Communsim is not good

Well you can’t have 100% pure Communism, like you can’t have 100% pure Capitalism. Both would be anarchy.

@Yanny:

Well you can’t have 100% pure Communism, like you can’t have 100% pure Capitalism. Both would be anarchy.

i agree 100%
pure capitalism can’t work for everyone, that’s obvious, which is why governments have regulations, anti-trust laws, and social programs.
pure communism can’t work for everyone 'cuz it sux . . . (ok, i have to think this one through a little better . . . ). :D

“Well you can’t have 100% pure Communism, like you can’t have 100% pure Capitalism. Both would be anarchy”

True communism or 100% is what Marx and Engles calls higher-level communism. So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state. The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, i.e., when people have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and when their labor has become so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability. “The narrow horizon of bourgeois law”, which compels one to calculate whether one has not worked half an hour more than anybody else – this narrow horizon will then be left behind. There will then be no need for society, in distributing the products, to regulate the quantity to be received by each; each will take freely “according to his needs”.

The so-called Anarchistic youth of today, for the most part simply use the term “Anarchist” as an indication of not wanting to go along with the “system” in not wanting to assimilate, which is a giant leap forward on their part considering all their lives they’ve constantly been bombarded with the huge American Corporate propaganda machine. But what they do not learn, and never will from an Anarchist perspective is what is to replace the smashed state machine?

Engels explains that the state is a "special coercive force.” So what must come after the bourgeoisie is overthrown to keep it down? As Lenin explains in the State and Revolution: the bourgeois state "must be replaced by a ‘special coercive force’ for the suppression of the bourgeois by the proletariat that is workers’ democracy. The proletariat “state” is no longer a state in the proper sense of the word, Lenin explains, because it is no longer the minority suppressing the majority, but the vast majority suppressing a tiny minority! Instead of organizing an instrument for the coercion of the bourgeois by the proletariat, the Anarchists wish to simply abolish the state overnight and hope that the capitalists do not make any attempts of counterrevolution, an absurd and unrealistic idea.

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.

100% Capitalism is a 100% Market Economy. This means no Taxes, no Regulation, and no Goverment involvement in business, basically Pure Adam Smith Economics. 100% Communism is Big Brother.

Realistic Capitalism - High Taxes, Large amounts of Goverment influence. Lots of Regulation. “Unoffical” Class System.

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

@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?