Communism

Let's talk about the communism!

What about it?  The only thing I can think of saying is that thus far it seems to have failed when attempted.  I think that it is useful in small societies only.

I wish it would succeed, but it seems man is too greedy for it to work.

Communism - join the party

Two of the central tenents of Communism are absolutely dead on true:
1.  All wars are economic.
2.  Religion is the opiate of the people.

Two points: 

1. Human nature will not allow true communism to prevail because the Theory (and that's all Communism is)provides no basis for human initiative or individual progress and/or responsibility.  Some call it "greed". 

2.  Everything (including war) is economic.  If you understand supply and demand you realize this.

It's so stupid, I cannot tell in half an hour, but:

1. Not all wars are economic, but many included this factor.
2. But religion is.. ^_~
and
3. Some animals are more equal than the others.

>>2

sage for FAGAT

Fidel Castro should be canonized

Anarcho-communism is a good idea, but Marxism really isn't. Marx was on the right track, but he made a terrible mistake in advocating a dictatorship of the proletariat. It didn't help that Stalin and to a lesser extent Lenin were quite corrupt and ruined the revolution rather quickly, either. That more or less killed socialism, but then Mao had to make the situation even worse with some spectacular incompetence, like his Cultural Revolution.

The problem with communism isn't that it itself is flawed, but that the most widely used pathway, Marxism, is flawed. Communism itself would work if it were done through anarchist means, organized from the bottom up by willing participants. It is unlikely now for people to attempt it as the capitalists have every advantage.

"Human nature will not allow true communism to prevail because the Theory (and that's all Communism is)provides no basis for human initiative or individual progress and/or responsibility.  Some call it 'greed'."

You should read more about communism, particularly anarcho-communism. Alexander Berkman and Peter Kropotkin wrote books about it and explained how the economics would work and the incentive to work would be. Modern anarchists (who are mostly also communist) generally argue that work in the conventional sense can be abolished or greatly minimized.

My political tendency is toward anarchy, but I highly doubt any such system could ever develop. We'll never know until we try it, but unless humanity somehow beats their baser instincts it's probably impossible. Power fills a vacuum.

Look at all social creatures. A heirarchy is obvious in every one. We're no exception.

5> No, television is the opiate of the people.

>>7
But without an economic gain there is no victory.

>>10
Exactly.

>>12
For the moment both are correct.  As is the "blend".

lol America

Stalin and Mao ruined everything. If I say I'm an anarcho-communist where I live they would stone me. Too many people do not understand the thoughts behind anarchism.

>>10
Not everything that is told in books is correct. Maybe it's not too bad to read it, but most peeps have "better" things to do.
>>15
Then, why don't you explain?

"Stalin and Mao ruined everything. If I say I'm an anarcho-communist where I live they would stone me. Too many people do not understand the thoughts behind anarchism."

Exactly. It's sad how many misconceptions (some of them deliberate?) there are about anarchism and communism. People seem to have a great deal of trouble seeing outside the conventional political spectrum. At times, I almost wonder whether Stalin was deliberately trying to make communism look bad.

It's sad how many misconceptions (some of them deliberate?) there are about fascism and national socialism. People seem to have a great deal of trouble seeing outside the conventional political spectrum. At times, I almost wonder whether Hitler was deliberately trying to make national socialism look bad.

>>18
I almost wonder whether Hitler was deliberately trying to make national socialism look bad.

oh.... so that was his goal....

not avenging the honor of the fatherland from the humiliating defeat in the first world war

what better way to prove yourself strongest than to take over the world

the concepts of pride, loyalty and duty are huge in the germanic psyche

>>19
You fail at sarcasm.

I wasn't seriously suggesting he was. I was saying that he did such a bad job that at times, that seemed like his real goal.

>>21

Stop being emo plz

Communism has only killed 100 million people.

Let's give it another chance!

*sigh* Let me elighten you on that: there has not been any nation, or state, in this entire world that, at any time during history, has incorporated the principles of communism entirely into it's governmental system.

Russia didn't, China didn't...the only state that has come anywhere near the way communism as an ideology is aimed is Cuba, but their attempt at realizing it was stopped by the sanctions put up by their neighbors in the north, the US.

The reason communism has failed the way it has, when attempts have been made to incorporate it, is the human psyche. To be able to use communism as a governmental measure, one has to ensure that the populace, and infrastructure, of the relevant state is willing to accept that all humans will be equal.

