Communism

[lgot]

Darth Wong:

I would agree if you didn't have that "utopia" part in there.

Actually, I am confused. I used the word "utopia" as something that is ideal but without possibility to be developed in real world...

Marx was a moron. He believed that the proletariat contributed more to society than the bourgeoisie because in an industrial society, unskilled labour is worth more than brains

I would not go as far to say he was a moron, but soft-hearted that choose the weaker side...You must perhaps remember the conditions of proletary work back his time to understand why someone would take a so radical perspective.
But I agree overall with you, he picked the wrong class. The lower classes never will and never did took the power for real in the history, they are usually used then after the changes they just return to what they are before.
The funny thing about Marx is he is so tied with all communist "revolutions" that he became the image of someone revolutionary. That could not be fair from the truth, Marx himself as someone very gradualist (a trait of intellectuais of his time).

[Illuminatus Primus]

Darth Wong:

I would agree if you didn't have that "utopia" part in there.

Actually, I am confused. I used the word "utopia" as something that is ideal but without possibility to be developed in real world...

Exactly. You are of a perverse mind if you think Communism is the ideal world to live in.

[Queeb Salaron]

THAT'S A MATTER OF OPINION!!

[lgot]

i did not said it was something I THINK is ideal. To those who believe in the utopia (In that sittuation, Marx) It is Ideal.
I am not having a judgment of vallue such it is a good or bad ideal or if I would live to live in such place.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Alright, I'll throw you in a "army of labor" and force you to work, ban any binding relationships you might have with the opposite sex, take your children from you and raise them in state boarding schools, and never permit you to have anything to spread information; the gov't will take care of dessimination of information, good serf.

[Illuminatus Primus]

i did not said it was something I THINK is ideal. To those who believe in the utopia (In that sittuation, Marx) It is Ideal.
I am not having a judgment of vallue such it is a good or bad ideal or if I would live to live in such place.

To a paedophile, a land of sexually willing children w/ no authorities is a utopia. I think the term should be used w/in reason. Thus, communism is no utopia.

[Alex Moon]

No, they're not. But according to Lenin, Socialism is a necessary step in the transition to Communism.

Hell, according to MARX, Socialism was a necessary step towards communism.

But as for Socialism working, aside from France, a good bit of Europe has implemented social programs reminiscent of Marx's ideas for Socialism. For example, in Norway, expecting mothers get something like 12 weeks maternity leave, and they don't pay a cent for medical procedures of any kind (childbirth included). When the child grows up, he goes to primary, secondary and post-secondary school free of charge. Public transit is free. Yes, they pay slightly higher taxes, but not so much that it's unbearable.

IIRC, most of the Netherlands is like this, and some other parts of Europe as well. And I can't remember the last time I saw the Netherlands in a drastic political or economic crisis.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finan ... sts_en.htm

The euro area and EU economy ended 2002 on a very weak note due to global uncertainties and persistent structural rigidities that reduce our capacity to react to shocks. Continued sluggishness is expected to prevail in the first half of this year. Assuming that geo-political tensions abate before the summer, the return of confidence and lower oil prices would trigger a moderate recovery in the second half of 2003. It is unlikely to be a vigorous rebound as the rise in unemployment weighs on consumption, the protracted fall in stock markets affects corporate balance sheets and oil prices continue to put pressure on inflation. Consequently, for a third consecutive year growth is likely to disappoint: the average growth rate is expected to be a meagre 1 % in 2003 in the euro area (1.3 % in the EU). A more solid average growth rate of 2.3-2.4% is projected in the euro area and EU next year, when employment creation resumes, investment picks up and the international environment is more supportive. However, given the high level of uncertainty, a further delay in the acceleration of growth cannot be excluded.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2928679.stm

Unemployment remains a huge problem, the EC's estimate being that the 2002-4 period will see a total of 1.4 million more Europeans out of work.

Even without an extended war, recovery will be weak, it said, citing weak balance sheets at corporations and the recent slide in consumer confidence, till now the motor of the world economy.

"With equity prices falling about 60% from the peak levels in Spring 2000, the speed and size of the stock market correction are comparable to the 1929 crash," the EC wrote.

