Why do folks like comunisim?

I hate it,simply due to that
Communism will at the end of the day be worse than what we have in this country currently,I mean...look at history.

Secondly, I think it's bullshit to pay a open heart surgeon,the same as  a road side garbage picker.

Last of all, It's impossible for the government to manage every single aspect of a large economy.


----------------------
So why do liberals,or who ever champion Communism?

They're like crabs in a bucket, they instinctively grab whatever they can to pull themselves up even if it only results in them pulling others to the bottom. Well off liberals are either stupid, have government jobs that would be axed in a heartbeat if the government became sensible or they just like the attention they get from telling people what they want to hear due to some psychological disorder.

Liberals don't champion communism

Liberal= Big government Capitalism
Communism= Collectivist Anarchy

They're completely different ideologies.

I thought liberals,especially college professors hate the word "capitalism".

Barack Obama is great friends with Kim Jong-Il.
NOBAMA kick the bums out in 2012.

OBAMA: MORE CZARS THAN THE USSR!!!

>>4
That doesn't make them communists.

There is a spectrum of political/economical systems that have been proposed with communism and capitalism being just two of them. I think it is a mistake to classify everything else under those two because this way you miss all the differences that make some of them better than others. The use of the word communism has a special timbre in the US (I take it you are american from the way you use the term 'liberal'). It has been used negatively for so long in this country (for the needs of the cold war) that it would be quite pointless for me to explain the good things about it (yes, there are some good things about communism).

Now. I see you are comparing communism with capitalism in the US and conclude that communism would only make things worse. But in the US you don't exactly practice capitalism. You have a combination of fascism, police state and corporatism. So basically, you already have half of the problems of (totalitarian( communism.

This post is not to convince you that communism is great. In fact I don't like it either. The point is to tell you that there is a world of political science out there and that there are possibly side of capitalism that you hate, as there are side of communism that you would like. In the end of the day, no political system has ever worked according to plan. There has never been a pure political system that was practiced as in theory. In other words, between black and white (commies and caps) there are infinite shades of gray. It is up to each society to choose which shade of gray suits them best.

>>8
Corrupt and immoral gov't's are the only evil.
Corporations can't do a thing to anyone without gov't collusion.

>>9
What you're saying only works in theory. In practice the power of some corporations exceed that of governments. Also the revolving doors mechanism makes them pretty much the same thing. Now the big thing is that when corporations place politicians, then it is not the government that takes the decisions but the corporation. Politicians only carry them out. Note that the same could go for a corrupt communist system. I'm not using this to compare capitalism with communism, only to point out that actually it is the corporations that shape the policies. Example: GMOs

Oh, another good example would be the swine flu. That was ridiculous.

>>10
What your saying might be true. The system is probably much to corrupted to hold to any of it's stated ideals (capitalism and communism both)  But the fact of the matter is that America has the highest standard of living for it's people in the world. That system was built from the capitalist model. There are no communist countries that can compare to America.
Most of the world would line up to be America's poor (That's what capitalism did for America)

>>1

OMG HOW DO YOU EXPECT THAT SURGEON TO MAKE A LIVING ON A WAGE LIKE THAT?

Easily. The prices of everything will be pegged perfectly to his wage.

>>2
Maybe that's an important factor.


>>3
Communism= Collectivist Anarchy
In theory.


>>4
I've never seen that, they seem to be obsessed with "critiques" of capitalism.


>>5
>>6
It's possible for people to share a belief in the ends but have different views as to the means of achieving them. In this sense Obama is very communist, he frequently refers to groups as collectives, collectivism is an integral part of thought among the left in America to the point where they occasionally persecute and demonize individuals and individualism even though they are the smallest most oppressed and discriminated against minority, and the right to a certain extent though they at least claim to be individualists.


>>8
Spectrums are basically a continuum fallacy. There is some justification for them though if you take into account limited intelligence (as opposed to unlimited intelligence) and the fact we need to categorize and simplify complex real world phenomena in order to be able to make sense of it, however the political spectrum is a vast oversimplification and is actually detrimental to developing political thought since ideologies with similar levels of social freedom could have totally different policies, it really all boils down to a sequence of abstract concepts.


>>9
There will always be a state, if you overthrow evil corporations they will just be replaced by mad max style gangs. They may not be the kind of "state" you are familiar with but they are a monopoly over force.


