What do you think of Communism?

[TheWizardOfMudd]

I think Communism has its good points, as most political theories, in theory.

Anybody here think Communism would be the best form of government for America? If not, could it be modified to suit us?

[NMDemDist2]

1. Communist??? heck I'm not even a pastel pink socialist

i don't think, :shrug:

[FDRrocks]

2. Only in theory would it be good....

I consider myself a Libertarian Socialist. The 'Socialist' in that term mean that I support and agree with the form of government in the western European governments.

Communism, as has been practiced thus far, has turned out horribly.

[rumguy]

3. not me

I like free speech. And I fuckin' hate police states.

[Sushi-Lover]

4. Nope,

in short because it goes against the grain of human nature. I do not think that in its pure form it can be a viable economic system. Also, it appears to correlate with oppression in the countries where it has been tried so far. I'm not sure if that is cause and effect, but its definitely a pattern.

[WillyT]

5. Comrade... You Should Know Better That To Ask Such...

distasteful qvestions, nyet???

:scared::evilgrin::scared:

[TheWizardOfMudd]

9. I need to rephrase

!

[usregimechange]

6. No.

[thebigidea]

7. Gasp! How can you this with Saint Reagan unburied? Have you no shame?

Better go read a collection of Peggy Noonan essays for moral clarity.

[Spinzonner]

8. Marxist

Groucho, not Karl

[Renew Deal]

10. Only in the minds of fascists. I mean freepers.

[Wapsie B]

11. Nope.

But to the repug party of today anyone to the left of the John Birch Society is a Communist thug.

[0007]

48. That's a good way to articulate a point, and very true.

[devilgrrl]

12. I think of Communism the same way I think of Libertarianism...

It looks good on paper but it doesn't work in reality.

[3rdParty]

56. devilgrrl is exactly right!!!

Theory and reality are 2 different things.

[physioex]

13. As far as my country is concerned, I will take democracy..

But then again we don't live in a democracy. Our rights are constantly being taken, we fight illegal wars, and the corporations control the rest... I don't care what other countries choose, I would rather live in a true democracy...

[TheWizardOfMudd]

14. Look at police departments, fire departments, military, etc. . . . . .

How do individuals advance in those systems? Do their jobs, study, take tests to advance in rank, everyone theoretically treated equally. Salaries are set in stone. No entrepreneur can exercise individual initiative and generally make captain at age 25!

How does this differ from communism?

[FDRrocks]

17. Because dissent is stifled

and the every day life of soldiers are controlled. This is fascism.

[Nederland]

66. It doesn't differ

But its only a small section of the economy.

[TO Kid]

73. They can leave

They can do the same work for different employers or they can choose another line of work altogether. If you think your boss is bad, just try working for someone who is everybody's boss.

[theboss]

83. Those people are volunteers by and large

Those environments are going to have a somewhat socialist quality. But the people who joined knew that going in. If you told me I had to be a firefighter, had to stifle creativity, and had to follow the rules as your stated them, I would rebel.

[Yupster]

15. Loved it in college

The problem is that once people realize if they don't work they get the same amount as those who do work, then production plummets and force needs to be used to keep people working.

In theory, this would be solved with the creation of "communist man," who works not for the compensation, but for the good of society, but we haven't seen that critter in the world yet.

[Rowdyboy]

16. Well it certainly worked well for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe

NOT...

Look at the living standards in East/West Berlin. Which side tore down the wall trying to escape?

Democracy is a huge accident waiting to happen, but communism-in practice-is a accident in progress.

[Michael Costello]

40. The USSR was economically successful, as most US government reports say

In 1917, Russia's economy was very similar to Brazil's. Which country would you say was more economically successful in the early 1990's? Also remember that Russia fought a civil war (which included many countries invading, including the United States), then had a massively destructive war with Germany from 1941-1945 which was followed by the Cold War. Brazil never had to deal with that type of devastation.

In an economic sense, Russia did very well from 1917 until the 1950's. It went from being a feudal society to an industrialized country in a short space of time. When the US and Europe's economy was ground to a halt in the 1930's, Russia's economy was booming. People were moving to Russia to work. This economic growth continued at a gallop pace until the 1950's. Most of the serious analysis, including US government analysis, says this.

In the 1950's, Khrushchev loosened things up and economic growth slowed down, and stayed that way until 1990. This preceded the US and Western Europe growth slowdown by a decades - in the US and Western Europe, growth slowdown started in the late 1960s and continues to this day.

Look at the US today. The average inflation-adjusted hourly wage is below what it was 30 years ago. Hours worked per year keeps increasing and increasing (Americans work more hours per year than workers in any industrialized country).

Depsite the fact that the USSR was a feudal society way behind the US in 1917, people always compare the two countries, as if a day after the October revolution Lenin would have some magic wand to change the economy in one day to beyond the level of US industrialization. These comparisons don't make much sense other than from a propaganda angle where you're not supposed to think about it much.

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

45. Economically successful my ass.

Russia became an industrialized country under Tsar Peter the Great. The human cost was horrific. His notorious railway between Moscow and St. Petersburg cost about a life per sleeper, but he made sure it was built. He also built roads, factories and a modern financial system.

The Bolsheviks inherited a poor but industrialized country, and made sure to keep it that way. Sure, they suffered in wars, but other countries even more devastated recovered more quickly, Germany for example. Engineers flocked to the USSR in the 30's because the country couldn't do anything for itself and was prepared to make any sacrifice to gain a modern military-industrial base...

You want a success story? Look at Botswana. Poor, landlocked country in southern Africa. Achieved independence from Britain in 1966.

GDP 1966 - US$ 60 per person per year.(link)

Since then with stable, democratic government and a capitalist economy, despite a population boom and AIDS -

GDP 2002 - US$ 9,500 per person per year. (link)

About the same as Saudi Arabia, and way above Russia, despite the HUGE advantages Russia started with like heavy industry, education, skilled engineers and above all, sovereignty.

Progressive Capitalism in Botswana has achieved far more than Communism did in Russia.

Communism and other revolutionary Utopian systems have been tried repeatedly over the past few millenia. Every time they create nothing but dystopian horror. But always there is someone who says 'you weren't radical enough! If I were in charge...'

[Michael Costello]

65. US government analysts disagree with you

An industrialized country doesn't mean a country that has any industry - if it did there would be no third world and every country in the world would be called industrialized. You're in quite a minority if you think Russia under Peter the Great qualified as an industrialized country, a country in which industry, not agriculture, dominated. I don't know anyone who holds this belief.

Russia's economy was equivalent to Brazil's, and if anyone wants to compare Russia's economy to Brazil's from 1917 to the early 1990's, be my guest. Most people see Russia as 1917 as an agricultural country dominated by farmers who had been emancipated from serfdom only decades beforehand. The industrialization effort was way behind western Europe's. As far as experienced engineers coming to Russia in the 1930's, one reason for dong so is because people were working in Russia, which they weren't in the US and Western Europe. The US has hundreds of thousands of engineers come in every year on the H1-B visa, yet you're acting like Russia trying to attract experienced engineers is cheating somehow.

As far as Bostwana, diamond mines were discovered there in the early 1970s, something that I think would benefit a capitalist, socialist or any other type of economy, in a country no one ever thought very much about prior. If Botswana had had the same capitalist system, sans diamonds, I'm quite sure it's per capita GDP would be hoving around $60 per person per year. In fact, only a small minority of people in Botswana have benefitted from this discovery, the Institute for Security Studies has said living conditions for the average person in Botswana have actually decreased over the past years.

Saudi Arabia, a country which has the luck of having another precious resource, oil, is your other example. I think most sane people when asked if they are successful due to the riches that lay under the earth in their borders, or if that is immaterial and it all has to do with the country following some plan by Milton Friedman. It reminds me of J. Paul Getty's suggestion to people on how to become rich - "Rise early, work hard, strike oil."

