You're right. Communism is a form of socialism. But there are many forms. Bakuninism is an anarchistic system that would have what marx's goals were without the worker's democracy.
Printable View
You're right. Communism is a form of socialism. But there are many forms. Bakuninism is an anarchistic system that would have what marx's goals were without the worker's democracy.
americans in general have no idea what socialism and communism means. while you, a young country, profit on the poor countries for 100 years and invade and steal what you cant trade for nothing, you have managed to establish a great economy. problem is that any socialist country in the world would be paradise on earth with 1/10 of your resources.
the basic theory of socialism is that a percentage of a countries entire income should be taken (tax) to provide every inhabitant with the basic needs for survival and dignity, i.e. enough taxes for every person to always have a home, food, hygiene products, contact with the outer world like a newspaper, radio, internet or what have you. that aside you can do what you want with your cash. because a country has a socialist dentist plan, free education all the way incl. uni, free health care etc. doesnt mean we dont have private doctors, schools, dentists etc for those who rather spend their money for world class returns. it just means that those who doesnt have any money still gets the basic deal no matter what, because its 2008 and there shouldnt be crackies on the corners when we can send people to the moon.
the idea of communism takes that one step further: push all the cash made in a country into the same bin and the state economists will divide it equally amongst everyone because they're better at economy than you are. this raises many problems, like "why get a good education", "why work at all", "why doesnt the economists give us any money and spend half their year in st. tropez?"
capitalism is grand once you set aside any moral aspect but eventually you will not be able to profit on poor countries anymore and then what? you are going to support your own overkill consumption with fair trades and american products? love to see that happen. and putting aside integrity, health, safety and common sense only works for so long. then you'd have to start taking care of your own country, poor population, class differences, racism etc. and suddenly a load of money is required and you realize that the only way to fix that is to insert a basic healthcare, education and a protection against market failure, wich means the state needs to take care of the basic necessities for a stable economy, you raise your tax from 20% to 30% you fix a majority of the problems and are now a socialist country.
seriously, europe has tried every possible economical model through the millennias. we ended up with socialism, but of course that says nothing to the U.S who shun history. then again you are young :) ive partied in houses older than your country so we cant expect much yet. you're a young lad with muscles making all the mistakes you should as a teen, not listening to the elders. once you grow up you'll get it, im not worried! :)
I pretty much agree lolkid. However, we spend a HUGE amount on defense, which puts a damper on what we can spend on domestic issues. Do I think we should spend as much as we do? Maybe not, but it would be political suicide to cut defense budgets during wartime.
The only thing keeping the commies from rolling over your euro azz, is our teen muscle you ingrate!
[QUOTE=hsihp81;14197942]Oy... Here's an interesting read.
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/...175910,00.html
Thats assuming he sticks to that plan -- he is not bound to do what he claims he will do when he is inaugurated this jan 2009. And even if it is true -- which I doubt due to the many projects he wants done -- it is more of a burden in an economy that is in the process of collapsing.Quote:
Originally Posted by hsihp81
Obama even said he will bankrupt the coal industry, 49% of USA electricity is generated by coal power -- this will significantly increase the price of electricity. even if bankruptcy does not occur the price of electricity will go up anyway -- thus making everyones electric bill go up -- we will probably end up bailing out the coal industry.
It is apparent that is the plan; after all Obama hired Al Gore. Al Gore seems to think he is Karl Marx, rallying the youth against the coal power plants that don't use expansive carbon capture technology; despite the fact that Al Gore is a hypocrite, and global warming is a scam.
Obama even confirmed his intention by this quote "We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK"
--Barack Obama
hsihp81, the inheritance tax causes people to lose their inheritance; it is the end result that is important, the intended result is a loss of inheritance.Quote:
Originally Posted by hsihp81
I don't think that is the proper definition of a central bank. A central bank is a bank that has an exclusive monopoly on a nations currency -- regulates the currency -- and issues the currency. the federal reserve even refers to itself as a central bank. In the united states the federal reserve act was made into law in 1913 , however the Constitution of the United States, it is congress that is supposed to have that job, it is apparent that congress gave up the nations currency with this act. This is clearly not what the founding fathers envisioned.