>>10
>>12
The US is a multiocracy, it is just as dumb to say voters have no power as it is to say voters have all the power, the power distribution could probably be summed up as "que bono" ignoring instances where people benefit from wealth that they deserve, a consultant neurosurgeon deserves a 6 figure income whereas a corporatist bankster does not deserve his 8 figure income.

>>1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

first off liberals by and large hate communism as much as anybody. Its a dead ideology that the right uses to scare votes its way. The same with few exceptions(michael moore being one of them) can almost be said about socialism. What your average liberal cares about is maintaining a basic (if impermantent) saftey net for people who realy and truly cant work for whatever reason, respect for human rights at home and abroad, and legaly making buisnesses responsible for their roll in the communtiy.

Where I part ways with modern libralism in a few ways one of them being i think we should tax buisnesses less and incomes more, especially at the higher end earners.

now what scares liberals is how nutty people can get about that free market efficiency. sometimes it works but sometimes its completely irrational. anyway that is what the left uses to scare votes its way.

>>1
Don't worry, it's common for people to be scared of things they don't understand :p

>>17
Liberals are not afraid of objectivist nutjobs, that is just a straw man, they are fearful of small and medium sized independent businesses that are often more administratively efficient and effective than the top-heavy conglomerates but do not have the same political, legal or financial clout and so cannot lobby for kickbacks worth billions, a loop leftists are an integral part of. They are terrified, literally terrified, of the fed losing it's monopoly over the US financial system, this is why they hate capitalism, it would mean scientists and educated professionals with decades of experience in their respective industries would be in control over the economy as opposed to their precious ivy league banksters, figures such as Alec Litowitz and George Soros.

The resulting surge in scientific advancement, development, efficiency, education, economic freedom and labor freedom would ensure voters never take them seriously again, to the liberals with their sense of self-justification and moral superiority this is the ultimate tragedy and they absolutely do not want it to happen, sometimes going so far as to intentionally sabotage the economy to "prove" they are right and protect their corporatist masters.

I for one, don't mind taxing the rich up to a point
rich. When I think of rich, I don't think of a surgeon who brings home 100k. 

I think of Warren Buffet,Steve jobs.

Over all we need a simple tax system.

Or, we need America to turn communist. Personally, I think communism is a great way to run a country, especially, modern day US.

>>20
Over all we need a simple tax system.
Good luck getting that change implemented.  Nobody wants that for real, since almost everyone gets their deduction or credit out of it.

>>21
proof?

>>19
look I don't know enough about banking to form an educated opinion on the subject, why are there so many people who are pissed off at the fed?

>>24
they print money from thin air without anything to back it up - and every time they do, the currency is devalued. Go Google and read up on how they hornswaggled Woodrow and passed the act during the holidays when no one was there to vote against it, what happened to JFK when he tried to reintroduce constitutional money, etc etc

*and don't forget who owns the fed (no, not the U.S. Govt as they'd like you to believe)

>>21
America is too individualistic to vote for true communism. I don't like the idea of basing economics on forced empathy or helping your fellow man. I have nothing wrong with being nice to people or giving them their fair share, but higher taxes for the sole purpose of wealth distribution is immoral in my opinion. Nobody owes society their wealth, we should focus on ourselves, not some vague abstraction of "the people" or the workers.

>>27
On the other hand it is quite unfair for people who were born wealthy and have never worked to enjoy more wealth than people who work 7 days a week non-stop. Under circumstances I would support the labor theory of value rather that the supply/demand theory.

There's also another thing: Money attracts money. It is much easier to make money if you are already rich. Actually, it is the first 100k that are hard to make. After that it's just decision making and good judgment.

I understand you believe in individualism and although I consider myself a collectivist, I wouldn't give up my freedom. Thing is: even though these terms sound very contradicting, the only realistic situations are somewhere in between. If we use extreme individualism and extreme collectivism as examples, both are destructive for both the individual and the collective. In extreme individualism the individual would isolate himself collapsing society, while in extreme collectivism the suppression of people's individuality would make society totally uncreative and bureaucratic.

What I consider a realistic approach to this bipole is to specify where individualism works best and where collectivism does. For example(1) i consider the privatization of natural resources hugely wrong. I would like to see the resources like water, oil, minerals, metals etc. collectively owned by the citizens of the countries they are found in. On the other hand(2), I want to be the owner of things that I create or produce (myself). If 3 of us put the same effort and resources into making something(3), that would automatically give each 33.3% share of the money selling it. The first case(1) is collectivist, the second(2) individualist and the third(3) a combination of both. Of course the above is a simplification to make the story short. This is actually too massive an issue to discuss here.