Also, you have to have a leader that will enforce those principles, and make sure all resources and good are divided equally. However, power is corrupting, and thus, we have the reason communism will never be a reality: no such man, or woman, existst. Sooner or later, a totaliterian leader will grasp a bigger share of the communal loot that the others, and the it's done.

However, please do not say that the terror and injustice we saw during the reign of the Soviet Union, or the cultural revolution in China was communism. That would be nothing short of a lie.

The reason communism has failed the way it has, when attempts have been made to incorporate it, is the human psyche

lol psychological reduction pf political problem

The problem with Communism does not just boil down to greed. Newsflash: People are not equal. They may be equally entitled to basic human rights, but each person certainly isn't capable of making equal contributions to society. The kinds of abilities people have vary greatly. We're not homegeneous like insects. It doesn't make sense to force one superior person to get less than his deserved share just to cover for another. It could be the "moral" thing to do, but you can't force something like that. How can you expect equality among the naturally unequal?

>>26 fails.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

lol Karl Marx. Nothing to see here, just another opinionated retard enjoying his own voice. Move along, move along.

It's pretty easy to superficially dismiss or believe in communism. Probably nobody in this thread has even read /Das Kapital/ in its entirety. Nobody has the slightest idea of what the subject is. Meaningless phrases like "human nature is against it" are being slung like the dull sermon of an alcoholic priest. You all disgust me.

Greed is a basic human nature, and as civilised people it's up to us to overcome that and work for the good of all people, not just ourselves. However, not everyone can overcome it. When this happens among members of the general populace we have crime, but when it happens among powerful government members, we have corruption.

A capitalist system works because individualism and owning things have been important to people for a long time now, and money, which provides both security, entertainment and neat things to own, also provides an incentive to contribute to society in the form of work.

Thus, when devising a system of government, three things must be kept in mind. One, the government must exist only to benefit the people. Two, people are, by their nature, selfish, and exist to further their own ends above all else. Three, people's nature is to join together with others of their kind, whether that means people of their race, their clan, people of similar interests, or merely their neighbours, for mutual support.

>>29

lol

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

I've read das kapital and can confirm that nobody in this thread knows what communism is.

>>31
Ha, ha, high-horse.

I know a true communism is about as impossible as a successful world government.

I know that if you vote for me, there will be titties and alcohol for all.

>>31
Das Kapital was never implemented. For all purposes in modern political theory, "Communism" is the silly Communist Manifesto that Engels ghostwrote.

>> 35

Pray tell, what "implementation" could there possibly be in a purely predictive roadmap?

No, I have not read "Das Kapital" in its entirety, but I do see myself unfit to comment on communism because of that. What I was commenting on is the basic, and by that I mean basic, outlines of communism, not the detailed facts described in "Das Kapital". And I still do not think my thesis on the failiure of communism is a very poor assumption. I have seen worse, from people who HAD read the Book.

However, I do not like people sitting on their high horses, telling me that I'm wrong, without an explanation. What is "Das Kapital" all about, apart from hanging capitalists from light poles by their intestents? ~.~ Show me the knowledge!!

You are wrong because you describe "communism" as a form of government. Communism is a predictive theory which describes three stages, the third of which, the post-revolutionary era, is one without any government at all, nor any need for one.

You are also wrong because you seem to think that there is some particular communist "implementation" possible. Communist theory is a prophetic prediction, a roadmap of the future if you will, which is described as absolutely inevitable. There is no "implementation" to do except to expediate the process and ease the "birth pangs" between stages. Contd.

There has never been a communist government on this earth at any point in history, except as theorized by poincare'. There is no such thing as a communist government. This is an oxymoron.

There is no "implementation" described in communist theory. All of the original sources are extremely vague about just how a communist post-revolutionary state is to be administrated. This vagueness caused the massive utopian engineering experiments in the post revolutionary russian government. There was no "implementation" to be found in communist philosophy. There was only useless prediction.

It is a common misconception that a communism is "everything is owned by everyone because everything is owned by the people which is everyone." This is just as common as those who would mistake a "Democracy" for meaning "a rule by the people."

So in short, it is not that nobody here knows what communism is because they haven't read Das Kapital and I have. I said nobody here knows what communism is because it is obvious from what they are saying about communism that they do not know what communism is. No amount of reading Das Kapital on my part will fix that. If pointing out that nobody here knows what communism is puts me on a high horse, then I am on a high horse. That doesn't change anything.