Marx wasn't against child labor, it says he just wanted to abolish it in it's present form.Quote:
Originally Posted by hsihp81
"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc."
--Communist Manifesto 10th Plank
Just because an argument predates doesn't make it irrelevant.
I'm not aware of prayer in school being an issue much before Karl Marx.
The abolition of prayer in school tied together with the rest of the communist manifesto makes it apparent that Socialism is the type of government in the USA and most of the world right now.
ot: I am mistaken, Al Gore wasn't hired by Obama, Obama did however hold a talk with him on global warming.
[1] on this document the federal reserve is referred to as a central bank
[1] http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...f/overview.pdf
Regardless of the technical details of wheather or not the American current system is communist or weather or not Obamma's policies are communist, the real arguemet on this thread seems to be weather or not the idea of communism is a valid system of government. I've been having that conversation for 30 years. Neithor side seems to want to budge on the basics of the issues, because the fundimental philosophy behind the two sides seem pretty much diametrically opposed.
I, personally, am both a libertarian anarchist, and a communist. I know it seems rediculous, but I'll attemt to explain.
I live as a communist, sharing everything I own with the people I choose to associate with. I own no property, though some may technically be in my name. Things are irrelvient to my life. I could care less about property as long as I can provide myself with food, shelter, and clothing, which I do with an honest days labor that benefits those arround me. I volunteer my time, energies, and money to help improve the community I live in, and have helped found a small nonprofit to encourage those in my community to do the same. I do so because I choose to, not because I am told to, or because I crave the praise of my community, but for purely selfish reasons. It makes me feel better.
At the same time, I would fight to the death to prevent the fruits of another mans labors from being confiscated to benifit ohters. The key is, I CHOOSE to give, and I can CHOOSE who I associate with and share the frutis of my labors. To take from another by force, in order to benefit another, even several others, is no better than theft.
Without the capitalist incentive to produce and innovate, people stagnate. If there is no benefit to hard work, people won't do it. The same is true of those who inherate wealth, which is what keeps the system churning. Rich can become poor more quicly than the poor can become rich, for the most part. Those who rest on the shoulders of those who have come before them won't remain rich for long, and even less time with no incentive to improve their own situation.
The comunist system may provide man with all the necesities of life, but provides none of the necesities of the soul. With no reason to strive for growth, the soul withers and dies, which is worse than death. Why will a man do his best at his job, if those around him are treated the same doing the least necesary? Laboring day after day with no incentive, production will fall, economies collapse, and the system destabalizes under the weight of its own apathy. If a man has no choice in the people he shares his labor and its fruits, the only remedy to the problem becomes the use of force, which means opression.
I am a Libertarian anarchist. I understand that government is a necesary evil, and has its place, but it should be as small and unobtrusive as possible, so that each citizen can determine his own path, by his own choices, with those who chose to walk by his side. I also understand, however, that with great freedom comes great responsability. We, as citizens of free nations, have a duty to make our communities and our countries better of than they were before we came into them. The key, however, is that we have a choice in how we do it, and can use our time and energy in a way of our choosing, not of the governments.
Capatalism, while harsh and unyeilding, creates the incentive for the indevidual to create a better world through the creation of welth. It will not, and can not reward ineficient beurocracy, apathy, and sloth the way a communist system does. Would Ford have created the modern auto industry for purely alturistic reasons? Would Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have revolutionized the computer industry if the only benefit they would recieve was the gratitude of the nation? I think not. I have great faith in humanity, but not that much.
the best system for the whole world would be the best taken from all known systems, these include democracy/fascism/communism/capitalism and buddism....everyone not agreeing with the basic rule of one world should be terminated...hence peace on earth ;)
Libertarian anarchists don't believe the gov't is a necessary evil. They believe its entirely unnecessary, and that people can get their policing, and currency from private business. Hence "Anarchist". You're probably just a Libertarian. : )
What's the best of Fascism? Its a system that promotes Jingoism, and thus war. That doesn't sound very peaceful... heh.