[Nederland]

69. US government analysts were wrong

Many of them were closet socialists, but more importantly, Russia was a closed society. It only let the world see what it wanted it to see.

[tom_paine]

86. I notice you have no links to support your assertion

[theboss]

89. The analysts were horribly wrong on the USSR

As late as 1986, the CIA was favorably comparing the Soviet Union's economy to Great Britain.

The problem in measuring the economy of the USSR was that nobody really knew what to measure. The monetary unit was worthless by any standard so you had to treat the economy as a self-contained entity. By that standard, it was okay, mostly because any country that large, with that many resources, and that many educated people is going to have some sort of measurable productivity if only by accident. If you threw the entire machinery of the Soviet system towards a large goal, you could achieve it, but you had to sacrifice something else. So it could have an arms industry and an aerospace industry, but nothing left over for clothing, automobiles, etc.

The whole system was based on goals by any means necessary, which again meant that some productivity happened. The question is, did the productivity actually benefit anyone? The classic Soviet economic model is the shoe factory that met it's goal of 10,000 shoes in a certain period of time. This would be added to the GDP. Of course, to achieve this goal, the factory made 10,000 left-footed size nines.

[Nederland]

68. Nice hedge there with the word "economic"

In an economic sense, Russia did very well from 1917 until the 1950's.

I guess this means we are supposed to just ignore 20+ million killed in Stalinist purges?

[John BigBootay]

84. See post #78 n/t

[Fone Book]

110. Bingo

The Soviet treasury was also drained by the Reagan Administration. He fought a number of proxy wars that wasted all of the Soviet Union's money. The economic collapse of the USSR was also influenced by outside forces.

[JHBowden]

152. That's mythology.

Soviet expenditures on defense did not increase rapidly in the 1980s. In addition, the USSR was devastated by the Germans in the 1940s, so if that didn't topple them, it makes little sense why magic words from Ronald Reagan would.

Glasnost and Perestroika are better candidates for causes. I'd add Howard Dean's point that people wanted to be like Americans back then, which *definitely* isn't the case under George W's mismanagement.

[Fone Book]

111. Bingo

The Soviet treasury was also drained by the Reagan Administration. He fought a number of proxy wars that wasted all of the Soviet Union's money. The economic collapse of the USSR was also influenced by outside forces.

[Fone Book]

108. How can you say democracy is a huge accident?

People deciding how they want to be governed is not an accident. The saturation of their minds by mindless TV- apathy about politics is an accident. You can't just abandon a good idea because Bush got "elected". You have to work to change the system if you dont like it. Democracy is the greatest, most important thing we have and we have to strive to make it better.

[keithyboy]

18. Compared to subsidized capitalism, you mean?

There is not too much capitalistic about the US right now. Instead of the having welfare programs for people, we have them for corporations and CEOs. Communism really never hurt the US except in our mind. We are dealing today with the biggest communist nation on earth, China, and we don't seem to be hurting because of it. In fact, dealing with them is keeping us going. And so far, we have pretty good relations with Viet Nam. so you tell me if communisim is bad for America.

[leftistagitator]

19. Hard to say

No one has actually tried it yet. I'm not even sure it's implementable. And before people start wondering where I was during the Cold War, I'd advise them to read the Communist Manifesto and ask themselves how much that really resembles the Soviet Union or any other state existing now or in history. It's such a weird system, in many ways it's similar to Libertarianism, a fact which most Libertarians would punch you in the face if you said in front of them. Communists envisioned the people seizing control of the means of production and capturing the Government then passing laws that would render Government obsolete. Libertarians want to kill the Government now, hoping that the market would force the rise of a small businessman empire in which the people would own the means of production. Until it's been done I stand by the statement that it's all a bunch of idealistic hooey. Sure, there's enough of the World to share, but people have never shown themselves to be capable of that, and I don't expect any revolutions in morality anytime soon.

[RoyGBiv]

39. Withering Away the State

Good analysis.

It's that point, the theoretical withering away of the state, that has shown the Communist theory to be unworkable in practice. The state doesn't wither.

Lenin and Stalin weren't communists. They simply seized on the general ideas of the philosophy for its revolutionary ideals that appealed to the lower classes, which they needed to acquire power.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

20. The problem with Communism is simply

that while it sounds good on paper, its execution is contrary to human nature and natural law. You can't expect people to produce without incentive. It just aint gonna happen. This utopian scheme has been proven a failure. I know many have argued that the Communism practiced by the Soviets and such was not what Marx really wanted, but even the basic principles don't wash in the real world. Any economic system that ignores market forces is doomed to the ash heap.

[stavka]

50. A poor tool for National or even regional organization

Works well in the small, as groups get larger things get complicated.

I am a big fan of nationalized assets, and collective social responsibility.

[PartyPooper]

21. Communism or better yet Socialism would be a blessing to what we have now.

I'm a socialist! Fuck all of the Bu$h fa$cists!

:D

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

22. Are you stoned?

Seriously, though. You can't be serious. Being against the law of the jungle policies of the right-wingers is one thing, but to go to the other extreme is equally distastrous.

[thebigidea]

23. yeah, obviously all those Europeans are just on drugs, right?

[Seabiscuit]

26. Bingo!

Fascism and "Communism" as most Americans now recognize the concept, are virtually identical: politically corrupt, rigid, represeive dicatorships.

Karl Marx, a German, was primarily disturbed by what he saw happening in Europe, especially in France, during the repressive reign of Napoleon III in the mid-19th century. His writings were twisted by Lenin for ideological, utopian purposes. Lenin's utopian ideology was used as an excuse to overthrow the Czar Nicholas II, but one serious flaw in the "communist" state that emerged was 'who is going to govern/control the new socialist/communist worker-oriented society, and to what ends'? Of course, it all went downhill under Stalin, who was not much different from Hitler in his own way. Kruschev's "purge" of Stalinism was for the most part a face-lift at best on a corrupt, dictatorial, repressive political system which continued the impoverishment of the vast majority of Soviet society.

And even many years after Mao ruled China, China remains today a dictatorial mess of a country.

Communism? Fascism? Bushitism? Not a hell of a big difference. But a hell of a lot in common.

I say f*ck 'em all. Let's start over. With the Constitution and the spirit of the founding fathers. Follow Howard Dean's example of putting some backbone into the Democratic party and standing up for egalitarian principles and exposing the fascist pogrom/agenda of the Bushists from January, 2001 forward at every level, domestically and internationally. Follow JFK's inspirations about what you can do for your country, and what hope is all about. And don't forget to vote for Kerry and any Democrat running for Congress of the Senate or any State or local office in your area of the country. We need to take our country back!

[John BigBootay]

85. See post #78 n/t

[Sugarbleus]

24. Naw, the system didn't work and kept

humans from expressing their full potential--no incentive.

However, I DO like Democratic Socialism--not anti capitalism, rather capitalism with a conscience. Much more emphasis on community and less emphasis on accumulation of wealth--corporatism,imperialism, globalism.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. I'd fall more into the democratic socialism realm

Capitalist with taxes sufficient to support healthcare, housing, food, basic necessities for all, but it has to inlcude taxing corporations...they aren't paying their fair share.

[hughee99]

33. Out of curiosity

What would a society do with someone who doesn't participate in society (someone who watches tv all day, or gets drunk, or whatever)? Under this system, when a person's healthcare, housing, food and all other necessities are provided, the person doesn't have to do anything. I think many people would rather sit on the couch all day than work in a low wage job. They do it now because they have to provide their basic needs. We would have a sector of the job market with no applicants. I'm not a big fan of the McJob (I used to have one) but someone does need to do it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

37. Question

How does one engage in an economic paradigm (i.e. capitalism) that calls for a certain percentage of the work force to be unemployed at any given time lest wages be inflated, costs rise for business, thereby increasing costs to consumers without a safety net?

