I just wanted another prospective on Communism, and how Communists think.

CP

Hmm, am I one of the two you are referring to?

I said in the fess up thread that I'm a communist. Well, I'm actually a registered Republican. But, I do sympathize with the classical definition of communism.

"fundamentally, a system of social organization in which property (especially real property and the means of production) is held in common"
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0813068.html

I have no sympathy however for the modern definition for revolutionary overthrow of capitalism.

Also being that I'm a member of the Northside Community Church, I naturally have leanings towards communism, albeit in a more spiritual sense.

The way I feel is that if the economy is booming, the US could go to a kind of Communist gov't to ensure it stays that way. What do you think.

CP

Go to a Communist government in order to keep the economy booming? I don't see how that can happen.

Actually, it would be the reverse, all of the Communist countries has an economy that is going down the drain. The only exception is China. But, economically, it cannot be considered Communist. Economically, it is becoming more capitalist than communist, and thus growing richer.

Welcome to the Communist club, Conservpat!

I picked it because there was no choice for anarcho-communo-socio-syndicalist. Darn Mike and Jaime. Darn them to heck!

Actually, Communism is my ideal. I recognize it is not going to be a reality. Spiritually, Communism is for me synonymous with the teachings of the Buddha, and the teachings of good old JC as well. I have no problem with workers controlling the means of production. Or with, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." For that matter, I would support a maximum wage. Yes, you heard me right. Is it gonna happen? Doubt it. In the mean time, I'll vote for all the socialist programs that come down the river! And what were some of the benefits to come out of the Socialist movement? Minimum wage, workplace safety, women's suffrage, unemployment insurance, laws banning child labor. In recent decades, the Market has shown an increased desire to gravitate production to countries who exhibit the least of these laws, because it is profitable to do so. I believe that is criminal. There are better ways to raise the standard of living in these countries than rewarding them for enacting fewer human rights...

No need to get stuck in the capitalist, socialist or communist bag, or any other ideology you can think of. Back in the 18th century the renown English philosopher and student of law Jeremy Bentham came up with his own simple but meaningful standard for good government. That which offers "The greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest period of time."

With that in hand look for models of success to incorporate and failure to avoid. Sound principles and practices are a lot different than hard faith-based ideologies written in stone. The first is richly inductive and open. The second is narrowly deductive and closed. The world becomes a big smorgasboard - you just take what you need from ANY source. No need to get stuck with one menu which may not digest well.

By the way if you want an introduction to communism why not read their bible - The Communist Manifesto. You can find it on the web. It's not very long.

Let me get this straight...so you would legislate to restrict peoples freedoms?

Darcaine

Let me help you get this straight... no. I never said that. Oh wait. Maybe you have the idea that socialism is synonymous with repression. Do some studying is all I can suggest, bro.

Quite simply, communism is theoretically the most egalitarian, efficient , mutually beneficial, and all encompassing system of human organisation yet concieved. I fail to understand how anyone can argue with the basic soundness of the concept or the morality of the ideal. The problem lies in getting it to work properly - but I don't think that is a hopeless cause either.

Unless capitalism starts living up to its ideals, alternative theories will begin to look attractive.

The only problem I have with it is that if I work harder than my co-worker, why should he get payed the same as me?

CP

Someone tell me if I'm wrong,
But if you take away much of the monetary incentive, won't the level of initiative and hard work go down also?
Why would someone work their hind end off to create an invention, or try to make a better life for his/her family, materially speaking, if income were to be redistributed by the government.
Especially if there were a maximum wage?

communism and socialism have failed everytime they have been tried (with possibly the sole exceptin of Cuba) why is this? perhaps it is because of beuracratic governments! these theories cannot work with most previously tried forms of leadership. they have worked, but it has been in more enlightened societies (such as most native american tribes) these idealogies cannot work with rulers that consider themselves seperate from the people. they can only work with systems of leadership that are eqaul to every one.

would initiative and hard work go down without monetary incentive? NO, not at all. their is still incentive to work hard, and contribute to the community: it is called eating, shelter, and the safty the community provides. you want to be lazy and not contribute what you can to the community/society? fine, you will not recieve any benefits that helping the community affords. you will have to fend for your self. this is what the term "from each according to their ability, to each according to his need" means, you contribute what you can to the community, and take what you need in return. we have a basic plan on how to build a near perfect society, but there are some rough spots we need to work on, but we will do so as we come to them. (I am a socio-anarchist BTW)

and please, no "anarchy won't work statements", as these indicate your ignorance (or is it arrogance) truth is, is that no one knows if it will work (not even us, really) or not, it never has really been tried.