Anyway, I think I've put quite a lot of thinking into this and my conclusion is that neither is panacea. Roughly speaking I believe individual property is very justified for things we produce, while collective property is justified for things that are provided for by the environment or things that everyone has the same need for (eg. air). Frankly though, I understand that this 'rule' has many exceptions.

>>28
It is unfair and I wish there was some utopia like heaven on earth but this is a useless statement, anyone can say "it would be great if...". There is no spectrum betweeen individualism and collectivism either, there are concepts, physical actions and individual policies, in fact you pretty much came to this conclusion even if you did not define it by comparing examples of collectivist and individualist actions, although in that example collectivization would result in corruption and inefficiency as the resources are bureaucratized rather than marketized their value would be reflected by political capital rather than what people are willing to pay for. Though within this there was examples of where "collectivization" would be beneficial, obviously the atmosphere could not be privatized because it is mixed, the fact I am discussing this obsoletes this continuum. It is just more logical to discuss physical actions.

>>29
were*

oops

tl:dr

>>31
lol 5 sentences is too much? phillistine

>>29
Sure, if you really want to break it down to the bottom level there is no spectrum or continuum. The term 'spectrum' is only helpful when you look at it macroscopically looking for some general indications in order to find tendencies that will lead you at the right direction (to reach the conclusion that both collectivism and individualism cannot exist in their 'purest' form for example).

>>27
I think america would never vote for true communism because they have access to history books. Its basically a secular religion. and wealth redistribution for the sake of wealth redistribution is immoral but so is letting people go without food or medicine because they can't afford it. so long as you can still provide that then the less taxes the better.

>>16
>liberals
>hate communism
Not in the slightest, look at all liberal organization, they take their marching orders from marxist jews!

Liberals are do-gooder useful idiots, it doesn't matter about your specific wishes, you put your faith in communists. Obongo himself is a communist.

>>28
>Money attracts money.
no


>>34
>but so is letting people go without food or medicine because they can't afford it.
Noone goes without food in any white western country. The idea of taxing us to feed the hordes of subhumans is obvious treachery and lunacy. You feed them, and they will breed and breed and breed. Haiti population has been doubling every decade because we feed and clothe them.

And health care? Health care is absurdly expensive, i read on the paper some nigger from ethiopia comes here to get free health care, lunacy! Health care is a BOTTOMLESS PIT of expenses, it never ends! There is no limit to what you will "need" because everyone dies! Only the free market can set rational limits.

>>35
Fanaticism won't get you very far.

>>35
Well i'm not doing anything to support any communist agenda, so in fact i'd make a very poor 'useful idiot'

>>37
There are many ways to become a 'useful idiot' and the communist agenda is not the only agenda looking for idiots. You need to have your mind open to avoid being used as an idiot either way.

That's why I said that fanaticism won't get you very far. Because you state thing that display loss of touch with reality. For example, you reply to "Money attracts money" with "no". WTF is this for an intelligent reply?
And then you state: "Noone goes without food in any white western country". Are you blind? Denying existing problems doesn't solve them. It does confirm any theory you have in mind though.

Anyway, keep an open mind man and don't close yourself off in any ideology. There is no 'poisonous' ideology/philosophy/religion if you have a strong critical and well informed mind. You need to study all aspects of things in order to reach clear conclusions and denying one side only limits your understanding.

>>1
please read http://www.romm.org/soc_com.html

>>39
Very sparse on technical details, pretty much just "we'd do everything perfectly and there would be no problems, hurr durr capitalism kill baby seals and gas jews for money". Why did you expect that to be a convincing argument? Because you do?

Let me be the first to inform you then, just because you feel something is right doesn't mean it is right and not everyone shares the same subjective feelings as you.

>>40
I just wanted to point out that we have had Stalinism rather than Communism in history and is a tad unfair to compare the soviet union to communism in action.

Marxian LTV isn't a proposed method for calculating a future economic system—it is the explanation of how capital as it currently exists works.

"to vote for true communism"
Oh boy.  If voting changed anything…

Also we're seeing a lot of the fallacy of the rational market agent here.  If medium firms were so efficient, why don't they have political clout?  Political clout is a necessary externality to control in any market economy.  Look at, for example, the industrial relations system which is entirely contrived by the state's intervention.  Medium business is not efficient as it is not controlling the state apparatus.  Furthermore, you need to read more about "the firm" in economics: "actually existing" capitalism is a planned economy.