Another question...how does anything get done in European countries and Canada where everyone has heathcare?

I really don't think countries that are social democracies bear out your questions or shall I say, concerns...McDonald's seems to have employees in all these nations thereby negating the core of your argument or shall I say, question, against.

On edit..I also note that basic necessities were covered for everyone but I never said they didn't have to work...I simply believe healthcare is a right .... housing needs to be affordable as does food.

[hughee99]

55. has europe

reached this point already, where healthcare, food and shelter are all provided by the state for all who need it? I know about the socialized medicine programs, and they seem to work pretty well over there, but I wasn't aware that their safety net was that extensive that it also covered basic food and housing needs. I know that's what they were moving toward, but I didn't relize that they had gotten to that point yet. I'll admit my time in Europe was limited to just a few weeks in Ireland. My question goes to the heart of your edit. If their basic needs are covered, why do they have to work (not that many wouldn't). In Soviet-style Communism, you HAD to work, or you went to jail.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

71. No they haven't although housing is affordable

they have a huge problem with homeless immigrants and drug addicts

[TO Kid]

74. McJobs

If you're 20 they're bearable- if you have a goal. I've had more of them than I care to remember but I saw it as a damn good incentive to acquire some marketable skills. I wish I could remember the name of the standup comic who said, "If you're thirty and your job requires a name tag, you really need to rethink your career."

[salin]

93. best sign of a huge and lasting economic slowdown? The graying

of the fast food workforce.

First noticed this about 1991-2 in southeast michigan. Suddenly even the folks working the drive through appeared to be 50-60+ years old.

Few years later it was back to the domain of the young.

Then a year or so ago... back to gray haired fast food workers. Still that way around here... sign that the picked up economy hasn't trickled down yet to the lower wage older folks.

Just read an article that it will be another summer that is harder for teens to find work (in terms of percentage of total in the work force). Well if those jobs have been taken by previously employed older Americans as slightly higher tier jobs... then the pickin's just get slimmer and slimmer for those just entering the workforce for the first time.

[Hammie]

138. Care to back up your claim?

You claim that corporations aren't paying their fair share. Which ones? The financial information for publicly traded records is part of the public record. It shouldn't be too hard to show some concrete examples.

http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html


Microsoft, for example, appears to have paid 4.7 Billion dollars of income tax in 2003 on 14.7 Billion dollars of income. For those that don't have a calculator handy that is 32% of income, pretty close to the nominal 35% corporate tax rate.

[TrogL]

25. I'm a Born-Again Communist

[Seabiscuit]

28. Surely you jest

:eyes:

[John BigBootay]

79. See post #78 n/t

[TrogL]

134. I've noticed that's your response to pretty much anything in this thread

Have you even bothered to ask what "Born Again Communism" is?

[Leprechan29]

29. Unless you have someone like Stalin

...who would force change upon a nation, while plundering its neighbors of machinery, a communist nation would either stagnate or collapse, neither of which is an attractive possibility.

So no, I don't think communism could be even a decent government for America, and without modifying it to the point where it ceases to be communism, it would not suit us

[Fescue4u]

30. Its was great other than

that it has been a total failure.

Seriously. I mean its great in idea, but after 100 hundreds a tinkering, its never been successfull.

Perhaps in the future, when technology enables wealth to become irrelevant through technology (i.e. replication of food, items).

Until then its the best system, except for all the rest.

[shraby]

32. Our own government has

become too strong. A little more state's rights would be in order.

[AngryAmish]

75. Are you a Trekkie?

Star Trek always had a communistic bent (I can't remember seeing much if any private industry).

There are people who literally base their lives and aspirations on Star Trek. These people are strange and should be avoided at all costs.

P.S. We do have technology that allows replication of food (farms) and items (factories). But unless one can suspend the laws of thermodynamics, there will always be a cost for everything.

[wuushew]

101. Money was in use as late as 2285

ALIEN
Hello! Welcome to your planet.

McCOY
I think that's my line, stranger.

ALIEN
Oh, forgive. I here am new. But
you are known, being McCoy from
Enterprise.

McCOY
You have me at a disadvantage,
sir. You are --

ALIEN
I name not important. You seek
I. Message received. Available
ship stands by.

McCOY
Good. How soon and how much?

ALIEN
How soon is now. How much is
where

McCOY
Where...

ALIEN
Is yes. Where?

McCOY
... Somewhere in the Mutara
Sector.

ALIEN
Oh. Mutara restricted. Take
permits many. Money, more.

McCOY
There aren't going to be any damn
permits!
(checking room)
How can you get a permit to do a
damn illegal thing?!
(then)
Look, price you name, money I got.

ALIEN
You name place, I name money.
Otherwise, bargain, no.


I believe that by the 24th century through the abundance of energy and replication of basic needs money has largely been eliminated within the federation. You will notice that there are many more artists, musicians, teachers, botanists etc. I have no reason to doubt that people would sign up in droves to join in glamorous space exploration. I think that there would be plenty of interest in becoming a starfleet engineer as well as it is roughly analogous to people who enjoy working on computers or cars. The only problem I see with Trek society is that someone or something has to work on sewer systems, heavy ship welding etc. that would not be attractive unless provided with compensation.

[AngryAmish]

114. Well, isn't that what the Proles are for?

<Must not bait Trekkies>

[maggrwaggr]

31. communism is against human nature and can never work

Marx got a few things wrong about human nature.

People LIKE to own stuff. People are by nature territorial. People need to feel like they have control over their lives.

Communism is a theory, and a deeply flawed one. It was a karmic response to industrialism, which was also anti-human.

[Snellius]

53. Amazing in so many responses how effective rw propaganda has been

McCarthy and Nixon and Reagan would have been proud. The fact is, in America, anything to do with European socialism, has been so completely defined and demonized by the capitalist-backed conservatives that even the terms of debate, "communism" or "workers' state", have been completely corrupted.

Before anyone can define what economic system is better, one has to first ask "what is the meaning of my work?"

[Nederland]

70. Don't understand the question

"what is the meaning of my work?"

I don't understand. Are you asking why a person works?

[Snellius]

76. Marx had an interesting way of looking at work

Capitalist systems look at the value of commodities in terms of profit. Something costs so much in materials and labor to produce, and, sold on the free market, any difference is ascribed as profit earned by the owner of the system by which it is produced. What Marx did was introduce instead the idea of "surplus value", a way of looking at profit not from the vantage of the owner or investor but with regard to the life of the worker that made it. Thus, if we work, say, 4 hours a day to provide for our necessities of life, and, say, another, hour to compensate for capital invested, the remainder, said Marx, the "profit", in this sense is nothing more than slavery, working not for our own livelihood but for the benefit of another.

Take it for what you will. After 150 years the debate goes on. But Marx's greatest insight was really not so much about what "communism" might be, but about showing how completely what we think about ourselves and our labor is written in terms of those who have a stake in exploiting what we do.

[Nederland]

81. Thanks

That also explains why Marxism fails.

In a market system, the difference between what it takes to make something and what people are willing to pay for it is a crucial element in insuring that a society produces enough of the goods that are in demand. For example, let's say it costs $10000 to build a truck, but the current market price of trucks is $12000. Marx sees that extra $2000 as somehow an evil, immoral factor. Truth is, the extra $2000 is a necessary motivating factor in an economy. If for some reason the society starts to need more trucks, demand for trucks will increase and the price might rise to $14000. Now the companies that make trucks are suddenly looking everywhere for new and innovative ways to make more trucks because the profits are better than ever. Result: supply of trucks increases, the profit per truck falls back, and society has gotten what it needed (more trucks).