OK. Let's talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by lolkid
I agree with you on your "basic theory of socialism".
Your theory on Communism is a little off. It's not the cash; the community (notice the resemblence to the word communism?) owns everything. The best example I can think of for true communism would be Star Trek. But the problem with communism is supply and demand.
Capitalism. Marx described it as a system where the few (the bourgeoisie) controlled the means of production and the majority (the proletarians) sold their labor to the bourgeoisie for their means of survival. I don't understand where you draw the conclusion that capitalism means profiting on poor countries, or that being capitalist means you have no morals. And how does socialism fix racism again?
The US has implemented programs that are socialist for decades, if not a century now. And when you talk about the United States being young, we are technically the oldest nation on the face of the planet. I challenge you to find one country on this planet that has the same system of government as it did in 1776. But you're right; Europe, which has started 2 World Wars in the last century due to what can only be called "internal conflicts" is older and wiser. Never mind the fact that it was the US that turned the tide in World War II; we financially funded the reconstruction of Germany AND Japan after the war, we set foot on the moon, we created the UN, airplanes, computers, phones, discovered electricity, and I'm just going to stop there.Quote:
Originally Posted by lolkid
But the next time you feel like bashing the US, just remember you wouldn't be able to play Utopia if it wasn't for America. That's right, we created the internet. So take your 15-year-old European Union and go hide in a corner.
That's the capitalistic viewpoint. The problem is that capitalism feeds on greed and eliminates altruism. People are trained from birth to think about the value of labor; harder work gets better rewards, making your statement seem valid. However, true communism would present a system where people did their best because they wanted to succeed, but that represents an ideology that is a complete shift from the current world viewpoint. As I stated above, the best example I can think of for true communism is Star Trek. However the idea of communism does promote stagnation, but more from a standpoint of equality rather than work motivation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cultist of Personality
Capitalism only works on local level, Communism is world wide a better insurance for unity and peace...
and what most Americans tend to call communism, is void, prolly because their education is not, what we Europeans call 'objective'
true uberdog, but communism the way it is described by marx is not feasible with the current world market. The former soviet union tried to emulate communism and failed. Capitalism works on a global level, but Marx thought that the problems inherent with capitalism causes it to experience cycles of recession and depression. Not to mention the class difference.
Libertarian anarchists don't believe the gov't is a necessary evil.
Anyone who lives in the real world has to recognize that a system outside pure capatalism and pure self determination has to exist for mutual defense and conflict resolution, to avoid them becoming corrupted by pure self interest. Courts need to exist, and military/law enforcement have to exist to defend individual liberties and security. If it is outside the capatilist system, it would therfore need to be governmental, kind of.
Human nature doesn't allow for a total lack of government at SOME level, because there will always be sombody who wants to take what another has. That government does not have to be much more than a semi-formal compact between the members of a community, and a system of cooperation between communities, however, as long as individuals have the right to vote with their feet and their money. Only national defense need be truely national, so I guess that arguement is mostly symantic, and does not really change the original point.
Then you aren't a libertarian anarchist; you're just libertarian. Anarchists by definition are opposed to any system of government. They are also against order, including courts and military/law enforcement, etc. They usually try to achieve those means violently.
Yup, although most anarchists aren't "against" order. They just believe Gov't=Oppression no matter the service it gives. Interestingly enough, there are socialist anarchists too. They believe when Gov't is taken away we will freely give our personal property to each other.
Anarchists don't live in the real world... They live in fantasy land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cultist of Personality
My take on why communism is bad.
Karl Marx said that that socialism is the phase between capitalism and communism, He described socialism in detail with the ten planks stating that the ten planks must come into being before the final stage -- communism.
