This argument will continue to go nowhere until people understand communism is NOT a type of government, its an economic strategy. Everything America labeled as "communism" during the red scare was not communism. Totaliitarian, Fascism and Socialism are not communist governments. They didnt even employ communist economic values.
Its really not fair to compare it to democracy and socialism. It doesnt mean strictly enforced rations. It doesnt mean standardized government issued household items. It doesnt mean jobs are chosen for people. It doesnt even mean everyone would be financially equal. Communism is still a free market, in its simplest form its capitolism without the need for currency.
well, at one point it was a good thread, with no flaming. I am leaving due to the burning sensation coming from the room. Maybe I'll return when people are civil?
<!--QuoteBegin--the johnjacob+Oct 29 2003, 11:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (the johnjacob @ Oct 29 2003, 11:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> thanks u235 for ruining this discussion <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Gee I can't help it how one-sided you people have made this argument:
"Capitalism is evil! This is why! Blah blah blah they steal money! Communism is the answer!"
"Yeah well Communism this-that."
"You're wrong! You can't talk about Communism because it's never existed yet! Capitalism is satan's economy!"
"Well Communism blah blah."
"You're wrong! Wrong! That's not communism! Capitalism raped my mother!"
Read through the tread again. Since pro-commies have NOTHING FACTUAL AT ALL to support their ideal on, there's nothing for pro-capitalists to attack, and it's just the pro-commies shouting the woes of our system and how somehow they were blessed with the knowledge to magically make it all better. Talk about how human nature will never let it happen and you get yelled at that Russia wasn't a communism... even though they're ignoring the fact that quite possibly, China, north korea, and friends is the RESULT of human nature in communism.
<!--QuoteBegin--the johnjacob+Oct 30 2003, 04:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (the johnjacob @ Oct 30 2003, 04:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> gg parasite for stating everything i've said up until this point.
thanks u235 for ruining this discussion <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Whatever dude, I guess I missed it
<!--QuoteBegin--uranium - 235+Oct 30 2003, 05:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (uranium - 235 @ Oct 30 2003, 05:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--the johnjacob+Oct 29 2003, 11:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (the johnjacob @ Oct 29 2003, 11:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> thanks u235 for ruining this discussion <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Gee I can't help it how one-sided you people have made this argument:
"Capitalism is evil! This is why! Blah blah blah they steal money! Communism is the answer!"
"Yeah well Communism this-that."
"You're wrong! You can't talk about Communism because it's never existed yet! Capitalism is satan's economy!"
"Well Communism blah blah."
"You're wrong! Wrong! That's not communism! Capitalism raped my mother!"
Read through the tread again. Since pro-commies have NOTHING FACTUAL AT ALL to support their ideal on, there's nothing for pro-capitalists to attack, and it's just the pro-commies shouting the woes of our system and how somehow they were blessed with the knowledge to magically make it all better. Talk about how human nature will never let it happen and you get yelled at that Russia wasn't a communism... even though they're ignoring the fact that quite possibly, China, north korea, and friends is the RESULT of human nature in communism. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> None of those nations are communist , never were. Communism has never been tried, and in fact, communism can only evolve from capitolism. Communism is NOT a political agenda.
U235 your sarcasm is unnecessary and sad. and stop @&@(^# editing your posts with more of that lame ****, it is really sad to see that you've been editing them, putting in more of ur lame jokes, for a few hours now..
now then.
Mao and Castro came to power through peasant movements, not workers revolution. The definition of Communism is rule by the working class. Also, china and cuba never passed through phases in which they were ruled by the working class, like Russia before the invasions. The current governments of China and Cuba came into existence as Stalinist nations, Russia degenerated into dictatorship because it was under attack. But for christ sake if you really think China and Cuba would have been better with capitalist govermnents that let them get raped by the imperialists, you don't know the first thing about capitalism in foreign relations. Perhaps you should read Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism by Lenin.
Although the best thing you could do u235 would be to read the Manifesto because you clearly don't know **** about Communism and that **** has all been stated before. And because of your misinterpretations you have dragged this thread into the gutter, and it might even get locked. This is really sad because I know there are mature capitalists out there who are ready to engage in civilized discussion.