In a Marxist system, the profit motivator is gone. If society suddenly finds itself in need of more trucks, nothing happens. The people that make trucks get paid the same thing regardless of how many people want trucks so they have no incentive to work harder or figure out ways of making more trucks. Sure, in theory you have some government official trying to predict how many trucks the society needs and s/he will order an increase in production if they feel its necessary. However, as history has shown, government officials do a lousy job of predicting what society needs, one reason being that decisions about production become politicized. If a particularly powerful politician lives in an area that make trucks, you might well find the predictions of how many trucks the society needs magically inflated regardless of actual need.

The fundamental flaw of Marx's labor theory of value was that it only looked at the supply side of prices, it didn't address the issue of demand. As a result, the theory was obsolete almost as soon as it was published. Other economists published works that introduced the idea that price was an intersection of supply and demand curves, and the field has never looked back since. LTV was dead.

[Snellius]

92. Modern Marxists would say the laws of demand are manufactured

You are correct to say that Marx did not take the theory of demand into consideration. Marx seemed to believe that there was a natural limit to the "necessities of life". That when the basics were satisfied, the "slavery of surplus value" would be obvious. Marx was really a moralist, not an economist in this sense, he was attacking the way bourgeois society reduced everything -- work, culture, love, life itself -- to money.

Current Marxists -- at least in advanced industrial systems -- do ask the corollary question, however. Now the question becomes what drives the economic engine, natural human instincts and aspirations, or an artificial consumer or political culture of manipulated wants and needs created in a kind of perpetual motion machine by the very forces that profit from their satisfaction. Marx gets turned on his head so that Marxism is not an economic blueprint per se but a political and cultural (what he would have called "philosophical") question about the democratic control over ones personal life, the effects of the concentration of wealth, and ultimately the purpose of work beyond our material state. The way is less obvious than the goal.

[Nederland]

105. Modern Marxists are wrong

Granted, an increase in demand for beanie babies at Christmas time is 100% manufactured. However, that is not the primary case.

When a hurricane hits a coastal town there is an increase in demand for construction materials and construction labor. When an influenza epidemic strikes, there is an increase in demand for health care. These increases in demand are not "manufactured". They are a fact of life in a world that is fundamentally unpredictable. It is the failure of Marxists to live in the real world and address real events and situations that makes their theory so incredibly flawed.

[Snellius]

124. You confuse laissez-faire capitalism with monopoly capitalism

Republicans have been trying to blur this distinction for years. Bush is a master of using old-style small-business Republicanism, the small town values of mom-and-pop stores, family farms, or intrepid entrepreneurs to justify the protection and special privileges of large agribusinesses and multinational corporations like Halliburton or GE.

Much of the so-called evils of communism - centralized control, massive bureaucracies, subservience of the individual to the machine, loss of personal freedom, price fixing, excessive regulation, the manipulation of the laws of supply and demand -- are what Marx saw, not as the ruling principles of communism, but as the inevitable outcome of the ever consolidating concentration of capital wealth.

The question is less what is communism but what is capitalism?

[Nederland]

126. Answer

In theory (not in reality in either case):

Capitalism: A system where the fruits of labor are owned by the individual.

Communism: A system where the fruits of labor are "owned" by society.

[Tigermoose]

112. Natural human instincts?

I think Marxists would disagree with others, say Christians, on what "natural human instincts" are. Marxists will tell you that "superstructures" are systems developed to manipulate the masses, while Christians will tell you that these "superstructures" are a Truth (the real Foundation actually) that we should focus on, and that our labor here on earth is meaningless compared to achieving that Truth in the Resurrection (granted, we do our best to achieve heaven on earth as much as possible, but not at the expense of achieving the real Heaven). Marxists see God as being a tool used by the elites to manipulate the masses, while a Christian believes God to be the supreme Cause of All, and that the elites as well as everyone else end up acting acording to His will during their futile attempts at manipulation in this incredibly complex world of ours.

Marxists are fundamentally materialists that deny the spiritual actuality, while Christians see both as important and actual, with the ideal being the material being guided by the spiritual. Thus, marxism attacks Christianity because Christianity totally undermines the philosophical legs that Marxism stands on. And since Christianity is the Truth, Marxism will never ultimately succeed -- but in the mean time is a big pain in the ass.

[SoCalProgressive]

34. Communism is just a means to the end...

the end being a socialist state. Marx thought that we just couldn't go from capitalism to socialism overnight. There would have to be a period of adjustment wherein the economy, political institutions, and the public in general would be have eased into socialism aided by the help of a people's Party, which would be dissolved after the state had been transformed into a socialist utopia. This is, of course, the most basic theory and definition of communism (as Marx intended).

[bklyncowgirl]

44. Great theory...the problem is..

Whenever anyone tried it in the real world the state did not shrivel away. It became more and more dictatorial.

Quite the opposite of what Comrade Karl intended.

[SoCalProgressive]

54. Dictatorship is not an inherent inevitability

within the theory of communism. Yes, corrupt individuals used the system and it's ideology to grab power for themselves and keep the people down, quite the opposite of what "Comrade Karl" intended. But that is an irrelevant point anyway as it happens in any and all ideologies. Christianity is a great religon...if it weren't for the power hungry bastards that corrupted it throughout it's history. Same for every other religion, too.

[rinsd]

98. That's been the basic problem....

"There would have to be a period of adjustment wherein the economy, political institutions, and the public in general would be have eased into socialism aided by the help of a people's Party, which would be dissolved after the state had been transformed into a socialist utopia."

The dictatorship of the proletariat never ends. Power merely changes hands and the "people" get shit. Too often the guise of helping the people is just a simple power grab. It's a story as old as human history.

[gold_bug]

35. sucked.

20 million people died under communism last century, maybe more.

Depends on what you mean by "communism" -- most serious proponents of communism insist that the communisms that existed in the 20th weren't real communism, they mean some vague utopian Marxist thingie that depends upon a certain flexibility in human nature so all the bad parts of humanity can be exorcised away and we end up with New Man, New Woman, who build a new frictionless society.
O8)

[Senior citizen]

36. I think it's great

As I was growing up, every time something good was brought up in Congress, like a national health plan, free higher education, full employment, housing rights, etc., it got shot down as some Commie pinko idea. I began to think that Communism must be the best thing since sliced bread. I don't like how Che was killed, or the many times we've tried to kill Castro, and I suspect that Cuba has a higher literacy rate than we do.

Communism probably isn't anywhere near as good an idea as I think it is, but in practice I'd have to say I'd prefer it to Capitalism. I'm sure there is some happy medium between the two extremes, like various European socialist systems, but if we're doing the good old American two party system, are you with us or a terrorist, are you a member or a square, are you black or white, Democrat or Republican, a man or a mouse, etc., I have to pick Communism over fascism and just wish I had better choices.

[Michael Costello]

38. You're not really using the word communism correctly

I'm curious about what modern country or society called itself communist. I know of none. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics called itself socialist. Only it's detractors called it communist. So basically you're asking people if they are for a system, using a slur-word for it that only the enemies used. It's a slur because the USSR had a government, and Marx said communism means no government. So it's either a slur or purposefully meant to mislead.

If you want to use the word communism in the way Marx meant - no government, Marx said that people would have to pass through socialism (worker control of the means of production) before communism is achievable. So you shouldn't ask people what they think of communism, as there are very few people who think we can directly enter into no government (communism) where each is from according to ability, each is to according to need. Even most anarchists, who would not run things by the government or the state, usually would have power instead reside in alternative workers councils or anarcho-syndicalist unions or something of that nature.

Then there's the word socialism, which basically means "big government" in a country which has never seen hide nor hair of socialism, the United States. People in Europe, West and East (remember that the largest political party in France after WWII was the communist party, in Italy the communist party won over 1/3 of the vote in 1976, losing by <5% of the vote to the center-right Christian Democrats, and in West Germany the communist party was banned - while ironically, no pre-Nazi political party was banned in East Germany) know what socialism is.