>>40
Ha, ha, thin-skin.

>>41
It's how things are. Don't lose it.

>>42
I lost it long ago.

We need more posts like >>38->>40. Was it necessary to split it up though?

So communism is socialism now?

>>44

The actual name for pure Communism as proposed by Marx is "Scientific Socialism".

Funny how Marx wasn't scientific at all.

あほぅやな。

I talked to someone from Cuba once, he said Castro made the water free and then everybody started wasting it.  Sounds a lot like the stories you hear out of Russia about what happened to their work ethic under communism.

Yeah, those damn lazy communists!

Free Air and Water, oh noes!

thank god we capitalists are smarter than that and charge $1 for bottles of watter.

water is the next oil......

tell ur friends

>>51

What the hell? You only pay $1 for water?!?

Look at it this way: does it feel right to have to pay for your culture? Plays, music, stories, before copywriting it could all be free and adapted from place to place, if culture didnt start free we would have no culture, no desire to paint, make music, or make plays. Why would you pay for music you could get free, but wait, thats a crime in many Capitalist nations (exluding Canada), but what if it were socialist. Theres free artistry in cuba as long as it isnt counter-revoulutionary.....

>>54
But if the music or story I create was completely free, then there would be not be as much benefit for me. So I write the next kicking song, and since it's free, Sony comes along and distrubutes a recording of my song (perhaps they had a guy with a tape recorder in the audience at one of my shows). I offer it for free, but I don't have the network for it distributing, so they make a huge profit on it, despite charging for it. Admittedly with the internet, the possibility for distribution is much higher, but whatever I can use, Sony can use twelve times better. Every one knows www.sony.com. No one besides my friends know www.geocities.com/~anonymous.

If that happens, why should I bother writing music? I mean I dig the whole for the good of humanity scene, but that doesn't pay the bills. Since I can't make a profit off my music, I have to get a "real job" and that cuts into my musical productivity.

This isn't to say that recording companies and their ilk aren't horrible things. The original copyright laws were good. They would allow me more than enough time to profit off of my work, while eventually freeing my work to the public domain. This freeing to the public domain also invited me to innovate since there was only so long I could solely benefit from my work. But then Disney came along and lobbied to extend them to stupid lengths, because they had to protect that fucking mouse.

what if the state offered to pay for housing etc, and if it is a single unionised "nation" like canada, there will be no corperation within the borders, plus there could be int. law passed banning this. I dont see sony stealing musical techno/rap/rock from china korea, or cuba.....

>>56
Because it's not profitable to do so when everything can be stolen so easily there. Why should Sony bother when copies are already availible at fine pirate shopping outlets everywhere? Multinational corporations also are working hard at getting those lax piracy laws changed in the countries you mentioned. Float enough money China's way, and see how long they cling to the Glorious Revolution. In addition, they know that it won't sell over here. People will  pick up a Britney Spears CD long before they think of listening to DJ Kekeke and the Cultural Revolution.

The abolition of corporations doesn't stop a group from getting together and doing it themselves. I mean, they're not registered as a corporation, so no problem, right? They're just a group of guys who consolidate their power to distribute music further than the artists can. They're good guys, right? Or is it illegal to make a profit off of any action you do ever? And International Law is flaunted all the time. Just because it's illegal doesn't stop everyone, or should I say, doesn't stop anyone.

Futhermore, though health care and food may work good socially, housing would not work well at all. What happens when you screw a groupie and need to move to a bigger apartment to take care of your twin rockers? Ready to fill out all the paperwork to request to move to a bigger government paid house? Ready to wait for one to come availible, while dealing with two twins? Ready to move to the middle of the Yukon because that's the only place where one is availible? Ready to stay where you are because the Housing clerk decided to take it for himself, and gladly threw your application into the rubbish bin? Well, what you're left with is getting a job so that you can afford to pay for a bigger house, presuming that's even possible in your dream country.

Plus on Cuba, didn't you hear about that singing troupe that cleverly used a world tour stopping in the US to defect and ask for political asylum? Yeah, it's only one example, but I bet most Cuban artists would love to do the same. Cuba is far from your idea happy-happy socialist paradise, as the United States is far from the happy-happy democracy where even the poor are rich as hell those Cubans are expecting.

Sony wouldn't have the right to sell your song. Though anyone could copy it to and from anyone, only the original creator is allowed to charge for it. So Sony couldn't make a buck on your music, only you could. You could simply charge for gigs, or set up a donation account: if others want your music, plead for them to donate some money. This is how it could be done(and has been done, before people started selling records). If they like it, and possibly want to support future production, you would encourage them to chip in.