OK, you're wrong.

Your question seems to make sense on the surface, but I don't believe it stands up philosophically. First of all, it presupposes that monetary and material gains are the driving forces behind hard work. This may be true for some people, but I do think that most people have a drive to see a job well done, to benefit society, to be good at what they do.

I am not asking this to be snide, or to attack you, but did you join the military in order to get rich? I would think not. My wife, and thousands of other health care providers, choose to work in the field of public health. She could work in a private practice, treating soccer moms and raking in the dough, but she chooses not to. We all want material comfort, but I contend that the force which drives us to do well is not a material force. I contend that the drive to invent is a function of innate creativity, and is not dependent upon material gain.

I say all this because I think many people ask the same question you are asking, but when you really examine that idea, most people find they actually do NOT believe that, not about themselves, certainly. Sure, people dream about striking it rich. When I was young, I dreamed of being a rock star. But that desire was not and is not what drives me to write good songs or play music.

In my life, the hardest working people I have known are by and large low wage workers, working in jobs that offer minimal rewards even in the long term. I'm not saying that rich people don't work hard, many of them do. Why does Bill Gates work hard? He has so much money, he could retire today and still his descendants 500 years from now will be wealthy. He works hard because he believes in what he does, and perhaps also has an innate personality trait which could be called compulsive. I've seen people from all parts of life working hard, both those who don't need to, and those who are not being rewarded for it.

Overall, I would go so far as to say that the very fabric of our society depends upon those to whom material reward is perhaps the least among driving factors: the military, the service industries, the factory workers, the school teachers, the day-care providers.

[steps down from podium. A cricket chirps in the silence of the audience hall...]

Let me share one thought on differentiating between when communism can and cannot work.

The key is voluntary choice. When everybody in a group all voluntarily decide to go communistic, it can work. People won't care if someone else is working harder than yourself. You have chosen out of your own free will to join a commune system, so you probably won't have too much problem with it. However, when people are forced to accept communism, it won't work. You'll be upset that someone else is not working as hard as you, so you'll just not work as hard. And soon, everyone who dislikes the inequality will all go down to the lowest common denominator.

That's why I think communism will never work, no body would agree to a Communst gov't [meaning the majority of the country] capitalism works, there's nothing like it. Different varieties of capitalism may be more effective but nothing can beat it.

CP

Reply to quarkhead,
You are correct, I did not join the military to get rich, nor did anyone else I know. (what fools we would have been ).

Thank you for explaining your POV, you make some good points. I think everyone has a stilted view of communism, because of the Soviet Union. (which I know was not true communism).

I still don't think it would work in our society, you could never purge the kinds of people who are corrupted by power and money. (referring to politburo's of several countries.
I think otseng hit the nail on the head.

communism can work, but not with society as it currently stands. I think it would take a major event, such as a major market crash and depression, to convince people communism would work. the reason is is that people still for the most part believe the false truth of capitalism (that anyone can be rich. capitalism NEEDS a huge gap between the rich and poor to work) I think a major market crash with a severe depression would convince people capitalism can't work (two major economic crashes and depressions within a hundred years ain't a great record) I personally believe that capitalism has a few decent ideas, as does communism. the problem is heirarchies. heirarchies create un-nessecary tension between those on the bottom and those on the top. we need cooperation. sorry for rambling, I haven't slept in 33 hours or so, if this doesn't make sense, that is why.

Everytime communism has been attempted the result is tyranny. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Read Locke, understand that the protection of private property is the reason, along with the protection of life and liberty, that governments exist.

Communism is not simply an unrealizable utopian idea, it is a tyrannical idea that eliminates individual freedom. An idea that does not recognize that all are needs our not the same. That individuals have different leisure/labor curves and different willingness to take risks.