I don't think the discussion will go far with the terms you use. I believe in workers controlling the capital they work with, the means of production they work with. I don't capitalists should control it, expropriate surplus value from workers. I don't think heirs like Paris Hilton should never work a day in her life while she parasitically steals profit from the Hilton hotel workers who create wealth. Of course, between what I, and others, want, and what is is a long way, so we try to make this so - by educating, by agitating, by organizing.

[Kellanved]

153. sorry, but East-Germany part is ridiculous

The only non-communistic pre-war party allowed in the soviet occupation zone, the SPD, was banned in 1946.
That it was called "unification" doesn't change the fact: the SPD was banned.

The other "not communistic" parties were turned into SED satellites with no independent function - not even a place on the ballot.

[Zorra]

41. Communism is a fairy tale.

It has never worked in any society that contains any relatively substantial number of people.

Marx had some good ideas, but failed to take into account that ruthless self-serving meglomaniacs will inevitably take control of any socio-economic-political system that is not rigidly safeguarded from corruption, and which at the same time provides it's citizens with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Communist states subsequently can never progress from what Marx termed "the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat". Dictators will always assume control at that point and will forcefully refuse to relinquish control.

And no, I'm not a big fan of capitalism either, especially not monopolistic or oligopolistic capitalism.

A benevolent social democracy, where corporations, and ruthless meglomaniacal individuals, are monitored and regulated to prevent them from doing harm by a genuinely informed, politically participatory populace, is, IMO, the best we can do for now.

Maybe we can evolve from there.

[Piperay]

42. Not much...

people are too greedy for it to ever work.

[Crunchy Frog]

43. Fatally flawed system

not sustainable in the long term.

[SlingBlade]

46. Never to have lived under Communism

The comparison to unchecked corporatism may be a good example.
I don't know, Just an observation.

What's Worse ?

[OpSomBlood]

47. Communism was about 300 years ahead of it's time.

Once technology advances to a point where material goods no longer have value, a communist system makes sense. But until then, the individual human desire to excel economically will always trump collectivism.

Think of a future like in Star Trek where you can have whatever you want at the touch of a button and there is endless clean energy at everyone's disposal. In such a society, a communist system would work well.

[NashVegas]

49. I'm Not Impressed

It's a great theory, and if practiced well, it's great for growth.

The problem is that it's a spirit crusher. In order to work, communism depends on, well .. order. Voluntarily (at best, involuntarily at worst) closing avenues that one could choose to explore to find your place/contribution in society, instead, being assigned a place. And a specialized one at that.

The US becomes more like Soviet Russia every year.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

51. certain words are calculated to stop thinking,end rational discourse......

arouse hatred -- words that are murderous. The words "nigger" and "Jew" have led to lynchings to mass murder. The word "Communism" has been used to justify the support of dictatorships (in Chile, the Phillipines, Iran) the attempted invasion of other countries (Cuba) the bombing of peasent villages (in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, El Salvador) the destruction of the economy of a small, poor country (Nigaragua). The word "Communism" has also been used to justify taxing the hard earned salaries of the American people to finance BILLIONS of dollars worth of STUPID weapons....now the new hate word of the day is "terrorists"...sigh

"Communism" gives Socialism a bad name

[LincolnMcGrath]

52. Yep Yep Yep

Communism has never been tried. Brutal greedy dictators ruled the soviet block.

[russian33]

57. Communism as an ideology is Utopia...

..but I lived in what some people called Communism, former USSR...one thing I'll give my former government is they never called it Communism, we were always on the 'Road to Communism'. Human nature is not designed to bring Communism to any particular country, everyone has flaws, and those flaws will stop Communism from becoming a reality...it's too perfect of a system.....no matter what was said here in US, USSR was never a Communist nation (or China and Cuba for that matter)...IMHO

[Walt Starr]

58. As with most utopian philosophies

it looks good on paper, but power corrupts so it ain't gonna work without the checks and balances of a proper democratic method.

[MoonRiver]

59. NOOOO!

Communism has failed everywhere but, ironically, Cuba. We just need to get our democracy back! I could go for a socialized medical system though. We also need to clean up our crooked electoral process. Otherwise don't mess with US!

[Cheswick2.0]

60. It sounds good to the naive

but in practice it sucks. It is one of those economic and govermental systems that must be enforced by totalitarianism. Powerful people are corrupted by power, so the common people end up being exploited anyway. Plus there is no incentive for people to work hard or to invent new ways of doing things. Look how far in the past most communist countries were once they broke from communism.

[Cat Atomic]

61. Well, it worked ok in the Soviet Union.

When you consider where the Russians STARTED, and where they ended up, they made tremendous improvements. It's just not fair to compare the post-war Soviet standard of living to the US standard of living. The US already had alot of infrastructure and wealth. The Soviets started from nothing and built up.

I'm not advocating Communism, because it seems to fall apart very quickly. Some Bolshevik-styled group comes in almost immediately and dismantles any actual communist structures that have been set up, then replaces it with dictatorship.

I think the ideas behind communism are very worthwhile, however. Power should be more decentralized, and moved downwards towards the people.

[John BigBootay]

78. Excuse me, Cat?

"Well, it worked ok in the Soviet Union."

Joseph Stalin's Kill tally: Approximately 20 million, including up to 14.5 million needlessly starved to death. At least one million executed for political "offences". At least 9.5 million more deported, exiled or imprisoned in work camps, with many of the estimated five million sent to the 'Gulag Archipelago' never returning alive. Other estimates place the number of deported at 28 million, including 18 million sent to the 'Gulag'.

Mao Zedong Kill tally: 14 to 20 million deaths from starvation during the 'Great Leap Forward'. Tens of thousands killed and millions of lives ruined during the 'Cultural Revolution'.

Pol Pot Kill tally: One to three million (or between a quarter and a third of the country's population).

Are you implying here that the ends justify the means? If that's the case, then even the meager "ends" obtained through communism puts an extraordinairily low value on human life.

[Cat Atomic]

87. No, not at all.

I said that communist governments seem to fall into dictatorships quickly. As a development model however, if we accept the Soviet Union as a truly communist state (which I don't think it was), then it worked alright.

[John BigBootay]

91. But to say "it worked OK in..."

implies that there was value and goodness in the effort.

As practised in the USSR, was there value and goodness?

The fact is that there is no such thing as the fabled "perfect" form of communism where everyone is equal, free, happy and taken care of. It has never existed and as long as human nature persists, it never will.

Communism, almost by definition, when you account for human nature, demands centralization of power, totalitarianism, purges, favoritism, waning productivity, torture, imprisonment and death.

[Cat Atomic]

95. There was value in the effort.

They developed their nation. I'm not making some sort of moral judgement of the Soviet system, I'm only saying that as a development model, it was not a complete failure.

We're fed this line of bullshit here that says communism was a complete failure, and it wasn't.

Again, that's assuming you call the Soviet system a truly communist system. I wouldn't.

[John BigBootay]

102. All right-- so some development in the USSR at the cost of...

tens of millions of lives, tens of millions in the gulags, suppression of freedom and human rights, want of basic material needs while the elite live in luxury, etc. etc. etc, shows that the system was "not a complete failure."

I cannot find one scrap of moral value in your statement because I AM willing to make judgements about a system that I believe is utterly morally backward.

By your reasoning, Nazism and Fascism are not civic failures either because it gave some people jobs and kept the trains running on time-- while carting the dissidents to the camps.

YOU MUST stop looking at the world through the lens of destructive moral relativism-- at least in the cases of extraordinarily dangerous concepts such as communism.

Please don't worry that you will look weak in the fight against conservatism if you turn your back on the social failure of communism-- my favorite president, John F. Kennedy was an absolute ardent fighter against communism, every bit as excersized by the concept as Reagan, and yet he also believed that social welfare was the right thing to do.