The ten planks make it clear that all his claims of communism were actually socialism; he essentially called totalitarianism a necessary evil before the people would evolve into communists. He never even referred to himself as a communist, he even declared himself a social scientist.
Karl Marx was funded by rich totalitarian socialists. He called for a central bank in the communist manifesto -- I wonder what people he had in mind to run the central bank, surely not the proletariat.
He was kicked out of Prussia for giving grief to the government and the bourgeois by encouraging rebellion, such as destroying factories. Yet when he was living in London he went to the British museum to write, I find it funny he was not kicked out or arrested by the authorities in London.
Marx was married to jenny von westphalen who was related to Scottish royalty.
His communist movement benefited the bankers and nobility, by undermining they're main competitor -- the middle class.
Communist Manifesto
1) Abolition of Property in Land And Application of All Rents to Public Use.
This plank eliminates true ownership of private property, giving ownership of the property to government.
2) a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Used as a tool to weaken the middle class to lower class level.
3)Abolition of All Right to Inheritance
Abolishing inheritance is another way for the elite to sink the middle class and make sure it stays sunk.
4)confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels.
By making laws that confiscate the property of emigrants it discourages people from leaving a country before and after it becomes completely totalitarian.
What is important regarding rebels is who the government defines as rebels; for ex. say government defined anyone who spoke out against government injustice as a rebel.
5)Centralization of Credit in The Hands of The State, By Means of a National Bank With State Capital and an Exclusive Monopoly.
If the money is monopolized and regulated by a central bank, it is not in the hands of the people. Therefore the people are at the mercy of the bankers; as an example, the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression by inflating the currency, making the interest rate artificially low, and exporting gold that was backing the dollar, then sharply rising the interest rate in 1929.
6)centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.
Granting government this kind of power can only lead to totalitarian government; by doing this government can indoctrinate the people into totalitarianism and censor the truth.
7)extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, the improvement of the soil according to a common plan.
Federally owned and operated corporations undermines, and puts at a disadvantage private corporations and other privately owned business entities. In the case of outright banning of privately owned business by government, totalitarianism is the result.
Federally owned corporations tend to very inefficient as well.
USA government has also been using excuses to confiscate privately owned farmland, excuses such as rats nests.
8)Equal liability of all to labor, establishment of industrial armies, especially in agriculture.
This indicates that in Marx's "workers paradise" there is no room for a non laboring class beyond the elite class. As mentioned before, federal government owned corporations tend to be very inefficient, and can even be told to produce less to lower the population if desired by the elite ruling class.
9)combination of agriculture with manufacturing; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
Simply grants and cements government control over agriculture, manufacturing, and distribution of the population as it desires.
10)free education of all children in public schools, abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. combination of education with industrial production.
Free education in this case means compulsory education; government in absolute control of education is dangerous because government can regulate the quality of the education, can indoctrinate the children into socialism, and basically shape the mind of the child the way the totalitarian government sees fit.
With this plank, totalitarian government also has a monopoly on apprenticeship; determining the quality and type of job training suitable for a socialist government.
As one can see communism was really never meant to be achievable; with all these obstacles that according to marx must come first, communism is a pipe dream designed to lure the people into a totalitarian form of government.
The Soviet Union was never communist it was socialist, it was exactly as envisioned by the ten planks.
1) The idea is that property is owned by the community, not by the government. Being owned by the government would be more of a socialist standpoint.
2) A progressive tax is designed to present a higher tax rate to the people who make more money. This would hurt the elite (the bourgeois) and would help the lower and middle classes (the proletariat).
3) Inheritance is a means by which the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Abolishing inheritance would also affect the elite more than it would the lower and middle classes.
4) I always understood this to mean that no one outside of the community or against the community would have the right to use or control the property of the community. But yes, the definition of rebel could be "altered".