Only someone whose major knowledge of politics and economics comes from "conspiracy theorist" websites could imagine that communism, on a large scale, can work. You want to be a communist? Join a commune. Don't try to drag me along with you.

I predict Stefan posts next.

I think the major flaw with Communism, (not Socialism), is that it is a one-party system. It seems to me that with only one party, you'd find yourself deprived of choice. Without choice, there is no freedom.

Hugo wrote:


Only someone whose major knowledge of politics and economics comes from a solipsistic narcissism could imagine that personal attacks and general intelligence insults constitute actual debate.

Looks like the pot calling the kettle black. The truth is the Communist Manifesto "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" has serious flaws. How do you define needs? Mere physical needs such as food, clothing and shelter? Most slaves are adequately fed, clothed and sheltered. So how do you define needs? How do you determine who determines individual needs? How do you determine someones abilities? How do you insure someone utilizes his abilities? Why should you have the power to enforce anyone to utilize his capabilities? What if I am a mathematical genius who wants to play the fiddle? What if I am an ugly man whose only hope of attracting a woman is to be wealthier than other men?

Communism is not only a bad idea, it is an evil one. It makes man slaves of the state.

Therefore repeal all taxes.

That's exactly right, no checks and balances= a greater chance of tyranny.

CP

and we have checks and balances now? don't kid your self, the two party system is a sham, just compare the speeches of shrubya, and bore. the fact is that all government will enslave their people eventually. capitalism makes you a slave to money, and stalinism to the state.. (the ussr was not a communist country, despite what he history books tell you) communism in has worked, but that last decent example of it was effectivly destroyed. the soviets did not have a communist system, the native americans did. (notice the native americans system lasted and worked for hundred, even thousands of years) I reiterate communism cannot work with a beauricratic government system. this is why I am an anarchist (the word anarchy comes from the new latin anarchia, from old greek anarkhos, an-meaning without, and arkhos-a ruler. note it doesn't mean without a leader)

for more on anarchy: http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/index.html

First of all, a slave to money? What, if we were slaves to money there wouldn't be poor people. Second of all, what communist country has survived more then 20 years without restricting liberties. PLus, calling native American gov't communism is a little bit of a push, these civilizations don't really have economies, there's really no way to judge them.

CP

Plus, how don't we still have checks and balances?

CP

[QUOTE=Conservpat,Feb 8 2003, 11:55 PM] [/URL] [/QUOTE]
First of all, a slave to money? What, if we were slaves to money there wouldn't be poor people. Second of all, what communist country has survived more then 20 years without restricting liberties. PLus, calling native American gov't communism is a little bit of a push, these civilizations don't really have economies, there's really no way to judge them.

CP [/QUOTE]
most poor people are not poor because they choose not to to work but because the must pay more money then ever just to survive. ten years ago 12 dollars an hour was very good pay, now it is barely enough to survive. money is god in capitaistic societies, it is the reason you must work 50 hours a week to survive. money makes you a slave. and the native american societies did have economies. the native american culture was communism in pure form. they were not slaves to material objects. do some studying. they may not have had MARKET economies, but they did have economies. The word economy refers to the way a society produces, uses, and exchanges things of value. “Things of value” includes goods such as food, precious metals, and jewelry. It also includes services, such as help with childcare. Understanding a society’s economy helps us to understand how people in that society lived.
Native American economies were quite different from the economy we know today.

As a general economic term, communism refers to any system in which property is shared by a community or owned in common. Thus the fundamentalist Christians, many Native Americans, and most aboriginals are said to practice a form of primitive communism. Some writers prefer the term communitarianism for this sense. ( http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism )

which Communist countries have survived more then twenty years? have you read history books on the USSR? the USSR was born in 1917 after the bolshevik revolution! they did not collapse for 40 years (stalins USSR and after was not really Communist)

The Constitution of the United States separates the federal government into three distinct branches and provides a system of "checks and balances" that prevent any one branch of government from accumulating excessive power. The Executive branch, by using Executive Orders and emergency interim agency regulations as its tools of choice for combating terrorism, has deliberately chosen methodologies that are largely outside the purview of both the legislature and the judiciary. These Executive Orders and agency regulations violate the U.S. Constitution, the laws of the United States, and international and humanitarian law. As a result, the war on terror is largely being conducted by Executive fiat. also, the judical branch is supposed to overturn laws that violate the constitution, but I cannot get a gun because of many of these laws. and now the patriot act makes you a domestic terrorist for questioning the government, violating my first admendment rights. the supreme court must overturn the patriot act, but does not. but all this really belongs elsewhere, it is off topic.