I really enjoyed this debate, it allowed me to get a lot into the open. Oh well. thanks to all those who participated
if anyone wants to have a real talk, PM me and we can talk on AIM
So who starts the communist movement? People like to be told what to do. It's in every religion and government. If you ran a government where the people were 100% in charge, you wouldn't have communism, you'd have anarchy. Bob would want X and Joe would want X^Y, and Jake would want Z. You can't honestly think that Bob , Joe, and Jake would all suddenly say 'Let's be friends, I want X!'
Capitalism works BECAUSE Bob Joe and Jake want different things. Communism never will because Bob Joe and Jake would probably never agree to want the same thing.
(BTW: Your hyypocricy about editing threads is duly noted)
And what sarcasm? At any time during this topic, Capitalism was called evil, and run by murderers (Which you wrote some fact about Capitalists murdering in 1940 or something, and the post magically turned into something else, the irony...)
and man. i only edit my posts right after i've written them for grammar and ****, but i see you've been diting yours like 5 hours after you wrote them when you thought you would add in that i had said "capitalists killed my mother" you stupid **** you **** mangling **** headed mother **** i'll kick your **** im tired of your **** why don't you read the **** manifesto and then come back when you actually know what the **** communism is
com·mu·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm) n. 1 A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. Communism 2A A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. 2B The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
So you claim communism is 1, and I claim communism is 2A. We're both right.
the 2nd isnt communism, communism is the absence of **** govt not the omnipresence of it. here they go confusing stalinism with communism like good little boy's
<!--QuoteBegin--revolutionary+Oct 30 2003, 01:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (revolutionary @ Oct 30 2003, 01:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> oh im too tired to argue with that bulshit
and man. i only edit my posts right after i've written them for grammar and ****, but i see you've been diting yours like 5 hours after you wrote them when you thought you would add in that i had said "capitalists killed my mother" you stupid **** you **** mangling **** headed mother **** i'll kick your **** im tired of your **** why don't you read the **** manifesto and then come back when you actually know what the **** communism is <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Gee, I'm sorry. Is that what you wanted to hear? I'm sorry that communism requires everyone on earth to suddenly want to embrace a common goal. I'm sorry that everyone on earth likes to compete and be better then everyone else. I'm sorry that humans like to have a LEADER. At no time in human history, for a long period of time, has there been a time of stability WITHOUT A FIGUREHEAD OF SOME SORT. Even packs of dogs have an alpha male. Primitive man had a tribal leader. I'm sorry that you, for some reason, CONSISTANTLY, REPEATEDLY, AND INTENTINALLY skirt around every post that says <b>HUMAN NATURE DOES NOT ALLOW EQUALITY</b>. Every time I bring it up, you spew the same rhetoric that China isn't a communist government. Not ONCE in your posts have you said 'Well, you know, we'd have to work that out about the fact that people like OWNING things, and here's how we could do it:' In fact, I can't recall reading anywhere where you acknowledged that that would be a problem. If so, kindly enlighten me, and not with one of your 'Stalin was running a self-elected dictatorship.' posts.
You know, when I got a car, I was proud. Because my friends didn't have one. They looked up to me. I would give them rides. Would I be proud if suddenly I had to provide ALL my friends with cars? Hell no. The fact that I worked to get that car and had something to show for it is something communism would never allow.
I brought that issue up in one of my first posts in this thread. In fact, I hammered on nothing BUT that point. I never accused the communists of murdering millions. I never declare communism a fanatical dictator-run brainwashing machine. I simply stated WHY communism would NEVER work, and I swear, I might as well have yelled at a brick wall. Then hammered my head into it repeatedly.
We have some axioms here:
1) People like competing. The only people that don't are those that... for lack of a better way of putting it, are losers in life.
2) Communism requires that the people sit down, smile, and help each other out until the end of time. Key note: Until the end of time. All things come to an end, and I can't imagine what a collapse of true communism would be like, but I can take a guess: complete chaos. Famine. Death. No one would know how to lead anymore. No one would know how to take charge and tell the people "To straighten ourselves out, we've gotta do this:"
3) Communism has no 'head honcho'. It's run in a sort of democratic state, with the people chosing how to run things as a collective whole.
4) Humans like having a leader.
That's just two reasons why communism WILL NEVER WORK. I've stated that HOW MANY TIMES NOW?
