"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (1 Viewer)

[Nebuchanezzar]

People react to fear, not love. You wont learn that in Sunday school, but it's true

NIXON

MANDELA

shame on you Iron. Shame on your capitalist tendencies!

 

[Iron]

MANDELA

shame on you Iron. Shame on your capitalist tendencies!

Oh Nebz. What a terror you used to be!
I salute whatever it was that tamed you brau.

 

[melanieeeee.]

all you capitalists make me sick. i spit on you all. good day sir.

 

[nirvanafreak02]

Sweden? Socialism? Did I miss something?

YES!
it's the only place socialism actually works

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Wow I didnt actually look at it though that perspective. Interesting. Maybe other people haven't thought about it either and gone with the general idea that communism means less wealth. Also I think anyone who thinks that hard about it will realise in the long run that it means less wealth due to less efficiency in the economy.

My small community of farmers who trade equally are doing just fine.

Meanwhile the community over there where one rules the rest suffers from a disproportionate wealth allocation, in addition to poverty and war.

/0

 

[nirvanafreak02]

all you capitalists make me sick. i spit on you all. good day sir.

i would like to join in on this spitting

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

capitalists do it nightly

by dropping bombs on iraq
works better than a wad of spit, comrades

 

[Graney]

I am compelled to work, I have very little freedom to not work. I could choose not to, but that would result in further deprivation of the things I like, much like in a communist society, no?

It's pretty easy to drop out of the capitalist system. There is no force seriously compelling you to work. But few do drop out, and those that try struggle because it's just so damn easy to succeed in capitalism.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

That was under the old communism. Under our new communism structure, things are much, much different comrade.

Plus capitalism has killed moar.

 

[sam04u]

http://www.aph.gov.au/budget dummy/budget 2006-07 mirror/2006-07/overview/html/overview_30.htm

SOCIAL SECURITY AND WELFARE $$$$$
It's over comrades! You won! Or at least came in a close second! Lay down your arms! Return to your feilds!

Yes comrade.

Three more victories though and I'll be satisfied.
1) Increase minimum wages. (20% or higher, and then a scale which increases based on inflation)
2) Absolute cap (through taxes) of the obscenely rich.
3) Harsh tax avoidance laws.

 

[zstar]

Why am I arguing with a 17 yr old?

Listen Zeitgeist you're a retard.

I've read Marx's Communist Manifesto and like every other left wing Socialist turd it's all a bunch of shit.

Communism cannot work not in this life or the next.

People are greedy deal with it, People want more than others deal with it, Some people are more wealthier than others because they work harder deal with it.

Here's all you ever have to understand about governments, They are selfish and corrupt and all Marxist ideology involves the use of force otherwise it cannot work there's no argument there.

Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, Kim Il sung, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro all promised the same crap you idiots advocate and all they did was fail then they screw the people over by starving them, repressing them and killing them.

Spin it however you want but the Communist experiment has failed completely and utterly in every single country that has practised it. They didn't build fences to keep people out of the "workers paradise" they built it to keep people in.

And no matter what crap you want to add to it the fact remains is marxism can only function if massive government dictatorship was their to enforce it and we all know what happened don't we?

So kids stay in school and have a hard think about practicality vs your delusions. Realise that life is not perfect and deal with it.

 

[sam04u]

Well actually in my hypothetical the farmer did not "control" the crop qua property. The farmer, rather, was performing labour in the growing and harvesting of the crop in accordance with a hypothetical rational social plan for the production of use-values.

Perhaps it's that I've not read the same literature as you, and thus do not identify with the terminology of your post, but this response makes no sense.

Who enforces or guides this social plan? Secondly, what is this rational social plan?

Well actually Sam, that would be an impossibility as a result of the fact that:

1. The crop is not the property of the farmer
2. Even if we assume a hypothetical where the farmer was to appropriate the crop as his own property he would be unable to "control the price" due to the fact that in our hypothetical communist society money and the market no longer exist.

So then in this hypothetical society, in what way does trading or exchange of goods and services occur? How does for instance a plumber prioritise his limited work capacity? How does one produce for other than their own neccessities, but rather for their physical and intellectual benefit?

an "Anarchist society" is a "communist society".

Not at all.

Are you suggesting that the farmer must be forced to labour?

I'm suggesting there should be provision in the event that the farmer can not offer his labour, during a period of sickness, or otherwise. I must admit, I do not understand the system you do as marxist.