5) Your theories on the Great Depression are a little off the mark. The most popular reasons for the Great Depression have to do with overwhelming bank failure and stock market crashes.
6) Unfortunately the forms of communication and transportation are already being controlled by the government in the US. But you confuse controlling with censoring. The government would provide these (and other) necessities.
7-10) I don't know what government did to you as a child but you certainly have a libertarian or possibly even anarchist viewpoint.
Yes Communism is unachievable, or at least unachievable on a large scale with the current level of society we have in the world. But at least you acknowledge that communism is not totalitarianism.
There are so many logical fallacies in what you posted dka...
Among them is the assumption that Marx disliked the upper middle class more than the rich.
My ex was related to Scottish Royalty. She's not rich. and I didn't love rich people just because we dated.
The difference between Socialism and Communism is that one benefits the bourgeoisie still, in that bourgoisie can still become rich. Communism lets everyone be at the same level.
"Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means ofQuote:
Originally Posted by nfidel2k
despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production."
Communist Manifesto --
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/cl...manifesto.html
definition of despot: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/despot
I believe how Marx used the word bourgeois as code for middle class; he even said that shopkeepers continued the exploitation of the proletariat.Quote:
Originally Posted by nfidel2k
I also remember him mentioning middle class proletariat as having to give up bourgeois (private) property.
It wouldn't necessarily hurt the elite it is all a matter of what the people in control of the taxes decide.
Inheritance is also a means by which the poor becomes richer, and the middle class becomes richer.Quote:
Originally Posted by nfidel2k
Abolishing inheritance is simply the end goal, there are creative ways of getting rid of inheritance incrementally without touching elite inheritance; such as inheritance tax.
It is kind of like Al hypocrite Gore; He tells people to live with less luxury while he flies in a private jet , and live in his mansion that uses more electricity than the average person.
Neither do I see how inheritance in itself makes the poor poorer.
The most popular reasons are incorrect. The US didn't have a great depression until the Federal Reserve. Bank failure, and stock market crashes are only the symptoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by nfidel2k
Even Ben Bernanke admits the Federal Reserve caused the great depression:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...08/default.htm
"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."
Ben Bernanke --
By the way, the Federal Reserve once more is inflating the currency, and lowering interest rates. Just like before the great depression.
Power corrupts, if they went through the trouble of controlling it they will censor it. By having that power, government has the power to censor.Quote:
Originally Posted by nfidel2k
You are correct that the US has implemented this plank, that is one reason I say the US is socialist. For ex. I have not heard in a long time on tv the fact that the US was, when it was founded, a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
I'll use US government as an example since I live in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by nfidel2k
I find the US's move towered totalitarianism rather disturbing, the US government is confiscating people's property for ridiculous reasons without proper compensation, implementing totalitarian laws such as the following:
FISA, The Patriot Act, Heros Act of 2008 (it had snuck in it law that confiscates much of an emigrants property).
USA government pays farmers not to grow crops, I wonder why the US couldn't sustain itself if there were no more imports. I also think it is an absolute mystery that the US, and the world is having major financial problems.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070100962.html
The bourgeois in the communist manifesto refers to the elite, or the ones who have the means to control production. The proletariat refers to the ones who have to sell their labor. But it is immaterial as the ideas in the communist manifesto were about leveling the playing field and removing class distinctions by making the proletariat also the bourgeois.
The US is not a constitutional republic, it is a representative democracy.
The US government can not confiscate property without proper compensation. Read the 5th Ammendment. Any confiscation of property, including condemnation, has to go through the court system.
You can't grow produce year after year on the same land, or you simply leach out all of the resources and the land becomes barren. The government pays farmers not to grow crops because of soil richness. This preserves the quality of the soil and the produce grown.
Yes, but he said things that indicated somewhat differently, removing employers and centralizing the job of employer to the state kills the middle class. Therefore when they speak of getting rid of the bourgeois it is a euphemism for getting rid of the middle class.Quote:
Originally Posted by nfidel2k
Furthermore he mentions petite bourgeois, bourgeois that work among they're workers.