This topic is nothing more then a slightly different twist on Science vs. God. How do you prove god (communism) exists, when there's NOTHING TO BASE THE PROOF ON. How do you argue against god / Communism, when again, you have nothing to base an argument on?
The Manifesto might as well be the bible for all intents and purposes: It lays out in detail a quasi-mythical, magical peaceful society.
the Manifesto is something you didn't read, you're wrong about communism, basically the best way for me to argue here would be to post the manifesto. until you understand that, you are arguing based on misconceptions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gee what a misconception I had! It states right there that you're not supposed to want for YOURSELF, but for what EVERYONE wants!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sorry that humans like to have a LEADER. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> i've already stated that, but i'd appreciate it if you wouldn't call it human nature, cuz it's not, it's the very fact that you stated, that we've always had a leader, that is why we will never reach communism. we won't reach it because we are used to having a leader, and do not understand the purpose of working as a whole instead of individuals as communism requires.
now, that being said, let's see if i can address some points you brought up here.
"human nature" as you put it, has only one description, and that is to learn and adapt. every human learns and adapts around its environment, to go further and say that we are, by nature, and unchangingly, greedy, and power hungry animals, would be a lie. i have no real life proof of this, since we've all been trained to exceed the next guy's accomplishments, we've all been taught from birth that we are only better than the people we can out perform, and if we out perform no one we are outcasts from society. marx did consider this problem, which is what socialism is. socialism is a step in the path towards communism. socialism is a government with a leader who teaches and guides the population of the nation/state/globe/whatever towards a communist view. the socialist leader, some may call a dictator, but this has a negative connotation and i hesitate to use it, is less of a leader, and more of a teacher, he/she is in place to teach the masses how to govern themselves without government intervention.
this teaching method faces towards one end result, with the other, less important problems faced by communist governments falling into place after. and you hit it on the nose, let me quote you again.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You know, when I got a car, I was proud. Because my friends didn't have one. They looked up to me. I would give them rides. Would I be proud if suddenly I had to provide ALL my friends with cars? Hell no. The fact that I worked to get that car and had something to show for it is something communism would never allow. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that is the main idea that the socialist state is trying to correct. in a communist government, instead of being proud of personal accomplishment, as you were of your car, an individual is proud of how he helps better the whole. that is the mentality that socialism is meant to instill upon the public(and it is that mentality that will never, and can never be implanted, see my earlier posts for why).
now there is one thing i dont' understand. why is it that the people who argue against communism insist that if we accept communism as an economic and governmental system, we are accepting poverty into our lives. that is not true. i do not understand and i would really love this to be explained to me, communism is all about economic equality, not equality as poverty. poverty is not directly linked to economic equality, at least, i fail to see this link. so would you care to explain that for me?
as for your last statement about god vs science, i disagree. this is not an argument about whether communism exists, we know it doesn't, never has. this is an argument about whether it can exist, what it would be like, how it would occur, and whether that resultant state would be better than the current capitalist regime.
I still stand by definition 2A. Let's take this manifesto of yours:
*The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
Political power is absent in a stateless society. So yes, Communists want a state, and want to take part in controlling it.
Somewhat further on though:
*The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
*The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
Again, take over power in a country (or even better, in the whole world)
*The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Centralization
*1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. 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.
Enough said: Communism is centralized redistribution. Marx said so himself <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
In Communism, you aren't so much accepting poverty in your life as your are denying yourself ever being rich. More or less the same thing, just depends on how you see it.
Wait a second, u235. Communism doesn't have a leader? WTH did you get that from?
Unless you're talking about the so called "perfect socialism" where there isn't even a need for a government because everyone is societally conditioned to automatically provide for equality. That's a far off dream and I'm not going to work toward it because it's unrealistic. But the idea of state-owned industries and 100% redistribution of wealth -- that in no way implies an absence of leadership.
Recap: a stateless society is unrealistic. Without a government directing things, (personal) rights will be violated by other people, and progress will be impossible.
Democracy is a system built on political equality (equal representation in govt), just as Socialism is a system built on economic equality (equal representation in the economy).
Read the manifesto before commenting on the principles of communism, communism only needs a leader in the beginning but every communist leader's goal should be not to be a leader anymore.
antibomb, not every communist adheres to the manifesto that closely. I have read the manifesto actually, and I know of the "ultimate goal" of communism. I just happen not to agree 100%. For example, trying to get a stateless state (the ultimate goal), I feel, is unrealistic.