 

[Enteebee]

I've read Marx's Communist Manifesto and like every other left wing Socialist turd it's all a bunch of shit.

Did you pay attention when you read it Zstar?

People are greedy deal with it

More the reason why the poor/middle class should desire the profits from owning the means of production to go to them instead of the top 1% or so of wealth?

People want more than others deal with it

You can have more. If you work harder under communism you will receive greater reward... It's just that you can't make profits off controlling the means of production.

Some people are more wealthier than others because they work harder deal with it.

And communism doesn't mind...

Here's all you ever have to understand about governments, They are selfish and corrupt and all Marxist ideology involves the use of force otherwise it cannot work there's no argument there.

All capitalist ideology also involves the use of force otherwise it cannot work? Coercion seems to be the mark of 'the state'... perhaps anarchism might be a solution but I find it very lacking as there are many other ways to utilise your power than through the state.

Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, Kim Il sung, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro all promised the same crap you idiots advocate and all they did was fail then they screw the people over by starving them, repressing them and killing them.

Fidel Castro's cuba is actually doing decently well despite the heavy sanctions on it. It has great healthcare and education.

Stalin's industrialisation of the USSR (while something I wouldn't necessarily advocate for because the toll it took on the citizenry is so great), did actually help prepare the soviet's for war against Germany much better than they otherwise would have and also laid the foundations for the russian industrial economy.

Vietnam is an extremely prosperous modern nation.

Also, look at the SEA tigers... they all employed far more protectionist/socialist economic policies and that's how they built themselves up. In fact, there's a decent argument that pretty much every developed nation did so on the back of the sort of strong government protectionism that communism calls for.

I think communism in a sense is alive and well all around the world.

Spin it however you want but the Communist experiment has failed completely and utterly in every single country that has practised it. They didn't build fences to keep people out of the "workers paradise" they built it to keep people in.

I agree, it has failed... But you know what else has failed? The free market capitalist experiment. Look over at the US right now, how many multi-billion dollar companies is the government taking over to look after the population? Isn't that a market failure? It seems to me that what we have is a little bit of communism there to correct a problem with the market.

So capitalism needs a bit of communism sometimes and communism needs a bit of capitalism sometimes. I don't think there has even been any real attempts at total free market capitalism or anything on a comparable scale to the statism of the USSR so we don't see any huge nation-scale failures.

And no matter what crap you want to add to it the fact remains is marxism can only function if massive government dictatorship was their to enforce it and we all know what happened don't we?

In the US you have two major parties in a system that discourages 3rd parties.... It's not a total dictatorship and may very well be as good a democracy as we can get, but it certainly provides many disincentives for anyone who wants to effect greater social change.

All nations have less than perfect democracies. In Australia if you want to become a representative of government in the Labor party you basically work your way up in workers unions, get selected by higher ups and then move on to bigger and better things eventually landing yourself in parliament. This isn't that different from how democracy often worked in the USSR, except obviously people vote them in... or maybe they just vote for one of the two parties? Idk.

Either way, this doesn't demolish the ideas of communism any more than a critique of some aspects of capitalist nations demolishes capitalism.

 

[melanieeeee.]

Why am I arguing with a 17 yr old? Listen Zeitgeist you're a retard.

just because you are 17 doesn't mean that he has any less right to argue his points. he may have a higher intelligence than you for all you know. he has brought up a good rebuttal for all anti communism points. and if you can't understand his work deal with it.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Almost by definiton labour is external, and not enjoyable - a "labour" is often a trial or a tribulation. While labour is essential to a society, there are certain forms that are unenjoyable to everyone: hence an incentive is needed for it.

But here you contradict yourself, whilst on the one hand you claim labour is "essential to a society" and yet you also claim that "unenjoyable" labour (however we define this assuming different individual capacities and preferences ie. some like working with their hands, others with their head, some like tackling math problems or working in a lab, others like manual work and the outdoors such as gardening or construction work) needs incentive (assuming by this incentive you mean something above and beyond the "incentive" to maintain a stable, functioning society, or your own personal living standards or improving these living standards)

I am still unclear on how you believe labour can be made an internal part of an individual. How do you make labour a necessity to the individual? It relies on man having a feeling of belonging and essential commitment to his/her society.