Whoever is in charge of this totalitarian government described by
the ten planks will be the elite, or the elites puppets.
They claim that after the state withers away(I think its just a scam, I don't think having such a government wither away is the intent) ideal communism will be achieved.
The Communist Manifesto repeatedly stated the bourgeois is enemy number one yet the aristocracy, and the bankers exist yet he signals the bourgeois out; even though the aristocracy profits from the toil of the proletariats via taxation, appears to be a form of divide and conquer. In the Communist Manifesto, he even sounds sympathetic with the feudal lords, stating that the "evil" private property loving bourgeois prevailed despite the feudal lords, it just sounds very strange.
I am aware that he defined bourgeois as one who owns the means of production, however in the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto he calls for totalitarian government, the Communist Manifesto's ten planks repeatedly mentions the state(government). Than somewhere in Engels (I think I remember marx mentioning this concept as well) writings says the state shall wither away leaving the means of production with the proletariat, that is where the fantasy comes in luring the people into totalitarianism. He called for totalitarian socialism that would allegedly wither away leaving a communist "paradise".
Not once in the US constitution is democracy mentioned, what is mentioned is republic.Quote:
Originally Posted by nfidel2k
Article IV Section IV of the US Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government".
It does not say democratic.
Furthermore, The "Pledge of Allegiance" says this: "the republic for which it stands".
Once again not democracy.
The "Declaration of Independence" makes no reference to democracy either.
Thus... the United States was founded as a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
They are not supposed to be able, but they do. They make up laws to get around the 5th amendment. Besides, congress doesn't follow the rules; the bank bailout violated Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by nfidel2k
The US government confiscates inheritance via inheritance tax, Karl Marx in one of his writings called for a heavy inheritance tax.
Also there is this very vague thus highly abusable executive order that can confiscate property: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070717-3.html
Another issue I take with this use of tax money is that it is unconstitutional for them to do that anyway. there is no where in the US Constitution that provides sanctification for that use of tax money.Quote:
Originally Posted by nfidel2k
The money often ends up in the hands of the super rich farmers as opposed to small farmers.
It does not usually go to the farmers that need it the most, thus undermining small farmers and giving further advantage to big farmers.
One reason stated by government for the subsidies is to increase the price of crops.
The price increase only works if there are not too many farmers. It encourages a small amount of farmers, thus risking starvation if imports cease due to not enough domestic production.
Furthermore, by giving further advantage to wealthy farmers over small farmers, it drives smaller farmers out of business. Government meddling in the market is not free market.
The news article states that they are giving money to people who have not farmed for years. In general crop rotation is thrown in within the year, actual soil enrichment without farming related to farming would not last this long.
Interesting, I will have to do some research on your theories of Communism.
The U.S. is a representative democracy by definition. A republic vests supreme authority in a group of elected representatives. We have two bodies of elected representatives and one elected leader, none of whom have supreme power by themselves, but instead impose checks and balances upon eachother.
The US Constitution also made references to the right to own slaves (which has been abolished) and denial of alcohol (which has been abolished). The beauty of the US Constitution is that it can change. But if by your statement you mean that the founders thought of the US as a republic, you are possibly correct.
And the "Pledge of Alleigance" also says "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." We are not one nation under God, we failed to be indivisible during the Civil War, and according to you, liberty and justice for all has ceased to exist. The pledge is hardly a credible source.
The Declaration of Independence was exactly that, a declaration of independence. Not a government-forming document.
With regards to the government bypassing the 5th ammendment, the target of the confiscation can sue the government body that confiscated the product without just compensation or trial. If a law does bypass the Constitution, then we have the Supreme Court to help us in overturning the law. Once again, the target needs only to pursue the matter legally. But keep in mind that condemnation usually means that the property wasn't being maintained to acceptable levels of standards. Your problem seems to be more with the possibility of a corrupt court system, not government.