So if I dont exactly follow the manifesto to the very word, maybe that means I'm not totally a communist. But I use the label for ease of use. because, truthfully, there is no group in the world that has more than 1 member - for example, I and I only am the sole member of stephenchennists. (my name is stephen chen you see)
This all caps post is necessary because most of you have ignored the fact that.....
DEMOCRACY MUST EXIST IN COMMUNISM FOR IT TO BE COMMUNISM.
The whole idea of the thread is invalid started by a person who has no idea what communism and foolishly making assumptions.
Winder, if what you say is true then try to phrase your words a bit better, so I don't have to correct you.
In communism it is run by worker councils they decide on what is best, but in America, it is controlled by 3 branches the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. What do you think is more democratic? Numerous councils of your own peers? Or elected politicians?
<!--QuoteBegin--absentic+Nov 2 2003, 03:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (absentic @ Nov 2 2003, 03:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Communism is a beautiful thought. Too bad it doesn't work in reality. So I pick democracy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> More true words could not have been spoken..
<!--QuoteBegin--Menix+Nov 2 2003, 11:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Menix @ Nov 2 2003, 11:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ants have communism, but they also do not have consciousnesses like humans do. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you an ant, and know that for a fact?
Comments
Its really not fair to compare it to democracy and socialism. It doesnt mean strictly enforced rations. It doesnt mean standardized government issued household items. It doesnt mean jobs are chosen for people. It doesnt even mean everyone would be financially equal. Communism is still a free market, in its simplest form its capitolism without the need for currency.
thanks u235 for ruining this discussion
Gee I can't help it how one-sided you people have made this argument:
"Capitalism is evil! This is why! Blah blah blah they steal money! Communism is the answer!"
"Yeah well Communism this-that."
"You're wrong! You can't talk about Communism because it's never existed yet! Capitalism is satan's economy!"
"Well Communism blah blah."
"You're wrong! Wrong! That's not communism! Capitalism raped my mother!"
Read through the tread again. Since pro-commies have NOTHING FACTUAL AT ALL to support their ideal on, there's nothing for pro-capitalists to attack, and it's just the pro-commies shouting the woes of our system and how somehow they were blessed with the knowledge to magically make it all better. Talk about how human nature will never let it happen and you get yelled at that Russia wasn't a communism... even though they're ignoring the fact that quite possibly, China, north korea, and friends is the RESULT of human nature in communism.
thanks u235 for ruining this discussion <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whatever dude, I guess I missed it
Gee I can't help it how one-sided you people have made this argument:
"Capitalism is evil! This is why! Blah blah blah they steal money! Communism is the answer!"
"Yeah well Communism this-that."
"You're wrong! You can't talk about Communism because it's never existed yet! Capitalism is satan's economy!"
"Well Communism blah blah."
"You're wrong! Wrong! That's not communism! Capitalism raped my mother!"
Read through the tread again. Since pro-commies have NOTHING FACTUAL AT ALL to support their ideal on, there's nothing for pro-capitalists to attack, and it's just the pro-commies shouting the woes of our system and how somehow they were blessed with the knowledge to magically make it all better. Talk about how human nature will never let it happen and you get yelled at that Russia wasn't a communism... even though they're ignoring the fact that quite possibly, China, north korea, and friends is the RESULT of human nature in communism. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
None of those nations are communist , never were. Communism has never been tried, and in fact, communism can only evolve from capitolism. Communism is NOT a political agenda.
now then.
Mao and Castro came to power through peasant movements, not workers revolution. The definition of Communism is rule by the working class. Also, china and cuba never passed through phases in which they were ruled by the working class, like Russia before the invasions. The current governments of China and Cuba came into existence as Stalinist nations, Russia degenerated into dictatorship because it was under attack. But for christ sake if you really think China and Cuba would have been better with capitalist govermnents that let them get raped by the imperialists, you don't know the first thing about capitalism in foreign relations. Perhaps you should read Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism by Lenin.
Although the best thing you could do u235 would be to read the Manifesto because you clearly don't know **** about Communism and that **** has all been stated before. And because of your misinterpretations you have dragged this thread into the gutter, and it might even get locked. This is really sad because I know there are mature capitalists out there who are ready to engage in civilized discussion.