I believe this passage from Judy Cox's An Introduction to Marx's Theory of Alienation may be able to answer these questions and more:

Marx opposed the common sense idea that humans have a fixed nature which exists independently of the society they live in. He demonstrated that many of the features attributed to unchanging human nature in fact vary enormously in different societies. However, Marx did not reject the idea of human nature itself. He argued that the need to labour on nature to satisfy human needs was the only consistent feature of all human societies, the 'ever lasting nature-imposed condition of human existence'. Human beings, like all other animals, must work on nature to survive. The labour of humans, however, was distinguished from that of animals because human beings developed consciousness. Marx gave a famous description of this at the beginning of Capital:

A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement.
In a useful introduction to Marx's ideas, How to Read Karl Marx, Ernst Fischer also described what is unique about human labour. He explained how, because we act on nature consciously, we build on our successes and develop new ways of producing the things we need. This means that we have a history, whereas animals do not: 'The species-nature of animal is an eternal repetition, that of man is transformation, development and change'.

Working on nature alters not only the natural world, but also the labourer himself. Marx frequently reinforced this idea, as in the following quote from Capital: 'By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway.' Thus labour is a dynamic process through which the labourer shapes and moulds the world he lives in and stimulates himself to create and innovate. Marx called our capacity for conscious labour our 'species being'.

Our species being is also a social being, as Marx explained in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844): 'The individual is the social being.' People have to enter into relationships with each other regardless of their personal preferences because they need to work together to get what they need to live. In the Grundrisse, Marx emphasised the point: 'Society does not consist of individuals; it expresses the sum of connections and relationships in which individuals find themselves.' Humanity relates to the physical world through labour; through labour humanity itself develops and labour is the source of human beings' relationships with each other. What happens to the process of work, therefore, has a decisive influence on the whole of society.

Our ability to work, to improve how we work and build on our successes, has tended to result in the cumulative development of the productive forces. One such development gave rise to class society. When society became capable of producing a surplus, it also became possible for a class to emerge which was liberated from the need to directly produce and could live from its control over the labour of others. This process was necessary in order to develop and direct the productive forces, but it also meant that the majority of society, the producers, lost control of their labour. Thus, the alienation of labour arose with class society, and Ernst Fischer has given a brilliant description of how it reversed the limitless potential of labour:

The first tool contains within it all the potential future ones. The first recognition of the fact that the world can be changed by conscious activity contains all future, as yet unknown, but inevitable change. A living being which has once begun to make nature his own through the work of his hands, his intellect, and his imagination, will never stop. Every achievement opens the door to unconquered territory... But when labour is destructive, not creative, when it is undertaken under coercion and not as the free play of forces, when it means the withering, not the flowering, of man's physical and intellectual potential, then labour is a denial of its own principle and therefore of the principle of man.
The emergence of class divisions in which one class had control over the means of producing what society needed, led to a further division between individuals and the society to which they belonged. Certain forms of social life 'drive a wedge between the two dimensions of the self, the individual and the communal', producing a separation between individuals' interests and those of society as a whole. However, alienation is not an unalterable human condition which exists unchanged in every class society.​

Most humans are really selfish when it comes down to it - people will die for a cause and do sacrifices/things for others, but this latter condradiction is generally supplementary to the former.

Here again we return to the same fundamental assertion: Man is selfish. Here again as always you offer no proof in support of your assertion in favour of some form of social Darwinism. The fact of the matter is the manner in which humans behave with one another is fundamentally a question of the social relationships they form in the production and reproduction of their life. In primitive hunter-gather societies and even those based on substance agriculture greed was unknown and where it did occur it was frowned upon immensely. Why? Because of the social relationships these people where forced to operate within, the appropriation of social product above and beyond what was necessary for survival was not permitted because due to the low level of the development of the product forces did not allow for a surplus in the social product to exist.

When the productive capacities of humanity where improved and agriculture arose a social surplus now existed, allowing for its appropriation by a section of society who by the division of labour existing within the society was given authority over the productive forces themselves (including slaves) and could thus do away with the product as they say fit.

This has been the scenario of all class society up till the present. However, it is by the immense development of the productive capacities of humanity which capitalism has driven that make scarcity superfluous. As such the social surplus need no longer by appropriated by a minority, today the technology exists (and in the case that it does not, will be developed) to do away with a limit to the social surplus which will allow for it's appropriation not only by a minority, but of the whole of humanity.

