Communsim is not good

@Yanny:

I vote Communism, note that does not mean Stalinism.

You would need stalinism to force that kind of system in place to people…otherwise it would be corrupt and not “pure.”

The commies out number us here…

@bossk:

I’ve read these essays (although two paragraphs is hardly an essay) and if that’s the best you can come up with then capitalism is in pretty lame shape. They seem to overestimate the average human (in the case of the morality of capitalism essay) or they severly underestimate them (in the case of the last essay you mention). In that last essay I am very surprised that the author could only come up with about 3 reasons why communism is ev… I mean can’t work. I could come with more than that if I really wanted too. I don’t think you capitalists are trying hard enough.

Yes. I think of it this way. Our system is ruling supreme, so we get to think less.

@HortenFlyingWing:

@Yanny:

I vote Communism, note that does not mean Stalinism.

You would need stalinism to force that kind of system in place to people…otherwise it would be corrupt and not “pure.”

The commies out number us here…

They do….dirty commies :)

@Yanny:

Realistic Communism - No Taxes. Goverment owns all Busnisses. Equal distribution of wealth.

Yes…besides the people in power, and their buddies, and anyone along the way who can “hold out” on others, and take advantage of others as well.

No, you would not need to force it upon people. The Idea is the people unite and do it themselves. An outside force cannot just come in and say “Ok, we’re offically a Communism and I am your leader”. It takes time, oppression, and probably an armed struggle with the former goverment.

@Yanny:

No, you would not need to force it upon people. The Idea is the people unite and do it themselves. An outside force cannot just come in and say “Ok, we’re offically a Communism and I am your leader”. It takes time, oppression, and probably an armed struggle with the former goverment.

Yes, but how are you going to enforce true equality to keep such a system in place? It is just not possible, and I doubt the pure motives of any people heading an armed struggle.

Someone “heading” something already hurts equality.

Yo, Horten where were ya? Good thing you got back, now we can really start the “el communism es mal” debate! (Though Mini is still MIA :cry:)

“You would need stalinism to force that kind of system in place to people…otherwise it would be corrupt and not “pure.””

Well you’re right in the way that you do need a force to maintain obedience before the transition from capitalism to higher-level communism. However, Stalin was one ruler (you can count the Bolsheviks but most of them were either purged or forced to support Stalin’s actions). In lower-level communism, the power lies in the armed state of workers. Therefore, it is the majority rule by force, not just one man. This is the “inequality” (though small inequality) that Marx talks about in order to prepare for the withering of the state.

@FinsterniS:

Because CC, it does not suck that some people get better medical treatment ? That some can have an office of lawyers working for them…

That is horrible and deviant.

maybe check out Canada’s medical system some time. We are not communists, but unless you go to America, you basically get the same shitty care as everyone else.
and maybe if i work hard enough, i too can get an office full of lawyers working for me. might be worth the s**t i have to put up with along the way.

maybe check out Canada’s medical system some time. We are not communists, but unless you go to America, you basically get the same shitty care as everyone else. and maybe if i work hard enough, i too can get an office full of lawyers working for me. might be worth the s**t i have to put up with along the way.

That is still a left-wing concept. I was’nt trying to promote communism…

Also there’s a lot of people out there that work very hard; there are not all rich. Most people work how they can, they make our society work, but some got “lucky” and they have lot of money; they rarely give as much to the society as they take.

please stop these unqualified calls on europe.

And on France… We are always taking the blame for Europe; that is sad & comical. France is the “lightning rod” of the Europe vis-à-vis America…

The United States is a Semi-Socialist Capitalism. We have things like Social Security, Medicare, Goverment Regulation, ect.

Europe - Only Scandinavian (sp) countries actually label themselves as Socialisms. The rest are like us, Semi-Socialist Democratic Capitalisms.

@FinsterniS:

please stop these unqualified calls on europe.

And on France… We are always taking the blame for Europe; that is sad & comical. France is the “lightning rod” of the Europe vis-à-vis America…

i wonder why that is . . . .

"No, Realistic COmmunism is the eventual failure of a command economy and the creation of a new class system. Study Soviet Russia, or read 1984.

Command economies do not work. Some economic decisions require such de-centralization that they have to be made by individual people (supply and demand)"

New class system –> No class system
Command --> Really? How can you be so sure about this?