>>41
Yes but attempts to achieve "true communism" only result in corruption and dictatorship. That's why Lenin, Mussolini, Mao and all the big dictators choose collectivist ideologies for their state religion instead of tangible policies like free speech, private property and universal suffrage.

>>43

You assume that Lenin attempted to implement true communism.  This assumption was invalidated by the Menshevik emigres and the documents they brought with them.  For a simple explanation of how the Bolsheviks destroyed actual workers power, go read some of Simon Pirani's academic pieces on participation versus mobilisation online.

>>43
>universal suffrage
>good idea
no

Communism, and generally the entire left, is built on fantasies and delusions. They use their fancy wordy meaningless ideologies to confuse issues and justify tyranny and genocide.

There is no such thing as "true communism".

>>42
Controlling and benefited from the state has nothing to do with capitalism and the free market.

>>45

Now who's being naïve, Lisa?  I strongly suggest you inquire into how 19th and 20th century liberalism and neo-liberalism implemented the deep market evaluation of human economic activity.  I'll give you a clue: it didn't arise spontaneously as a social process, but was a result of state action.

>>44
You assume that Lenin attempted to implement true communism.
I never said that. Maybe I should have been more blunt...

Collectivists are tools.
Tyrants want their subjects to be tools.
Communism is collectivist.
Lenin and other tyrants want their subjects to be communist so they will be collectivist tools.

I'm not saying Lenin and the tyrants are communist, I'm saying they want their followers to be communist.

"religion is the opiate of the masses"

Tsar Nicholas/Lenin never gave all his wealth to the poor or did any of the things Jesus/Marx instructed him to yet despite his hypocracy he was not overthrown by christians/communists despite indoctrinating all his followers to be christian/communist. Contrast mystical idealism like religion and communism with practical well defined goals like free speech.

>>47
Krondstat, Tambov, Makhno, anti-bolshevik strikes 1917-1941, Gulag uprisings by social democrats and anarchists, Hungary, Czechoslovakia

You're under read on the history of Communism and of Bolshevism to make such broad sweeping statements.

>>48
The rebellions were motivated by practical policies and crushed by ignorant communist idealists so your examples support my claim that communism is a useful tool for tyrants.

>>49

That is the first time I've ever heard the Krondstat committee called "practical" for mutiny while the port was frozen in.

Bump

>>1
Because capitalism is collapsing

>>52
You've been saying that since the 1820s.

>>52
haha
oldfag

>>53
>>54
ANY DAY NOW, THE GLOBAL REVOLUTION WILL COME, YOU'LL SEE

YOU'LL SEE

>>55
You sir, are diluted.

>>55
SILENCE! YOU FILTH ENCRUSTED SUB-HUMAN!

>>56
and you sir, are a moronfag.

>>57
Isn't nazism dead?  Stop reliculing yourself with a dead ideology

Back to the 40s please.

>>59
Nazism isn't really dead, people are beginning to realize Hitler was right about a few things. He was an inspirational energetic speaker, it would be a shame if we ignored his message just because he tried to murder all the jews and take over the world.

>>just because he tried to murder all the jews and take over the world.

Fucking LOL !!!

>>60
>Hitler was right about everything
fixed for you.
Try listening to the things he actually said. Not slander and lies invented by jews and soviets.

>just because he tried to murder all the jews and take over the world.
What did i just say? This is the slander and lies i am talking about.

Fascism = a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

socialism = any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

communism = a theory advocating elimination of private property and in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

>>63
fascism = mystical collectivist ideology
socialism = mystical collectivist ideology
communism = mystical collectivist ideology
free speech = practical policy
representative government = practical policy
private property rights = practical policy

>>64

Hey guys I don't think too much so I just split everything into black and white.

>>65
Well, at least you're upfront about it.

>>65
I just split everything into nucleons and electrons.

Why?

Because I get a charge out of it.

>>67
No, that joke doesn't work actually.

>>68
What are you saying?  Of course it works.  The nucleons get separated from the electrons, producing massively ionized atoms.  Just imagine a carbon atom with a charge of +12.

The strong nuclear force holds the nucleus together, so the nucleons will remain in the nucleus.  The electrons just get dumped somewhere, probably wailing as if they had been given the goatfinger.

A goatfinger is when your gaybud sticks two fingers up your ass and pushes down on your prostate repeatedly. Feels good man, my bro Rodriguez goatfingered me yesterday.

>>70
Considering how often you RedCream cloans abide by homoseuxal lifestyles, that seems believable.  But it is applicable?  The evidence clearly indicates not.