Having people working for society's good or for something else which somehow makes it an internal necessity still won't make them want/revel in working that job, because by nature it is still a bad job which doesn't want to be done - altruism and duty to society only goes so far.

As was noted before, different people have different capabilities and also different “interests” if you like. This of course does not mean that all jobs will have someone who will “want” to do them. Some tasks are dangerous, laborious and undesirable. When this is the case these tasks should be, where possible, automated, but in the case they can not the task must fall equally to all members of society. Remembering that in the German Ideology Marx speaks of communism as the end of the social division of labour (not necessarily the technical division of labour). As such people will not longer have a “job” which they are forced to perform for their entire lives, they will rather participate in free, creative and cooperative labour, the “all-around development of the individual” where “nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”, this will include the necessary but undesirable tasks of society.

They won't flock to them for the good of mankind - for that is against their self serving natures. They would have to be forced into it. But unlike capitalism, they would get fuck all.

My emphasis added*

Did I miss something? Since when is capitalist distribution regulated on the principal that the more undesirable a job they more you are “rewarded”. You do realise that more often than not people working in so-called “unpleasant” jobs in society do not do it because of the pay, rather they are forced into such low paying and unskilled work out of necessity.

If i decide to take Marx's famous quote about abilities and needs, then all we are presented with is an alternate form of slavery.

This makes no sense. Please elaborate.

For true equality and freedom cannot be achieved - for example, as communists get richer, they become less committed to their ideology.

I'm afraid you do not know what you are talking about here. What exactly is a “communist leader”? How can a communist leader become “richer” when money no longer exists and distribution is based on need? What does being rich have to do with class struggle, are you telling me a white collar office worker who brings home a “decent” pay cheque does not have class interests opposed to capitalist relations and the bourgeoisie?

Avarice is a common trait - it cannot be destroyed even by force.

Avarice will disappear when the material conditions for its existence disappear.

If a proletariat rebels, i doubt they are going to take (materially/fiscally) from the bourgeios what is needed to make everyone materially equal and just stop at that.

Of course not. Communism is not “Robin Hood-ism”.

Neither would a government. Their own greed would commit them to take as much wealth as possible, and establish themselves as a new repressive class.

Hence: "The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves". - Marx, The Critique of the Gotha Programme

It is irrational, illogical and useless to atttempt the achievement of an ideology that requires a change in human nature: if you read literature from the earliest parts of history to our contemporary, you will find that people have changed little.

This myth is refute above. “Human nature” depends on the relationships men form in the production and reproduction of their lives.

Give me one Communism nation

You can't have “Socialism in one country”

Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?
No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.
Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range. - Engels, The Principles of Communism​

is truly "marxist" (in all or most operations)

How can a society be “Marxist”. Marxism is the theoretical expression of the class struggle not a mode of production.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

It's pretty easy to drop out of the capitalist system. There is no force seriously compelling you to work.

That is of course unless you want to starve or in the case you own a small patch of land can grow your own food without the need for running water or electricity. Gee, and here's me working like a sucker.

But few do drop out, and those that try struggle because it's just so damn easy to succeed in capitalism.

Oh so easy indeed when the vast majority of the worlds population is bereft of productive property and as such compelled to sell themselves for as little or as much as they can get.

Three more victories though and I'll be satisfied.

Indeed, who needs social revolution and the abolition of wage labour when we can have benevolent capitalism. Sam I think you aught to replace that Hammer and Sickle with a Rose.

Why am I arguing with a 17 yr old? Listen Zeitgeist you're a retard.

Lovely ad hominem. Some of your sure are good at this debating stuff aren't ya.

I've read Marx's Communist Manifesto and like every other left wing Socialist turd it's all a bunch of shit.

The Communist Manifesto is in my opinion far from Marx's best or most important work. Whilst it is beautifully written and does contain many essential gems of information, it is very much lacking in substance and the whole of the third chapter and the 10 immediate demands made are about 150 years out of date. As such it should be read with a grain of salt and along with Marx's other major works.

People are greedy deal with it, People want more than others deal with it, Some people are more wealthier than others because they work harder deal with it.

People are "greedy", people want the best for themselves, some people are wealthier than others because they work harder, but only those you exploit others are significantly more wealthy.

Sorry zstar, but this is not an argument.