And exactly how did the bank bailout bypass Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution? You refer to a section that discusses the President's ability to veto a bill or a resolution voted on by both Houses of Congress.
Crop rotation happens every year, unless you have a very small farm in which case it becomes x years on, y years off. The idea would be that certain fields are allowed to regrow their nutrient level while the other fields are still farmed. The department of agriculture does pay farmers not to grow surplus food, but that is in an effort to regulate the market and control prices, not control population. If every farmer grew to their max potential, we would have havoc in a few years in the food markets, not to mention all the surplus food that would spoil and go to waste.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are a libertarian.
Lets all read from the bible for a short while. I get to the point later!!?.
"And God placed a cherubim with a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life which is in eden"
The way to utopia is guarded. Karl Marx indeed wanted a nation without a state and without money, where everyone gave away freely to eachother. If you like that idea. you and I do have an option... BUT, that option involve something that Karl Marx did not like... - God!!- The God almighy of the christian church do indeed tend to have everything united inagreement to everyones needs. or in better terms. noone in the christian church needs anything. Because they already have everything they want.
Communism is indeed like a secular religion, where Karl Marx did described the church of the living God and applyed a christian core of a church - but without God - in the center of his books.
That is somewhat secterianism in my eyes. to pervert the christian faith, in the same manners as Karl did.
And what more!
There is only a slight differnece between nazism and communism. Karl even wrote the antisemetic letter "Das Judenfrage!" where he critizied Jews and argued how to deal with the Jews.
Communism != Socialism
Communism is ftw, Socialism isn't.. Thou communism is ideology unlike Socialism.
I've said this before. Communism is a chruch without God.
I used to run western communistic thoughts, which differs from eastern communistic thought, basicly because the material that becomes communists in europe is the same material that become libertarian in the states. And the material being communistic in the eastern world is the same material that are conservatives in america. That is as a true conservative in america, would have been born in lets say china, you would most likley have become a communist!!
Obama is a communist, a western communists, who tries to reform USA and open up the door for thoughts like "is that communism?! i did not know that" and "thats great thoughts"
I have passed red at high speed during my teens, and i was considered retarded, on the old utopia forum because of it. Now my rethorics as a communist ran stright up to the white house.
Now either I could ran the States better then obama, or he is also actually "RETARDED". now i do not believe he is retarded. but his ideas are the same i had when i passed red at high speed!
Communism is more morally evil than nazism.
Communism is a political system. Socialism is an economic one. They are not mutually exchangeable. They deal with two seperate ideas, politics and economies. While they do relate and have effects on each other, there is no such thing as a socialist government, or a communistic market.
No, the government pays farmers to not grow crops because in the early 1900s there was a glut of cotton crops on the market. So part of FDR's New Deal was the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, which gave farmers subsidies to grow less cotton. One of the requirements to sign up was that they also destroy 1/4-1/2 of their cotton crop already planted, to reduce the supply. This only half worked cause farmers that didnt participate made more money, until the government forced all of those farmers to participate also by installing quotas and heavily taxing any extra production. While this overall slightly benifitted the farmers, the ones it royally screwed over were the poorer people (mostly black descendants of slaves) who had been earning money through sharecropping. Cause when the farmer had to produce less, they kicked out around half of their 'workers'Quote:
The government pays farmers not to grow crops because of soil richness. This preserves the quality of the soil and the produce grown.
they are equally evil. Neither fish nor meat. Communism only created more deaths because of geography. If Hitler were the dictator of the Soviet Union and Stalin the dictator of Germany it be an entirely different matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by jawnhenry
But then I get where your wrong thinking comes from. Evil is evil and you are evil jawnhenry.
fk communism.
Communism is different from Socialism for a start.
Communism is a hypocritical doctrine whereby the current economic and social elite are replaced with a new elite, and not a "dictatorship of the proletariat", but a bureaucratic dictatorship - even Trotsky, one of the leading members of the Bolsheviks realised this in hindsight.