It is important to define where that "line" must be drawn and stick to it.

[wuushew]

109. J.F.K . was a hawk who got us into Vietnam

Was that worth it? Was Nixon's escalation worth it to Cambodians?

Americans belief in the validiy of using force has caused us numerous problems to the current day. If governments are doomed to failure why not just let them rot instead of the almost universally bad strategy of American intervention.

The Soviet Union did not swallow Eastern Europe as some part of a plan to overrun the world but rather as a massive land barrier to protect the core of the Russian Heartland which had been invaded in both world wars and by Napaleon. Is it unreasonable to except Russia's justifyable xenophobia?

[John BigBootay]

113. And after we left Viet Nam Pol Pot killed millions...

see post #78.

You are willing to allow totalitarian states such as the USSR to expand it's empire in an effort to protect itself? You find this justifiable? The forced enslavement of sovereign peoples in an effort to protect a corrupt communist regime thousands of miles away?

JFK was indeed a hawk-- a brilliant, compassionate, steel-balled hawk. We need his kind again, so desperately that it's alarming.

And we need to work to counter-act the crazy-talk like the post you have taken the time and energy to put down in print.

[wuushew]

119. Americans do not care about human rights

If our mission in the world is to save the lives of as many people as possible we would have permanent bases all over the continent of Africa. But we don't.

I don't know why military action is the only solution to repressive regiemes, the American approach to China of corrupting their economic system seems to be working for us. We could have always invaded China in the 1950's before they had the bomb since Mao killed countless numbers of his own people in the name of his revolution.


And yes Vietnam was a failure, the deathtoll would have been far less if we had just allowed them to reunite following U.N. monitored elections and not by invasion in 1975.

[John BigBootay]

129. "Americans do not care about human rights" I do, for one

I assume you do too.

But you're right, we DON'T engage all nations that abuse their citizens for some very good reasons: we lack the resources to solve all the world's problems, we lack the political will to do it everywhere, and we engage in areas where there is generally some kind of national interest at stake, such as fighting communist expansionism.

If Viet Nam was a miltary failure as you suggest, I offer this counter-point: the USSR bore witness once again to the American resolve to fight communism. If we were willing to sacrifice 54,000 men to stop communism in the jungles of a poor, third world nation, what were we willing to do to fight communism's further spread throughout Europe, let alone throughout the Americas?

Also remember, China saw what we did there too. Is it possible that at some level this message of intolerance of a corrupt system that enslaves, tortures, kills and suppresses will not be allowed to spread, regardless of it's source?

[indigo32]

128. There are those who say our bombing in Cambodia

destabilized the situation allowing Pol Pot to come into power.

I agree completely with your assessment of Communism to be honest. But I think perhaps the cold war was ill conceived. Do I have the answers to how it should have been handled. Hell no. But it's another case of do the ends justify the means.

[John BigBootay]

131. Perhaps-- but if we had STAYED in Viet Nam--

and "won" that war, then there would have been no Killing Fields.

Viet Nam is a complex and disturbing issue. There probably is no right or wrong scenario there-- sometimes death and killing is simply inevitiable.

[wuushew]

135. The parallels between Vietnam and Iraq are quite evident

do we stay and win the war or pullout and save American blood and money? Which is better for us? Which is better for the Iraqis.

Both were wars which should have never been started and lack satisfying conclusions.

Since the U.S. historically has confronted communist states does this also apply to Iraq which was one of the most Stalinist countries in the world? Confrontation vs. containment?

[John BigBootay]

139. I am not going to speak about Iraq. n/t

[indigo32]

137. WON that war?

how many more bombs could we have dropped on them?

[John BigBootay]

140. Good question--

I was not saying that we SHOULD HAVE stayed nor what it would take to win. Although I know many veterans who believed that Viet Nam was winnable but for the micro-managing of LBJ and the lack of political will to take the fight to the limit.

You ask how many more bombs it would have taken to win it-- perhaps a more pertinant question is WHERE those bombs are dropped. Drop a thousand bombs on an NVA village in the jungle and you've done nothing. Drop that same payload on Ho Chi Minh city and you MAY start to get results.

I don't know, frankly. Like I said before, Viet Nam is a complex and disturbing issue.

[Cat Atomic]

118. You're distorting.

I'm no fan of dictatorship, whether it's got a communist veneer or not. There most certainly were grievous attrocities that came out of the Soviet system.

But I could point at the fate of the American indians and say it's a moral indictment of democracy. It'd be silly, but I could try it.

I don't agree with you that communism is inherently "evil". I think that's a ridiculous notion.

[John BigBootay]

130. I never said it was "evil."

Nor, do I believe capitalism is "good."

I merely look at the results and choose a form that is clearly better in ALL REGARDS. If that is a definition of "good" versus "evil" so be it.

It's very easy for me to look at the multitude of failures inherent in ANY practised form of communism-- then look at the multitude of successes in most forms of democracy and capitalism and decide upon the CLEAR winner.

I don't know why it is so hard for others to see the obvious. I can only assume that ideology is the answer. That is why I choose to remain ideologically agnostic.

[Cat Atomic]

145. Now wait a minute.

Better in all regards?

I started out saying that the Soviet Union made major progress in developing it's infrastructure under communism... or what they liked to *call* communism.

They started FAR behind western Europe and North America, and ended up in a fairly advanced state.

On the other hand, there are South American countries that have been operating under capitalism for decades, and have made no real progress at all. They've still got their share of atrocities, they've still got widespread poverty.

I expect that, had Russia adopted capitalism rather than communism, they would've been just another cheap labor market for western Europe. Honduras on the Steppes.

Anyway, I don't think the differences are defined enough that you can really compare these systems accuately anyway. The difference between pre-Bolshevik Russia and Stalinist Russia is enormous. The difference between democracy in North America and South America is enormous.

[John BigBootay]

147. The problem with your argument is---

that there are NO examples of a viable and free long-term communist state.

And yet there are multitudes of democracies that embrace various shades of capitalism that are viable, free and enduring.

China has endured but the standard living is horrible and the people are not free. Cuba has endured with the same conditions. And it seems that almost every time a nation goes communist, it must first be subjected to an enormous bloodletting and political purge to rid itself of the most vocal dissidents that may cause trouble in the future.

I will concede that the USSR came the closest in it's first moments to achieving a "Marxist" form of communism, but this theoretical form of perfect communism has been proven to be a fallacy time and time again with practical examples of good intentions inevitably going awry.

Ultimately, it is my belief that discussion of communism is merely an academic matter of the law of unintended consequences and ANY thought of a practical implimentation of the concept is dangerous.

[AP]

62. It stifles innovation and progress.

Which is probably why it failed.

Wealth is a great reward system. And the marketplace is pretty good at sorting out needs and priorities.

I think there are things that the marketplace delivers better than anything else -- things that require work, innovation and improvement, and benefit from competition, and which can return an investment in a relatively short time frame.

However, there are also things that the marketplace delivers attrociously. Those are things that are easy to monopolize (like untilities, trains service) or things where customers don't have a real choice and therefore don't beneift from competion (like healthcare -- if you chose not to buy it, you die), and things that deliver their benefits so broadly over such a long period of time (like education) that you simply can't deliver them to the public in a free market according to any cost scale that makes sense.

In those cases, a little public ownership might free up resources that can be better used on the activities that are best provided in the free market.

So, as always, it's the balance that works best.

[Liberal Classic]

63. Theory and application seldom meet

The way I see it, communal living works best in small groups where unanimous consent can be reached. I have no problem with people who gather to form their own commune to share and share alike. More power to them. However, just because something works for a small group of people does not mean that the idea will scale up to thousands, millions, or even billions of people. Add in a religious ferver, excuse me a revolutionary ferver and it should come to no suprise when millions of refuseniks are slaughtered.