I never understood why it is assumed that under a communist system all production decisions would come from one source. I believe that communism could work if these decisions were made at a more local level. Techniques similar to those used by the current capitalist systems could, I believe, quite easily be applied to communism

@yourbuttocks:

Moses, command economies do not work. Think about it this way, what if sacramento made decisions about what the businesses in Los Angeles would produce, and how much. Would Sacramento do a good job? Would they have a good handle on how many widgets from Los Angeles are needed, for example? Or would they have a good idea of how many widgets were needed in Los Angeles?

Read Bossk’s post on communism at a localized level. Also, with your widgets example you assume that X amount of widgets would be produced in order to meet the demands of a good handle. This is capitalist thought. In communism, there would be ample supply of widgets (overproduction, which is the big no-no of capitalism) to be used for handles. Also, it would seem that all decisions would come from those who live in Sacramento. In reality, it is a gathering of the elected council from different regions of the world – recalled at any time. As Engles said, “Above all, it [communist society] will generally have to take the running of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole, that is, for the common account, according to a common plan and with the participation of all members of society. It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association – in a word, the so-called communal ownership of goods.”

@yourbuttocks:

Moses, some people are always going to be better off than others. It is an unfortunate fact of life. In Communism, it is the Commie Party. In Capitalism it is generally the person who is harder worker/smarter, or is in family of such person. Which is better?”?

And if everybody in the Communist party, everybody benefits. (This is a generalization, in reality other parties could and would exist under the communist system) Remember as Lenin said, “If everybody is a bureaucrat, then nobody is a bureaucrat.” Also, why must everything about Communism revolve around, “Well it’s not fair, he got more than me!” This is total fraud, communism teaches you to take what you need – even if that means you need a little more (or a little less) than the next person. A lot of people ask me, in communism, is everyone the same? (as in gets the same or needs the same). Marx teaches us to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability – meaning that some will naturally need more than others. A doctor usually requires more “tools” and “equipment” than the average postal worker.

@TG:

@yourbuttocks:

ks"]Moses, some people are always going to be better off than others. It is an unfortunate fact of life. In Communism, it is the Commie Party. In Capitalism it is generally the person who is harder worker/smarter, or is in family of such person. Which is better?”?

And if everybody in the Communist party, everybody benefits. (This is a generalization, in reality other parties could and would exist under the communist system) Remember as Lenin said, “If everybody is a bureaucrat, then nobody is a bureaucrat.” Also, why must everything about Communism revolve around, “Well it’s not fair, he got more than me!” This is total fraud, communism teaches you to take what you need – even if that means you need a little more (or a little less) than the next person. A lot of people ask me, in communism, is everyone the same? (as in gets the same or needs the same). Marx teaches us to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability – meaning that some will naturally need more than others. A doctor usually requires more “tools” and “equipment” than the average postal worker.

But everybody being in the Communist party is not very democratic, is it? Or are we going to assume that people’s ideas about democracy are not democratic as far as communistic ideals go?
Also, the average postal worker does not put in the same hours, have the same decisions, or the same responsibilities as a doctor. They have less to take home at night, less to do during the day, different hours, significantly less training. The “tools” and “equipment” are already provided by hospitals (unless the doctor chooses to work in the community in which case about 1/3rd of their income goes to pay for these), but these are not the reasons why a doctor would want to live and work in a communist society.

• lazycrypt

“But everybody being in the Communist party is not very democratic, is it? Or are we going to assume that people’s ideas about democracy are not democratic as far as communistic ideals go?”

Democracy is intertwined with communism; communism is a higher form of it. Also, next time, read what I place in parenthesis, those are usually the most important. “(This is a generalization, in reality other parties could and would exist under the communist system)” What I was trying to refer to was the communist society and not the communist party.

“Also, the average postal worker does not put in the same hours, have the same decisions, or the same responsibilities as a doctor. They have less to take home at night, less to do during the day, different hours, significantly less training. The “tools” and “equipment” are already provided by hospitals (unless the doctor chooses to work in the community in which case about 1/3rd of their income goes to pay for these), but these are not the reasons why a doctor would want to live and work in a communist society.”

Again, read closely to what I write. In my previous post I said “A doctor usually REQUIRES more “tools” and “equipment” than the average postal worker.” This means that the average doctor uses more than the average postal worker. Also, where does the equipment provided by hospitals comes from? Do they make their own?