BURN ME!

Yes, communism can work among a small group of people with common goals. As I stated earlier; join your commune, leave me alone. The attempts to instill communism among modern day states has resulted in tyranny. The example of primitive tribal groups has no bearing on the discussion of communism today.

Well, Hugo my friend, I'm afraid you will not be employed by Miss Cleo anytime soon... Usually a "prediction" comes before the event, not 10 minutes after something has happened...

Back to the topic at hand...

I have to agree with you, hugo, that communism on a grand scale can only lead to one place, due to the excessive powers granted to a very few. No one ideology could hope to ever represent the best interests of all the people.

The idea that the government would choose a career path for me based upon what I'm 'capable of' is a frightening concept, indeed. I may be incredibly gifted when it comes to biology, for example... But I have a weak stomach and cannot do the work. Will the government force me to do it anyway, because I test better in that field than any other?

Sure, it may have worked in ancient society... There really wasn't much of a choice to be had. Basically, you were either a hunter/warrior or a gatherer/weaver, generally based upon gender and little more. Society and economy have become a little more complex since then, so the same idea would be nearly impossible to apply, today.

Common ownership of all things, I think, is a wonderful idea, in theory... The problem with communism is that it doesn't give me any say in how the general "business" is handled, even though I own a share equal to those who make the decisions. I don't suggest that the ideology of communism as a whole is bad, but there are many aspects of it that strip away entirely too much freedom from individuals. I'm all set with the same people who bring us the DMV, deciding everyone's entire life's path based upon "the common good". In my opinion, it just couldn't work today.

communism never works because of coercive, hierarchal rulers, just like capitalism. you don't have the stomach for biology? we would find someone that does that wants to do it. good at farming but hate it? fine we will find someone that is as good at farming and likes doing it. generally though, if you are the best at something you LOVE to do it. if you didn't like doing it how would I get good at it anyway? and actually the tribal groups DO have bearing on communism of tody: why did they work? maybe because they were enlightened. the christianity and the bible teach communism. (that is why you give ten percent, so those that are hungary or what ever can be provided for)to hugo: the problem with the commune thingis this: the united states government fears anything that is a viable option to the current system. say me and 20,000 other anarchists seperated and buikt our own communities. now say this actually worked. now say people started to hear about this system of ideals and this way of living where all basic needs are met without having to work 40-50 hours a week, but only 20. people would start believing in these ideals, and start living the way we live, and this would continue many times. NOW say the government gets wind that people are rejecting capitism and accepting anarchism. they will do everything in their power to destroy the movment. but that is speculation.

I want to know you guys' thoughts on this: if communism is really such a flawed system and can never work, why is it that the US government has felt the need to destroy government that were installed by the people of a paticular country? when the people of chile voted in a communist government, a private company(can't recall the name) offered something like a million dollars for the person responsible for its and america earmarked 10 times what the private company was. why? if communism is so flawed it cannot work, why has the government been so darn intent on destroying any government that is communist?

Because it goes against everything the US and the rest of teh free world belive in.

CP

[quote=unabomber,Feb 9 2003, 12:57 AM] [QUOTE=Conservpat,Feb 8 2003, 11:55 PM] [/URL] [/QUOTE]
First of all, a slave to money? What, if we were slaves to money there wouldn't be poor people. Second of all, what communist country has survived more then 20 years without restricting liberties. PLus, calling native American gov't communism is a little bit of a push, these civilizations don't really have economies, there's really no way to judge them.