Also Socialism believes in attaining equality via democracy, something I believe in also, but via literal democracy representatives of the people in localised communities, rather than via partisan political representatives of the party not actually representing those they claim to represent. If political parties were abolished, both Socialism and Libertarianism would thrive under local democratic representatives in the Legislature of the Land.Quote:
In The Revolution Betrayed (1937), a critical analysis of Stalinism and the USSR’s post-Lenin development, Leon Trotsky proposed that the Russian Revolution of 1917, produced a workers’ state (the USSR) that then became a degenerated workers' state after 1923; a state based upon a recruited-caste bureaucracy akin to the feudal clergy — something the soviets did not inherit from the monarchical ruling class. Further illustrating the betrayal of the revolution, Stalinism and Bonapartism are compared as forms of dictatorship based upon specific social class and property relations; thus Stalinism is to a workers’ democracy, as Bonapartism is to a bourgeois democracy. Despite that, the collectivized economy represented the progressive policy to defend in the USSR, whilst, elsewhere, supporting political revolution aimed to establishing workers’ democracy.
After the Second World War (1941–45) the Trotskyists ideologically described the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1943), the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (1945), the Socialist People's Republic of Albania (1946), the People's Republic of China (1949), and the Republic of Cuba (1959) — Communist states Stalin established with military conquest, occupation, and proxy guerilla warfare — as degenerated workers’ states with politically dispossessed working classes, thus never were true workers’ states, for having been established as dictatorships.
And tbh, Libertarian pwns everything, check out my thread, I've devised my own system is a political representation of my spiritual beliefs.
communist has dissapeared from the world. for now.
/me blinks ...........
really wtf happened to China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam ???
It's real easy guys.
Start with personal Liberty and private property. Extrapolate.
(Spoiler: it doesn't end in Communism . . .)
Your premise is flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
The right to private property and the extent to which it should be allowed is debatable.
Even in communism, there is the idea of private property in some form, its simply to a lesser degree than capitalism.
Even in 'capitalism' systems, the notion of private property only goes so far.
The army for example is state owned and while I'm not a lawyer, I'm pretty sure that the state would object should a citizen raise a sizeable private army within the country.
What do you want? Of course Americans do not know anything about socialism or communism. They even didn't know social security existed...
They have been governed by extreme right or right wingers for centuries, and they believe everything the government tells them or what the mighty television tells them...
It's a fantastic country with great political and cultural background :)
all politics sucks but are imperative needed.
important is the order and laws.
eventually at one point only one politic will prevail..which is no politic
let me gusse... you havent ever been to america?
further more based on the title i know you dont know what youre talking about seeing as communism and socialism are two different things.
The golden rule of communism: He who has the gold makes the rules
About the same for about every form of government ever tried. Do you really think the leaders live the same lifestyle as the common slobs regardless of what form of government you prefer?
Most forms of government sound great in theory, though they aren't always so great in practice. I do know I would rather be one of the masses in a country where our poor drive to the welfare office to pick up their welfare check in a cadilac so they can pick up a case of beer on their way home, pop it in the fridge, warm up a snack in the microwave and kick back and decide which one of the 150 channels i want to watch the latest mindless entertainment that is being offered on the color tv.
Welfare people don't have as much money as you refer.Quote:
Originally Posted by watchman
They barely have enough money to pay for rend, food and TV (scrap the cadilac).
The actual problem (where I live anyhow) is twofold:
1) Some people are very minimalist. They don't need all the fancy cr*p, only the bare minimum to survive plus a little extra for cheap entertainment. The capitalistic drive for wealth and luxury simply doesn't appeal to these people. The system fails to motivate them to apply themselves and work, because it doesn't press the right buttons.
2) Minimum wage sucks. Some people are busting their shops working for minimum wage doing cr*ppy jobs with people looking down on them only to find out that they make only slightly more than welfare (in some cases, they'd make more being on welfare). Its ridiculous.