-wing idiocy is what will lead to the next crash, not Socialist policies.

Where did I actually say this? You like to read things that aren't there.

The crises can be entirely blamed on government intervention, certainly not my cup of tea. Intervention for beautifull things like universal healthcare, war, enormous infrastructural projects are hardly fundaments of my ideology.

I certainly would!!! Investing in the future wellbeing and social harmony of the people mabye?

Yeah sure. Creating a massive debt burden for future generations will certainly lead to solidarity between the young and elderly.

I really cant see where your coming from here...

Think harder.

Because the borrowing by these countries is sustainable!!! And please dont talk about mr greenspan and the ECB, we are discussing europe, not those alantacist bayliffs!

So now who's economically naieve here? You should read up on monetary policy, Greenspan and Trichet are very important in this highschool Keynesianism of yours.

Borrow-refinance-borrow-refinance........

Ha, I see you've skipped the repayments already. Glad to see that you now understand the economic reality, in which repayment hardly takes place.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Nyder@Apr 8 2004, 07:20 AM
1. First, the assumption that all the workers will automatically rise up and take over all means of production is entirely ludicrous. Especially in mostly market economies, where private ownership counts for a great deal of production (and a lot of it is small, privately owned business). Also, this would spoil many well established work relationships.

Let's see: there have been many revolts in the past, on every single level: in Spain in the 30s, the Paris Commune, the last revolt in Argentina, the French Revolution, and many others. Are you saying that our views, our ideas, our attitudes, our values are exactly the same that they had when slavery existed? Or maybe by the time of the Crusades??? Then "progress" and "civilization" are a lie!!!

Plus the fact that the majority of people in western type economies enjoy very comfortable lives and do not desire communism.

Two things:
1) Not everyone is having such "confortable lives". If you think having a TV and maybe a better situation than some decades ago is a sign of how capitalism has gave us "progress", then you are wrong.
2) Those not that many individuals that enjoy "very confortable lives" won't necessarily have such a good situation forever.

2. Thus, a communist government would have to be elected to enact central planning of the economy. All private property would come under government control - creating mass opposition in western economies (not so much in poor countries where communism style policies are already in place). The Government would need to make mass arrests ala Stalin to enforce it's authority.

3. The Government would become all-powerful, with a dictator at its helm. The economy goes into huge decline as innovation tumbles and output drops.

Why is there a need for a government?

4. To maintain order and keep up productivity, the Government has to brainwash its citizens into communism and also organise peoples lives to fit into its administration of the economy.

Something like what happens nowadays . Something that will happen forever wuth every single political-economical order.

6. Crime from the black market spirals out of control and the Government is constantly at war with its own citizens.

Why is there a need to have a black market? Ok, I guess this is an attack to the few leninists that still exist.

5. Soon it is realised that one large organisation cannot cater to the needs of everybody and there are mass shortages, severe poverty, and the Government ultimately bankrupts itself as it cannot afford to run the country anymore because of the huge drop in productivity brought on by communism. Either the Government remains stubborn and spends most of it's budget on the military (ie. North Korea and the USSR) or it brings on market reforms. Either way, it is inevitable that it will eventually collapse.

Again, why is there a need for a government?
I think you ignore that people will keep wanting to have things, so they will work so that the other bastards work too to make them what they need. The only difference is how things are "exchanged".

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by Nyder@Apr 8 2004, 07:20 AM
Here are the steps towards communism (which is why it will never work):

1. First, the assumption that all the workers will automatically rise up and take over all means of production is entirely ludicrous. Especially in mostly market economies, where private ownership counts for a great deal of production (and a lot of it is small, privately owned business). Also, this would spoil many well established work relationships. Plus the fact that the majority of people in western type economies enjoy very comfortable lives and do not desire communism.

2. Thus, a communist government would have to be elected to enact central planning of the economy. All private property would come under government control - creating mass opposition in western economies (not so much in poor countries where communism style policies are already in place). The Government would need to make mass arrests ala Stalin to enforce it's authority.

3. The Government would become all-powerful, with a dictator at its helm. The economy goes into huge decline as innovation tumbles and output drops.

4. To maintain order and keep up productivity, the Government has to brainwash its citizens into communism and also organise peoples lives to fit into its administration of the economy.

6. Crime from the black market spirals out of control and the Government is constantly at war with its own citizens.

5. Soon it is realised that one large organisation cannot cater to the needs of everybody and there are mass shortages, severe poverty, and the Government ultimately bankrupts itself as it cannot afford to run the country anymore because of the huge drop in productivity brought on by communism. Either the Government remains stubborn and spends most of it's budget on the military (ie. North Korea and the USSR) or it brings on market reforms. Either way, it is inevitable that it will eventually collapse.

When will this guy realize that even if we proved that Communism does work, he will still be against it?

[Rasta Sapian]

If you are to examine communism through the eyes of a person blinded by greed then of course communism will fail!

If you can see beyond a world run by an economy, where money and material possesions are the main sources for existance, you may realize that is not what life should be about,

Go back to the ideology and grass roots objectives of socialism, to share, to be equal, to all work together for a better future.

If you cappies could only visualize what the world could be like if we were all united with the same goals in mind!

ps. you talk about work ethics, do you find that the masses of america working at walmart or macdonald's have a new strong work ethic, when most of the time they feel suppressed by what side of the fence they grew up on!

I think if we were to reorganize ourselves we could be much more productive and at the same time spreading the fundamental socialist ideals which could only be benificial for the masses!

Utopia my friends!
peace yall

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by New Tolerance@Apr 8 2004, 09:09 PM
When will this guy realize that even if we proved that Communism does work, he will still be against it?

New Tolerance,

You cannot prove it will work simply because you have history against you. However, and I don't know if Nyder agrees, if people voluntarily choose to establish a commune it can perfectly well work. Anyhow, most don't believe that something which works in a small group, say a family, can be "forced" onto a whole society. It's as simple as that.