CP [/QUOTE]
most poor people are not poor because they choose not to to work but because the must pay more money then ever just to survive. ten years ago 12 dollars an hour was very good pay, now it is barely enough to survive. money is god in capitaistic societies, it is the reason you must work 50 hours a week to survive. money makes you a slave. and the native american societies did have economies. the native american culture was communism in pure form. they were not slaves to material objects. do some studying. they may not have had MARKET economies, but they did have economies. The word economy refers to the way a society produces, uses, and exchanges things of value. “Things of value” includes goods such as food, precious metals, and jewelry. It also includes services, such as help with childcare. Understanding a society’s economy helps us to understand how people in that society lived.
Native American economies were quite different from the economy we know today.

As a general economic term, communism refers to any system in which property is shared by a community or owned in common. Thus the fundamentalist Christians, many Native Americans, and most aboriginals are said to practice a form of primitive communism. Some writers prefer the term communitarianism for this sense. ( http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism )

which Communist countries have survived more then twenty years? have you read history books on the USSR? the USSR was born in 1917 after the bolshevik revolution! they did not collapse for 40 years (stalins USSR and after was not really Communist)

The Constitution of the United States separates the federal government into three distinct branches and provides a system of "checks and balances" that prevent any one branch of government from accumulating excessive power. The Executive branch, by using Executive Orders and emergency interim agency regulations as its tools of choice for combating terrorism, has deliberately chosen methodologies that are largely outside the purview of both the legislature and the judiciary. These Executive Orders and agency regulations violate the U.S. Constitution, the laws of the United States, and international and humanitarian law. As a result, the war on terror is largely being conducted by Executive fiat. also, the judical branch is supposed to overturn laws that violate the constitution, but I cannot get a gun because of many of these laws. and now the patriot act makes you a domestic terrorist for questioning the government, violating my first admendment rights. the supreme court must overturn the patriot act, but does not. but all this really belongs elsewhere, it is off topic.


BURN ME! [/quote]
First of all capitalism isn't the reason why money is important. In any tipe of economy you need money to buy things. And as Hugo said primitaive groups have no bearing.

Embrace me!

CP

Capitalism, seems to be working pretty well. I don't see the US government breaking up communes. Large scale communes have been attempted and, by and large, ended in failure. Certain tight knit groups have moderate success. Isreali kibbutz's are probably the greatest example of commune successes. Despite this only a small percentage of Isreali's CHOOSE kibbutz life. I have no problem with individuals CHOOSING communism. It seems clear you yourself have not CHOSEN to live on a commune. I believe in human liberty, the right of man to PURSUE happiness in whatever manner he chooses. If individuals wish to pool their resources to form a corporation, or to form a commune more power to them.

... for those of us in the West. It's not working too well for the billions living at or below subsitence levels in the Third World, is it?

I don't think communism would work in a large group (like an entire country). First off, I doubt everyone would freely choose to be a communist. Secondly, it would never be able to remain truly communist and eventually heads towards towards totalitarianism.

I think the situation where communism would work is in a small group. And I don't even think theoritically it would be workable in a large group.

Most of those living at subsistence levels are victims of war torn countries (much of Africa), socialist countries (China,India) or feudal societies (Much of the Middle East). Where democracy exists and capitalism is given a relatively free reign there are few living at a subsistance level.

I think what jonbon means are those that work in the factories, making 1.25 a day, (kinda like making 25c a day here) yes it works great if you are at the top of the heap, and you have to basicly start there (most of the top billionaires started with a very decent inhertence) yes it works great if your the leech, but not so great if your the leeched. capitalism is responsible for the state our economy is in (almost all the manufacturing jobs were taken outside US borders) we produce nothing anyone wants, and can no longer continue to so service work (the service economy is a sham anyway)

The big lie of capitalism is the claim that everyone can be rich. This is false. Capitalism only works if there is an induced wealth differential; if the vast majority of the people are kept poor enough to make them work at the millions of menial, dirty, and dangerous jobs that our civilization requires. Taxes are the means to keep the vast majority of the public poor.

communism has not really been ALLOWED to try to survive. a country becomes communist, the US government intervens at the reqeust of coporations, and the CIA backs a coup. such as happened in chile, bolivia, and was attempted on cuba. it has happened EVERYTIME a countrie's people decide to elect a communist government! maybe communism can't work on the national scale. maybe it can, and that is why every communist government has been topled by america (with cuba being the sole exception) BTW, dod you know the cuban people have voted to keep communism as the government of cuba when castro dies? and also they are happy, poor (by our standards) but happy.