Here's all you ever have to understand about governments, They are selfish and corrupt

Here's the thing you need to understand about the state: it serves a particular set of class interests. In capitalist society the state serves to mediate the class struggle in favour of the ruling class and to maintain the existing social relations of production.

all Marxist ideology involves the use of force otherwise it cannot work there's no argument there.

What? Please, make sure you use proper English so we can understand what you are saying, not a hysterical gobbledygook.

Of course revolution requires force. The ruling class can not be compelled to lay down and have the basis of its power undermined.

Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, Kim Il sung, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro all promised the same crap you idiots advocate and all they did was fail then they screw the people over by starving them, repressing them and killing them.

The failure of the "socialist states" is a complex phenomena. Many factors had a play in the events such the theoretical errors carried over from the Second International but more importantly what lead to their taking hold, the relative undeveloped nature of these national economies and as such the relative youth and inexperience of the workers movement their and the inability of the revolution to generalise itself rapidly leading to isolation and degeneration (in the Russian case only, the others can not even be called "proletarian revolutions".)

Spin it however you want but the Communist experiment has failed completely and utterly in every single country that has practised it. They didn't build fences to keep people out of the "workers paradise" they built it to keep people in.

And no matter what crap you want to add to it the fact remains is marxism can only function if massive government dictatorship was their to enforce it and we all know what happened don't we?

So kids stay in school and have a hard think about practicality vs your delusions. Realise that life is not perfect and deal with it.

Buddy please, save me the condescending attitude and your pathetic straw man arguments.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Why am I arguing with a 17 yr old?

Listen Zeitgeist you're a retard.

I've read Marx's Communist Manifesto and like every other left wing Socialist turd it's all a bunch of shit.

Communism cannot work not in this life or the next.

People are greedy deal with it, People want more than others deal with it, Some people are more wealthier than others because they work harder deal with it.

Here's all you ever have to understand about governments, They are selfish and corrupt and all Marxist ideology involves the use of force otherwise it cannot work there's no argument there.

Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, Kim Il sung, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro all promised the same crap you idiots advocate and all they did was fail then they screw the people over by starving them, repressing them and killing them.

Spin it however you want but the Communist experiment has failed completely and utterly in every single country that has practised it. They didn't build fences to keep people out of the "workers paradise" they built it to keep people in.

And no matter what crap you want to add to it the fact remains is marxism can only function if massive government dictatorship was their to enforce it and we all know what happened don't we?

So kids stay in school and have a hard think about practicality vs your delusions. Realise that life is not perfect and deal with it.

Comrade, he's pwning you. You can hardly insult him for an inferior education.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Who enforces or guides this social plan? Secondly, what is this rational social plan?

The social plan is not enforced by anyone. The rational social plan is the plan for the production of goods. It is dictated and decided upon by the the people themselves based on the production of "use-values" (as opposed to "exchange-values" in capitalist production relations) and the fulfilment of needs through their democratic organs of expression (ie. soviets, workers councils, factory/workplace committees)

So then in this hypothetical society, in what way does trading or exchange of goods and services occur?

Trade does not occur. Trade presupposes that the goods to be traded are the property of an individual. In a communist mode of production the goods are not the property of the individual who appropriates them on the basis of their ownership of the means of production and of labour power. Rather they are collective property (and as as such they are in reality not property at all) and are distributed on the basis of need to all members of society.

How does for instance a plumber prioritise his limited work capacity?

The plumber prioritises on need of those seeking his services. But quite frankly this is very trivial. I like Marx do not want to dictate the recipes for the cooks of tomorrow. I am not going to tell the plumber how to do away with his labour.

Not at all.

Since you have provided no effort in your rebuttal, I will provide none in mine:

Go read Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta or ask any social-anarchist, anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalist. They will tell you the same as I have.

I'm suggesting there should be provision in the event that the farmer can not offer his labour, during a period of sickness, or otherwise

What does this have to do with whether or not the labour of the farmer is coerced for free?

I must admit, I do not understand the system you do as marxist.

That's not surprising considering you believe "democratic-socialism" is Marxism and that benevolent state-capitalism is communism. No offence intended.

 

[Boxes]

Gotta give it to Zeitgeist, my man knows his stuff.

 

[Boxes]

Errr he still hasn't replied to some of my points.

That's because you have a loose vagina, and nobody likes to converse with those that have loose vajjayjays.