I really enjoyed this debate, it allowed me to get a lot into the open. Oh well. thanks to all those who participated
if anyone wants to have a real talk, PM me and we can talk on AIM
Capitalism works BECAUSE Bob Joe and Jake want different things. Communism never will because Bob Joe and Jake would probably never agree to want the same thing.
(BTW: Your hyypocricy about editing threads is duly noted)
And what sarcasm? At any time during this topic, Capitalism was called evil, and run by murderers (Which you wrote some fact about Capitalists murdering in 1940 or something, and the post magically turned into something else, the irony...)
and man. i only edit my posts right after i've written them for grammar and ****, but i see you've been diting yours like 5 hours after you wrote them when you thought you would add in that i had said "capitalists killed my mother" you stupid **** you **** mangling **** headed mother **** i'll kick your **** im tired of your **** why don't you read the **** manifesto and then come back when you actually know what the **** communism is
com·mu·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm)
n.
1 A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
2A A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
2B The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
So you claim communism is 1, and I claim communism is 2A. We're both right.
and man. i only edit my posts right after i've written them for grammar and ****, but i see you've been diting yours like 5 hours after you wrote them when you thought you would add in that i had said "capitalists killed my mother" you stupid **** you **** mangling **** headed mother **** i'll kick your **** im tired of your **** why don't you read the **** manifesto and then come back when you actually know what the **** communism is <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gee, I'm sorry. Is that what you wanted to hear? I'm sorry that communism requires everyone on earth to suddenly want to embrace a common goal. I'm sorry that everyone on earth likes to compete and be better then everyone else. I'm sorry that humans like to have a LEADER. At no time in human history, for a long period of time, has there been a time of stability WITHOUT A FIGUREHEAD OF SOME SORT. Even packs of dogs have an alpha male. Primitive man had a tribal leader. I'm sorry that you, for some reason, CONSISTANTLY, REPEATEDLY, AND INTENTINALLY skirt around every post that says <b>HUMAN NATURE DOES NOT ALLOW EQUALITY</b>. Every time I bring it up, you spew the same rhetoric that China isn't a communist government. Not ONCE in your posts have you said 'Well, you know, we'd have to work that out about the fact that people like OWNING things, and here's how we could do it:' In fact, I can't recall reading anywhere where you acknowledged that that would be a problem. If so, kindly enlighten me, and not with one of your 'Stalin was running a self-elected dictatorship.' posts.
You know, when I got a car, I was proud. Because my friends didn't have one. They looked up to me. I would give them rides. Would I be proud if suddenly I had to provide ALL my friends with cars? Hell no. The fact that I worked to get that car and had something to show for it is something communism would never allow.
I brought that issue up in one of my first posts in this thread. In fact, I hammered on nothing BUT that point. I never accused the communists of murdering millions. I never declare communism a fanatical dictator-run brainwashing machine. I simply stated WHY communism would NEVER work, and I swear, I might as well have yelled at a brick wall. Then hammered my head into it repeatedly.
We have some axioms here:
1) People like competing. The only people that don't are those that... for lack of a better way of putting it, are losers in life.
2) Communism requires that the people sit down, smile, and help each other out until the end of time. Key note: Until the end of time. All things come to an end, and I can't imagine what a collapse of true communism would be like, but I can take a guess: complete chaos. Famine. Death. No one would know how to lead anymore. No one would know how to take charge and tell the people "To straighten ourselves out, we've gotta do this:"
3) Communism has no 'head honcho'. It's run in a sort of democratic state, with the people chosing how to run things as a collective whole.
4) Humans like having a leader.
That's just two reasons why communism WILL NEVER WORK. I've stated that HOW MANY TIMES NOW?
This topic is nothing more then a slightly different twist on Science vs. God. How do you prove god (communism) exists, when there's NOTHING TO BASE THE PROOF ON. How do you argue against god / Communism, when again, you have nothing to base an argument on?
The Manifesto might as well be the bible for all intents and purposes: It lays out in detail a quasi-mythical, magical peaceful society.
<a href='http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...festo/index.htm</a>
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gee what a misconception I had! It states right there that you're not supposed to want for YOURSELF, but for what EVERYONE wants!