I have never heard anyone say this, not even capitalists. I've only heard the claim that capitalism affords one the opportunity to obtain wealth. It's about opportunities not guarantees.

Capitalism rewards those that strive to succeed.

There are those out there who are content with making enough to get by with a few luxuries(ie: tv, stereo). The wealth differential comes from those who do succeed and those who are content with menial jobs.

Capitalism allows for both types of these people to exist in a system together.

In pure Communism those who want to strive to achieve more cannot because they are held back from doing so. Either by capped wages or capped promotion. This in turn will breed mediocrity. Nothing grows from mediocrity, this is why Communism will never lead a country to prosper.

Also, where is all the proof for your outlandish statements..


"Taxes are the means to keep the vast majority of the public poor"

"The CIA was responsible for coups in communistic countries"

Maybe nobody has called you on this because these statements are too puerile to respond to, but I am calling you on them..

Sleeper

(quotes by unabomber)



A major market crash will not make the general populace have some great realization that communism is better than what we currently have.

It has been said that the only sure things in life are death and taxes. Well, under communism, it is pure taxes.

Now, you try to convince the country that the best thing for them to do when they are out of money is to give the government more money, or all of the money, for that matter.



Not that I'm too big on the Bible, but I must've read the non-politicized version back when I was younger. The bible encourages good to your fellow man. It does not, however, encourage communism. Unless I missed the "Government Responsibility" section.

And, what about those folks who just don't feel like working', God bless 'em?



huh? If these are facts, I'd like to see some sources. If they aren't, I repeat: huh?



huh? Do you have any sources for the "large inheritance" billionaires? How about for capitalism being responsible "for the state our economy is in"?



The "vast majority" of American's do not work in menial, dirty, and dangerous jobs. Maybe some facts would be nice.



If my dictator asked me if we should continue the current form of government after he is dead, I'd probably say yes. That is, if I value my own life.



If there is no leader, who makes the decisions?

And we are hardly slaves to the almighty dollar. Slavery by it's very default means hard work with no pay. Well, if you're working for money, you have a zero percent chance of being a slave.

And, weren't the Native Americans all related? I mean, if I'm a member of such-a-such tribe, it's because my family was also members? Of course people supported their families.

Now, if, say Tribe A was out of food, and rival Tribe B across the river had food, would Tribe B give food to Tribe A? Nope. So it wasn't really communism, was it?

And, weren't tribes lead by Chiefs? Aren't they leaders? And isn't it therefore not communism?



Let me "prove my ignorance".

Of course anarchy has been tried. After all, someone at some time wrote the first law. Before that? Anarchy.

Obviously it failed.

Mike

sleeper: the taxes thing is really just an opinion, though the poor are taxed so heavily that they can never get beyond just surviving.

on the cia backed coups: perhaps I should have said US backed coups

(1)- http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa01.html

(2)- http://www.countries.com/messageboard/mess...ssages/688.html

(3)- http://www.stabi.hs-bremerhaven.de/whkmla/...r/uslatam2.html

for more I would suggest searching on google or something for things like:CIA backed coups against communist countries, or communist countries/governments toppled by the CIA.

I thought that knowledge of american intervention in communist countries and training of dictators against communism was a well known fact. I assume you have heard of the schools of the americas (now known by another name) where they train puppet dictators and armies ( http://www.soaw.org/new/ )

and yes sleeper, some people enjoy working menial, dirty or dangorous jobs, (I would like to do janitorial work, heck, I would take ANY job right now!) most do not. most americans buy into the american(and materialistic) dream of two cars and a house.

jamie, perhaps it should say: "The big lie of capitalism is the claim that ANYone can be rich." the reason is simple: in order to become rich you need a substansial amount of capital to begin, which almost no poor person can get. most people can barely make enough to survive. (there is a difference between well of an wealthy, someone making 250,000 a year is well off. bill gates is wealthy.) If I cannot get enough capital together to become wealthy, there is NO opportunity to get rich.