>>58
OK, that's fair enough, though I have doubts on whether donations could be enough (I know that it works sometimes, but it often fails also). What about the other part that copyrights protect?

So I make my song, and then a politician comes along and uses it in one of their ads (This actually happened with Bush-Cheney this year). I hate said politician, but as he is not doing it for monetary gain, I have no grounds to sue him. The ads are a hit, and soon I become associated with this politician, despite my incredible dislike for him and his policies. If I can sue him in this case, because he used it for his political gain, then you have to decide where to draw a line. Is playing my song for your girlfriend and therefore getting a little something-something from her that night using my song? I know that's a bit silly, but there are more ways to use music than just make money.

Or how about this? Instead of Sony recording me and selling that recording, they take my recording and use other musicians to copy it exactly. They have the right to copy the song that way, right? It's not my recording, so then could they sell it? And if they can't, then we've just come back around to copyright laws.

The problem with the system you're suggesting is that it becomes incredibly hard for me to claim a song as mine. You don't hear about Don McLean complaining about Madonna butchering American Pie (at least I never did), because he makes money off of it. If he didn't have a copyright on it, there would be nothing stopping Maddona from taking that song and making it hers. I'm not talking about in the minds of the people like say Softcell did with Tainted Love, I'm talking fully and legally.

In conclusion I talk too much, and am taking the internet too seriously.

lol, Internet is serious buesness.
Well The main restriction there is cuba is anti-socialist/communistic artistry. Artists are able to produce all the art they want, but if it is counter revolutionary it will be taken off where ever it is and the artist is imprisioned. Im not saying cuba is a communist mecca, it is far from it. For some restrictions it is the peoples own greed that caused some things. Fidel lifed the water rationing and people wasted it, so he re instated it,same goes with other things. But if for example of artistry in general There would need to be a law passed stating any artist producing any song/painting/song/poem/etc would have to sign documents provided by the "state" clearly making what ever they made theirs. Also having to provide proof of some sort, like lyrics, original painting, or what have you. This would HELP the problem of theft, but wouldnt entirly end it.....There would still be possible theft, but it would be more under control. Thats all I can really say on the subject.....

There is one thing I have to say about classless societies:
It seems that in an attempt to end class warfare, there are two greatly separated classes:
1. The government and people who work with it
2. Everybody else.

And the wealth is not at all shared fairly. The gov't has most of everything, leaving everybody else with little.

the anarchic "state" for a lack of defining a nations meaning is good, when I went to chiristian it was quite a vibrant community, and the people were quite friendly, plus they have good hash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_of_Christiania

it's still not *truly* anarchic. there'll never be a real anarchic state because it'll have to be isolated and independant and all of the citizens will have to be brainwashed.

Anarchy has existed.  Albania in 1996 was anarchic.  Somalia has been anarchic for over a decade.

Such places are not generally regarded as fun vacation destinations.

Libertarian socialism is called anarchism apparently.

Hmm.  Do we need a word to distinguish between that hypothetical ideal condition and the real-world anarchy such as prevails in Somalia?  Or does the existence and nature of the latter constitute empirical disproof that the former is possible?

>>66
i think they call it "chaos" or something, where there is violence and more violence i suppose

or "anomie" which means without any rule or law etc

what about chirstiana free hash and internet
what more could an anarchist ask for

>Or does the existence and nature of the latter constitute empirical disproof that the former is possible?

Empirical disproof of an a priori assertion? Preposterous!

>>66
I agree with the with the statement implied within the rhetorical questions you pose, save the stipulation that Somalia is a real-world anarchy, in that same sense Democracy may as well be a real-world ideal Anarchy. Conglomeration of power by warlords in Somalia negates an anarchistic dynamic. The moment you apply the mechanics of ideal theoretical anarchy to the real-world, is the moment in which it ceases to be classified succinctly as "anarchy"... each individual real-world application would require long lists of caveats to continue using the term anarchy

Ideal anarchy exists in the theoretical realm alone, and therefore you are correct about your empirical disproof, but >>70 is also correct in that there was really nothing to disprove since the terminology itself is so strict. In the real-world context of free-thinking societies of human beings exhibiting human tendencies toward hierarchical structures... anarchy will remain inherently theoretical

Communism wins!

bump