Communism(socialism) ftw

**Cultist of Personality** · 24-12-2008, 10:59

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.

**Uberdog** · 26-12-2008, 17:18

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 ;)

**SnuggleySoft** · 30-12-2008, 23:05

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. : )

**SnuggleySoft** · 30-12-2008, 23:06

What's the best of Fascism? Its a system that promotes Jingoism, and thus war. That doesn't sound very peaceful... heh.

**nfidel2k** · 31-12-2008, 06:12

Originally Posted by lolkid

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.

OK. Let's talk.

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?

Originally Posted by lolkid

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! :)

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.

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.

**nfidel2k** · 31-12-2008, 06:42

Originally Posted by Cultist of Personality

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.

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.

**Uberdog** · 31-12-2008, 13:03

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'

**nfidel2k** · 31-12-2008, 15:42

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.

**Cultist of Personality** · 01-01-2009, 19:08

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.

**nfidel2k** · 01-01-2009, 19:41

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.

**SnuggleySoft** · 01-01-2009, 20:56

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.

Originally Posted by Cultist of Personality

Anyone who lives in the real world has to recognize that a system outside pure capatalism and pure self determination has to exist

Anarchists don't live in the real world... They live in fantasy land.

**dka** · 12-01-2009, 07:11

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.

**nfidel2k** · 12-01-2009, 16:23

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.

**SnuggleySoft** · 12-01-2009, 17:05

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.

**dka** · 13-01-2009, 03:19