[Az]

64. Tyranny of society over the individual

Too many short comings in production and resources. The short comings eventually get leveraged onto the backs of the people. The tyranny of the need of the society eventually overloads the rights of the individual to a overbearing level.

Perhaps with advances in technology and production we may be able to circumvent these issues. But of course the problem there is our Corporate keepers are very aware of the possibility of their hold on these factors would be weakened by our ability to produce for ourselves. So they will thwart any attempts to posess the production means. Simply examine the current MP3 problems with RIAA to see the Corporations reaction to people distributing for themself.

[noonwitch]

67. A theory that appeals to the oppressed, but just creates a new oppressor

The russian revolution-replaced a bad leader (Nicholas II) with equally oppressive leadership.

Communisim doesn't work, because it just creates a different class of privileged people in the party. The only place it really worked on any level was Yuogoslavia, because it kept the ethnic groups from slaughtering each other. Also, Tito was not the brutal dictator that other communist leaders have been over the years. He allowed dissidents to leave with their heads intact (I have some relatives who were in that position). He had more of an open border than the other "iron curtain" countries.

Revolutions that involve the eradication of all who were connected to the previous regime are always so extreme that they end up being blood baths, communist or otherwise. The leninists were wrong to kill the entire Romanov family, it was excessive violence that could have been avoided if they just let them emigrate to England or France.
The French revolution's exteme blood bath led to the ultimate rising of Napoleon.

The american revolution worked in part because the goal was not to destroy the lives of all within the previous power structure, it was to evict the British Army and start an entirely new nation.

[TO Kid]

72. In theory it's impossible

And in practice it's lethal. It is an ideology that is based on misanthropy, and it relies on the same type of coercion that propped up the Catholic Church at the height of its power. Like the Popes, the leaders of the communist movement convinced its followers that acting out of self-interest is evil and that normal human desires lead to perdition. Marx and Lenin merely replaced God with the proletariat.

[Festivito]

77. The bad in Communism is seen in today's Republicans.

Softening anti-monopolistic control by corporations leaving the power in hands of a few individuals that were NOT PICKED by either vote nor representative review. Republicans: Anti-trust is watered down and now no longer prosecuted.

Taking control of state information, e.g., presidential records, FOIA curbing, secretivity, polititian rewrite of intelligence, etc.

Controlling media by threat (Anthrax) or assuming control of hiring, firing and programming, such as eliminating Phil Donahue, Bill Maher, or relegating left-wing pundits to middle-of-the-night time slots or hiring only persons espousing only one ideology and paying them enough to keep them quiet.

Reducing individual rights as in deceptively named Patriot Act.

Unbridled Socialism like unbridled Capitalism will ultimately fail the people. So, all one needs is a disregard for people, and anything is possible.

[tom_paine]

80. Communism is a fertile breeding ground for Tyranny and Totalitarianism

In spite of the good intentions of the individual Comrades, by and large.

I trust Communists perhaps less than I trust Busheviks, and for much the same reasons. Unthinking slaves to ideology give me the hives.

[Snellius]

82. McCarthy, Nixon, Reagan would be proud.

I swear there was a more informed open-mindedness about socialism during the height of the Cold War than there is today after the "evil empire" is gone. What Marx meant had nothing to do with systems under Stalin or Mao or to do with the pseudo-religious fire and brimstone hurled by the political warlords of American wealth.

[John BigBootay]

88. Absolutely NOT!!!

Please see my post to CatAtomic #78 for a list of the "successes" communism has enjoyed in the past..

The greatest example of a communist state does not compare to the worst example of a democracy in my book.

[bemildred]

90. I'm not much into theological speculation, thanks.

FWIW "Communism" is not a form of government, it's a
theory, a fairly naive one, about the economic structuring
of society. It is both conceivable and sensible to
consider a democratic republic with a large public sector
of the economy and stringent regulation of private business.
The notion that greed is the only effective economic motivator
is, at best, a shallowly supported postulate, not a fundamental
rule of human relations. Plenty of people work extremely hard
without any exceptional compensation. How does one explain
them?

[Hippo_Tron]

94. I think that ultimately you need capitalism to fuel the nation's economy

However I do think that we need a national healthcare system, etc.

[LoZoccolo]

96. Communism is full of shit.

OK, they tell you the only way things are gonna be truly democratic is if we have a revolution.

But in order to carry out a revolution of that scale, you have to get into this authoritarian mindset, either as a leader, or a follower.

You can't question shit because they think it'll fuck up everything and the revolution will never happen or collapse afterward and things will never be truly democratic.

And once you have the revolution you can't question shit because that's counter-revolutionary, and the leaders are so paranoid of that that they start putting people in the ground.

So when the fuck is this democracy gonna happen?

Basically it ends up with a bunch of people very vigorously pretending things are more democratic and being paranoid.

I have a special kind of contempt for people who go up to people and try to tell us that something that's almost always failed in practice is the "only way" and that if we don't go along with it, we don't really care. They should just know by now. Or at least have a healthy sense of doubt.

Especially when they could spend all that time and energy - and I will grant that communists tend to spend a lot of that in politics - working for or coming up with another way.

Plus by the way a lot of them act, naw, I don't want them in power.

[LoZoccolo]

97. Another thing that annoys me about them...

...is that they often think they have to come up with the most long-range overarching all-encompassing plan for how everything is going to work. And if you really want revolution, you've got to subscribe to the whole plan, or else the plan's never going to work. What this amounts to is that if you have disagreements about even practical matters regarding the plan, you will likely be seriously looked upon as counter-revolutionary. I don't know much about Soviet history, but it seems to me that Stalin and Trotsky essentially were disagreeing on some practical questions.

[rinsd]

100. Interesting isn't it.......

Mass social upheaval requires the cooperation of the masses. The problem is the coercion of said masses.

[ibegurpard]

99. The necessity of concentrated central power

makes communism unworkable with the reality of human nature, IMHO.

[Raskolnik]

103. What year is this?

Are you serious?

Well, other than failing completely in every instance of its implementation, I guess it might have its good points.

If you can ignore the crushing power of the State, the repression of religion and human rights, then sure, this might be the system for you.

[Fone Book]

104. Communism got a bad rap- but were not ready...

Since the McCarthyist era of the 1950s, there as been a perpetual fear of Communism in America. What most people believe (or have been brainwashed to believe) is that Communism is evil. But really, Communism comes from idealism. The Communist/Socialist system is based on the strive to relieve the suffering of the poor. As most of you already know, we have a Capitalist society, and there are a lot of poor people out there... People in prison, kicked out of their homes...
I saw a movie a couple weeks ago called "Roger and Me" by Michael Moore. It documents how General Motors fucked the people of Flint; they took a shining example of the triumph of Communism and drove it into the ground. They showed people being kicked out of their homes, in prison, doing apalling things just to get by. All this for one word: GREED. That is the basis of Capitalism. Greed. General Motors (Roger Smith in particular) took all the jobs from the people of Flint and gave them to Mexicans because of greed.
However, Socialism doesn't really work. The reason Communism/Socialism is that society is not ready for that kind of system yet. If the Soviet Union had a genuinely good-natured society with no threats of outside economic danger- it could've worked.
The battle between Capitalism and Socialism is really a battle between two ideals- Greed vs. Idealism. The unfortunate reality is that greed works better.

[Tigermoose]

117. False dichotomy - Greed vs. Idealism

I don't make money for the sake of Greed, but because I want to provide for those I love. That is the means of production. Working for a false ideology, or for power -- those are both means of destruction.

[Endangered Specie]

106. It would work on a society of emotionless, goaless computers...

but never humans. It can and never will work on a large scale human society. However, Im not against incorporating some aspects of it, to a limited degree.

A good mix of capitalism and socialism I think works best.