>>69
>>70
Seriously, stop fucking cloaning me, it makes me so mad, I do not get goatfingered by muscular hispanic men.

>>69
>>72
Fuck you cloan. I do so enjoy the company of muscular hispanic men, don't erode my ass street cred. They can have their way with me when they want, I'll suck dicks, take dicks, goatfinger shitholes, whatever, anything is fine.

>>73
>>70

Quit cloning me.  I don't enjoy the company of hispanic men, I prefer faggy Frenchmen.  And my shithole is too small for goatfingering.

>>16
You dont know what the fuck your talking about. Socalism isnt dead. In fact all goverments of the world practise it at some level. Do you even know what it means? Or does is it just another world for evil to you?

Comunism is just like the dry law. A good idea that'll never work.

>>75
Socialism is collective ownership over the means of production and it has never been accomplished because there is no hive mind, there are only systems that give negotiating power to the general masses and they are corruptible bureaucracies.

>Why do folks like comunisim?

To piss off the right wingers, fascists, racists, capitalists and generally the scum of the earth.

PS. I'm not a communist but i find it much better than the systems above. I recon you should start a war against each other. That would probably kill many from both sides and make the world a better place.

all posts below this one are from fags

>>80
Hello sweetie. Wanna talk commie?

>>78
>>79
You best be trolling, in perspective the most important thing at the moment is not some social revolution but technological progress. Over the past 200 years the biggest changes have been technological and they have allowed the economy to support the social conditions needed for anything other than a north korea style totalitarian dictatorship with a king at the top, a few lords in his inner circle, the military one rung down, maybe some propogandist clergy and everyone else as beasts of burden.

Anything to destabilize continued technological progress is a bad thing, save the revolution till later.

>>82
Actually it was the communists that reached space first. Actually it was their dog (laika) if you want to be precise. The capitalists came second. How does this make a communist society technologically inferior? Also, I happen to know many people from the eastern block. They all admit that despite the lack of freedom, the education level was excelent. In romania for example, every graduate got a job. If they had good uni grades, they worked close to home, if their grades were average, they had to commute. There was no unemployment. So technology is not a privilege of the capitalist world.

The point is that neither communism or capitalism are good enough for today's world. They are both dinosaurs of the past and they're going to have the same future as every dinosaur: in history.

And here's a chalenge for you: Find any old communist from the easter blco (except for albanian) and ask him a difficult art, poetry or literature related question. I bet you'll be fucking surprised. Also, the guys are so much better educated in maths and physics than your average westerner. Unfortunately I can't say the same about the people who grew up in the same places after the fall of communism.

>>82
Pro tip: If you really want to discredit communists, the best example to use is the red khmer and Pol Pot. What they did had nothing to do with communism but it will piss the shit out of any real communist to be compared to the khmers!

>>83
>>84
I thought the soviet union wasn't "true communist".

The soviet union had a planned economy but it ploughed most of it's resources into military R&D because they were bloodthirsty tyrants desperately trying to figure out how to take over the world without making the same mistake as the Germans, Yuri Gagarin didn't find himself orbiting the earth because of the worker's desire for achievement, he rode a modified ICBM into space, they never bothered sending anyone to the moon because there's no point bombing the moon.

>The point is that neither communism or capitalism are good enough for today's world. They are both dinosaurs of the past and they're going to have the same future as every dinosaur: in history.


Also, neither pure communism OR pure capitalism have existed yet. In fact the only pure system that has ever been practiced fully is tyranny.

>>85
>he soviet union had a planned economy but it ploughed most of it's resources into military R&D because they were bloodthirsty tyrants desperately trying to figure out how to take over the world without making the same mistake as the Germans, Yuri Gagarin didn't find himself orbiting the earth because of the worker's desire for achievement, he rode a modified ICBM into space, they never bothered sending anyone to the moon because there's no point bombing the moon.

Are you trolling me?

>>87
The soviet union was a dictatorship, it used severe political repression against it's own people and those in eastern europe and actively supported communist guerillas across the world which started civil wars that would hold back most of the 3rd world.

The communists invested heavily in rocketry and astronautics because of it's potential military applications, they did not invest in color televisions or other consumer goods because it didn't benefit the brass as much.

>>88
The soviets didn't develop anything.
What they did was steal everything from germany. And then spend the entire cold war taking information from jews in the USA to keep pace with the US.

>>89
The united states poached Nazi scientists too, double standards?

>>89
>>90
The poached nazi scientists then developed on the idea, that's why the nazis never put a man in space.