BTW, that qoute is not mine, I got it from mike rivero, webmaster of whatreallyhappened.com

unabomber,


I thought that there were no 'true' communist countries. So would these then be run of the mill dictatorships?

Having worked for a time down the street from School of the America's Now known as WHINSEC, Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, I can vouch for the fact that it teaches human rights courses far beyond anywhere else in the Department of Defense. SOAWatch has been very vocal, and the fact is some graduates have gone back to their home countries and committed atrocities, but torture and murder were NOT part of the curriculum. I have read through the manuals that SOAWatch lists in the defense of their cause, and we did not teach what they claim.

But you are correct that our goal was to destabilize 'communist' governments and wage war on 'communist' insurgents. All part of our foreign policy. Those parties, backed by the Soviet Union were clearly a threat to democracy. It is truly a shame that corrupt rulers turned many countries into the opposite.


edited for grammatical errors

You all can continue with your wild conjectures of what could be. The fact is every attempt to initiate communism on a large scale has ended in tyranny. It is tyrannical to deprive people of private property and to deprive people of the right to choose their careers, the right to choose their own labor vs. leisure ratio, to be free to mark out their own life. Any society that deviates too greatly from Adam Smith's invisible hand suffers a lack of productivity which results in dire poverty.

East Germany vs. West Germany, South Korea vs. North Korea, China vs. Taiwan. Anyone notice a pattern here? Sorry, there was a time 3 or 4 generations ago where Marxist theories were untested, that time is long past.

But surely the fundemental point here is that people do not start with the same opportunities to acquire wealth.

If everyone on the planet was born equal and did indeed begin with exactly similar opportunities in life then i would have far less of a problem with the current Western capitalist model.

But since the child of an American Oil Baron, the child of a British Heroin Addict, and the Child of an Ethiopian famine victim patently do NOT start with the same basic opportunities, I think that argument rings somewhat hollow.

As if Castro's or Stalin's children did not have advantages.

Correct. So what? For some, pre-existing wealth may help but others truly make it from scratch - providing they live in a system that allows them such opportunity.

I would find it a bit insulting were I of a third world nation and reading your post. Perhaps I am understanding you wrong, but you seem to think they aren't able to rise above their poor wages and work conditions and they are somehow "stuck". How would communism solve that?

I am also curious how communists resolve the issues of human greed and lust for power that interfere in all societies. Seriously.

So what are you saying? That poor people don't have much money because they haven't taken the opportunities offered to them? Is that because they are lazy or stupid or what? Are you claiming that all capitalist systems offer equal opportunities? How is capitalism working for the populace of the Shanti Towns of San Paulo, or the beggars on the streets of Calcutta?



Firstly I am in no way either saying or implying that those in the Third World are 'stuck' in poverty. My point is merely that for those living in Third World capitalist countries it is many times more difficult to 'make it' because there is far less opportunity to do so. Are you seriously suggesting that capitalism gives a fair chance to a 9 year old working in a sweat shop. Secondly, I am not advocating communism per se, but rather trying to highlught the inherent problems with the current system of rampant capitalism so that other possibilities are not dismissed out of hand.



That's why, if you look at my post on the Ideal Form of Government Thread, I haven't advoated communism, but rather a form of democratic social capitalism.



And your point is...? That is irrelevant to the points I am making about the basic inequality of capitalism. I never claimed that current or former communist systems did not have their own inequalities.

Then why are you posting in the "Why Communism?" thread in a manner which indicates you support it? I thought I was asking questions of a communist.

Because I think that in many ways communism as a political and socio-economic system has more going for it than capitalism. If I had to choose between them I would pick communism, which is why I am posting in this thread.

However, I do not think that an 'either, or' choice is necessary. I would argue that both systems do have merit and that it is possible to take the best of both to find the fairest and most effective system of government.

That is why I called myself 'Socialist' in the profile, and why my Ideal Form of Government featured a mixed economy rather than a state run one.

And the other reason I am posting in this thread is to defend communism, which I think is too often vilified and demonised by advocates of Western-style capitalism.