(Insert picture of hammering head on wall here)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sorry that humans like to have a LEADER. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i've already stated that, but i'd appreciate it if you wouldn't call it human nature, cuz it's not, it's the very fact that you stated, that we've always had a leader, that is why we will never reach communism. we won't reach it because we are used to having a leader, and do not understand the purpose of working as a whole instead of individuals as communism requires.
now, that being said, let's see if i can address some points you brought up here.
"human nature" as you put it, has only one description, and that is to learn and adapt. every human learns and adapts around its environment, to go further and say that we are, by nature, and unchangingly, greedy, and power hungry animals, would be a lie. i have no real life proof of this, since we've all been trained to exceed the next guy's accomplishments, we've all been taught from birth that we are only better than the people we can out perform, and if we out perform no one we are outcasts from society. marx did consider this problem, which is what socialism is. socialism is a step in the path towards communism. socialism is a government with a leader who teaches and guides the population of the nation/state/globe/whatever towards a communist view. the socialist leader, some may call a dictator, but this has a negative connotation and i hesitate to use it, is less of a leader, and more of a teacher, he/she is in place to teach the masses how to govern themselves without government intervention.
this teaching method faces towards one end result, with the other, less important problems faced by communist governments falling into place after. and you hit it on the nose, let me quote you again.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You know, when I got a car, I was proud. Because my friends didn't have one. They looked up to me. I would give them rides. Would I be proud if suddenly I had to provide ALL my friends with cars? Hell no. The fact that I worked to get that car and had something to show for it is something communism would never allow.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that is the main idea that the socialist state is trying to correct. in a communist government, instead of being proud of personal accomplishment, as you were of your car, an individual is proud of how he helps better the whole. that is the mentality that socialism is meant to instill upon the public(and it is that mentality that will never, and can never be implanted, see my earlier posts for why).
now there is one thing i dont' understand. why is it that the people who argue against communism insist that if we accept communism as an economic and governmental system, we are accepting poverty into our lives. that is not true. i do not understand and i would really love this to be explained to me, communism is all about economic equality, not equality as poverty. poverty is not directly linked to economic equality, at least, i fail to see this link. so would you care to explain that for me?
as for your last statement about god vs science, i disagree. this is not an argument about whether communism exists, we know it doesn't, never has. this is an argument about whether it can exist, what it would be like, how it would occur, and whether that resultant state would be better than the current capitalist regime.
*The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
Political power is absent in a stateless society. So yes, Communists want a state, and want to take part in controlling it.
Somewhat further on though:
*The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
*The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
Again, take over power in a country (or even better, in the whole world)
*The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Centralization
*1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. 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.
Enough said: Communism is centralized redistribution. Marx said so himself <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
Unless you're talking about the so called "perfect socialism" where there isn't even a need for a government because everyone is societally conditioned to automatically provide for equality. That's a far off dream and I'm not going to work toward it because it's unrealistic. But the idea of state-owned industries and 100% redistribution of wealth -- that in no way implies an absence of leadership.
Recap: a stateless society is unrealistic. Without a government directing things, (personal) rights will be violated by other people, and progress will be impossible.
Democracy is a system built on political equality (equal representation in govt), just as Socialism is a system built on economic equality (equal representation in the economy).
uh... I've lost my train of thought. great.
So if I dont exactly follow the manifesto to the very word, maybe that means I'm not totally a communist. But I use the label for ease of use. because, truthfully, there is no group in the world that has more than 1 member - for example, I and I only am the sole member of stephenchennists. (my name is stephen chen you see)
(yes this applies to the topic, think for second)
it is a testament to no one actually knowing what communism is, and just talking ****, that people think that communism is opposed to democracy.
DEMOCRACY MUST EXIST IN COMMUNISM FOR IT TO BE COMMUNISM.
The whole idea of the thread is invalid started by a person who has no idea what communism and foolishly making assumptions.
Winder, if what you say is true then try to phrase your words a bit better, so I don't have to correct you.
In communism it is run by worker councils they decide on what is best, but in America, it is controlled by 3 branches the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. What do you think is more democratic? Numerous councils of your own peers? Or elected politicians?
More true words could not have been spoken..
"Democracy is indispensible to socialism" -V.I. Lenin
Are you an ant, and know that for a fact?