You have to balance the yin and the yang for things to work right. uncontrolled Capitalism on its own isnt good, same with communism... Democracy itself is a delicate balance of anarchy and authoritarianism (the two extremes).

[TO Kid]

156. Gene Roddenberry was right

The perfect communist society-

[geek tragedy]

107. Marxism works as

an analytical approach. The real world consequences have been a miserable failure, however.

[John BigBootay]

116. If it DOES NOT work in practice--

and NEVER HAS worked in practice (other than to provide a very marginal level of existence while utterly subjugating the masses) then how can anyone even credit the "concept" as a good one?

It's like me saying "armed robbery is a good way to achieve wealth." The statement seems to make sense, but below the surface of the simple sentence is the premise that I may kill people, disrupt lives and business and I am stealing other people's money.

The reality that communism is a failed concept at it's core should be apparent to anybody who is willing to extrapolate the ideas to the obvious and logical conclusion.

[LoZoccolo]

123. I think he's talking about Marx's critique of capitalism...

...versus his prescription for getting rid of it.

[ArkDem]

115. Listen.

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a
mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

[wuushew]

121. Be quiet!

DENNIS:
Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR:
Shut up!
DENNIS:
I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
ARTHUR:
Shut up, will you? Shut up!
DENNIS:
Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR:
Shut up!
DENNIS:
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR:
Bloody peasant!
DENNIS:
Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?

[ArkDem]

127. Oh, GLORY BE!!!

I've found another anarcho-syndicalist !!!!!!

[Az]

132. Eh, its only a model

Sssssssssthhump! rrrg.. Message sir.

[wuushew]

122. delete

dupe

[indigo32]

120. I think it's resulted

in a large number of societies that have commited unspecable mass atrocities. The Soviet Union under Stalin is only one. Too large a proportion of them actually. Not that they are the only ones, but this is the case never the less.

No I'm in favor of safety nets which might be considered socialist. For example I'm fully in favor of a Canadian style health care system. But not Communism.

[Rex]

125. Communism would never work in a post industrial society.

nt

[Kilroy003]

133. Lenin and Marx were lovers, right?

I have nothing to say on the merits of communism. I just want to post a new thread but I can't cause I'm too new. That's a stupid rule. How many posts do I have to make before I can discuss what I logged on to discuss? I'm starting to forget the points I was going to make. Ugh!!

[Sopianae]

136. No way.

As someone who grew up in Hungary I feel quite strongly about this. Communism does NOT work in practice. Of course, there are pros and cons. I wanted to get into it but then I realized I would end up writing a book.

So, if you want to understand what it was like for an ordinary person to survive in Hungary during the darkest days read this book:

Under the Frog : A Novel by Tibor Fischer

One of the most hilarious and heart wrenching books ever written.

[Hammie]

141. Communism is perfect

If you are an ant.

If you are human, it is absurdly inappropriate. People have evolved over millions of years to be selfish. Even religions offer great personal rewards tomorrow, for selfless behavior today.

In a small group it appears to work because the productive members get tangible or intangible rewards from the other members of the group. Generally because the gratitude or well being of the other members is a source of personal satisfaction. Apparently we aren't purely selfish which permits us to form family groups. In larger groups, communism has no effective way to communicate the "gratitude" of the beneficiary in a meaningful way to the "provider". Capitalism does have such a mechanism. We have units of gratitude (dollars) that we can exchange with individuals to which we have no emotional ties to express our appreciation for their efforts on our behalf.

[themann1086]

142. are we talking about

economic theories or authoritarian theories? Because economically, I think some of their ideas may have some merit. I don't know whether or not that's true, but...

anyway, their authoritarian policies disgust me (I'm refering to Stalinist Communism). I'm way too much of a leftist libertarian to ever accept that part of the spectrum.

[Jose Diablo]

143. There are different forms of Communism

The form of USSR adopted clearly resulted in a system so inefficient it could not generate enough wealth for the people to prosper. Plus, it was so authoritarian the people had little hope for a better future, unless you were in the 'landed' gentry. There is always tendencies for organizations to be bloated if there is not some 'blind' mechanism to force efficiency.

Of course, in America today we face similar problems of 'allocation' of capital and wealth. Futures are bleak for many also. But it hasn't reached the authoritarian level of USSR, YET.

I don't think communism as been practiced so far would be good for America. I don't know about some other form of 'pure' communism that hasn't been tried. It can be noted though, the 'simple' life of the Amish has appeal except for the lack of freedom of religion. I don't know if the Amish system is appealing due to the economic system or the simple non-industrial farming lifestyle. And of course this is only an appeal from my perspective.

I favor what this country was going toward in the late 60's and early 70's before the progressive (populist) movement got sidestepped by assassinations. Some industries would have been government operated and highly regulated and others would be strictly governed by a 'market' allocation of capital. Strong unions offset the power of corporations. Corporation were not allowed to buy politicians through campaign financing.

Some industries would be natural for government ownership due to high capital expenditures needed and not much to be gained by 'competition'.

For example health care. Much of the cost of research is socialized now but the profit is privatized. And of course the liability risks are high thus much of that risk is buried in the costs also. Health care would be a prime example of an industry that could be nationalized with everybody being better off, except maybe the insurance industry part of it and I don't really care about them anyway. Do you?

Think of it like having bridges across a river. Why have 2 bridges with different operators just for the sake of having competition if one bridge is sufficient to maintain capacity for how many vehicles need to cross the river. It makes more sense to regulate the costs a single bridge owner charges and only have one bridge. The overall charge to society would be less in total capital. Competition implies overcapacity.

What we have now in America is not really a capitalist country. Look at the industries. The costs being charged have little resemblance to what the costs are to supply. The supply is being manipulated to create artificial shortages and thus drive up charges and profits. If it was truly competitive the corporations would not be able to do this. Rather than throw the whole thing away, wouldn't it be better to just enforce anti-trust laws and break up the strangle-hold on supplies? For example the energy industry.

I don't think we really need to throw the economic baby away just because we forgot how the government was supposed to regulate and force industries to play by the laws. After all, corporations are not really people. Isn't the system we operate under supposed to be for the benefit of the people not some legal artificial construct called a corporation designed to shield investors from liability?

Corporations were allowed to exist because they are good at raising investment capital. Thats all. They should not be real citizens with all the legal 'rights' of real citizens.

I say the economic system used should be for the benefit of consumers, workers AND shareholders. Not just shareholders.

We had this at one time without being communist.

[WLKjr]

144. In my opinion

Communisim only works in Theory. The problem is the leaders that administer it, that is where Communisim fails.

[smiley_glad_hands]

146. Absolutely Not.

[Liberal Classic]

148. What do you make of this?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=529558

John Nkomo, the Special Affairs Minister in the President's (Robert Mugabe) office in charge of Land Reform and Resettlement:

"In the end all land shall be state land and there will be no such thing called private land," Mr Nkomo said. "It will now be the state which will enable the utilisation of the land for national prosperity."

Communism? Yes or no?

Good thing, yes or no?

[JHBowden]

149. Communism sucks.

Attempts to "democratize" the economy always lead to tyranny and the deaths of millions. Since it is impossible to have a vote on every single economic transaction, one ends up having strongmen make the decision.

If one wants better education, looser drug laws, freedom for homosexuals, Communism is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to attain these goals. So why bother, given the track record of communists in the 1900s?

[Democracy Died 2004]

150. Communism would never work

here in Amurka. Not many willing to give up the Greenback.

[Cleita]

151. Why would we want Communism?

It means the government would own and run everything. (Go look at the American Communist website sometime about this.) I think a social democracy works better because it works hand in hand with capitalism.

[smiley_glad_hands]

155. I agree.

[LoZoccolo]

154. This is a funny thread.

Not because I don't take it seriously - because I do as you can see from my other posts - but it totally blows the FReeper "liberal = communists" thing out of the water.