[Queeb Salaron]

Marx is the master of using the kinds of logic that seem cool on the outside, but are essentially flawed. (If A is true, then B is true, too.) In fact, and I was considering this when I was on the shitter this afternoon, I think he falls victim to the slippery slope fallacy when he talks about money being nothing but the representation of labor. Granted, I think he's RIGHT, but he may still have submitted to the slippery slope fallacy. I'll check my copy of the Manifesto and get back to ya on that.

[lgot]

To a paedophile, a land of sexually willing children w/ no authorities is a utopia. I think the term should be used w/in reason. Thus, communism is no utopia.

doh ??? It was used with a reason. Utopia is something extremelly personal, yes.
To Marx, the communism was a ideal to achive, something good in his opinion. But It was not realistic. It is utopic.
My Utopia will never be like yours and it is not because that It is without reason to call it Utopia.

[Queeb Salaron]

Alex:
This is all very true. But the Netherlands have been using socialist programs for years, and this is probably the first we've heard of economic turmoil in that region in quite some time. The introduction of the Euro was a bit harsh on the economies, but it was supposed to have long-term benefits, so it was negligible. And then the war set in, and economies all over the world took a bit of a tumble, IIRC. I'd still rather have free heathcare than pay HMOs to process paperwork. I'd pay higher taxes for that.

EDIT: Bedtime. Night all.

[Kuroneko]

This distinction between the application of communism and ideal of communism is simply ridiculous. A solution is measured on its overall usefulness, not by ignoring the need for implementation. If, as an engineer, I draw a design which is impossible to build, would I be able to say that it's an ideal design except for that minor flaw? Of course not! I would be fired because I drew a fucking design that's impossible to build! Get it?

Any attempted implementation of such a design is surely seperable from the the design itself, otherwise we would have to conclude that the design itself does not exist unless someone actually tries to build it, which is absurd. It exists, because you drew it; the impossibility of its implementation shows a lack of realism on your part, not the non-existance of the design itself. Separating the theoretical design from attempts at implementation is necessary to realize that it is impossible in the first place! It's precisely the same with the 'ideal' of communism: an impossible design exists, and is quite different the various futile attempts of application.

[Marx] believed that the proletariat contributed more to society than the bourgeoisie because in an industrial society, unskilled labour is worth more than brains (hence his belief that the proletariat should rightfully run society). This was his first mistake, because it is manifestly untrue, and has always been manifestly untrue...

Where does Marx even attempt to quantify the value of skilled vs. unskilled labor? For that matter, where does he comment on how this issue should be handled in a communist state? I think you're attributing Leninist ideas of communism to Marx, which is simply erroneous.

He also believed that valuation should not be based on supply and demand, which is a bit like saying that ballistics should not be based on gravity.

You're missing Marx's point. The key difference is that all of the profit is passed to the workers of the factory, not the bourgeoisie owner of the factory.

He believed that it is impossible to find personal satisfaction in making product as a "cog in the machine" instead of making it as an individual craftsman, which is his third mistake. From personal experience, I can say that this is absolutely untrue; working men and women often take great pride in their combined teamwork. His claims were hypocritical to the point of being perverse; he ranted at length about the mindset and beliefs and desires of the proletariat, ...

Assume you're a prole during that time; your family is working about sixty hours a week (including children in many families) and you're still barely making the ends meet, have zero benefits and no job security, how much pride in your work are you going to actually have? Now suppose an intellectual comes in, researches the economic situation that you and a large fraction of the population live in, are you still going to insist that he has no basis for concluding that you'd like to be able to actually provide for your family, for your children not to have to work when they're still children, and not have to worry about getting fired because there's someone even more desperate than you are and willing to work for even less?

[Marx] never worked a day in his life and had no real idea whatsoever of how the real proletariat actually lived...

Absolute falsehood. Not only was his economic situation comparable to the average prole, but he researched actual wages and subsistence levels in great detail.

In short, Marx was an eloquent idiot.

Is Aristotle a moron because his physics is crap? I contend that he was much more intelligent than most of the people living today. Applying such an absolutist measure means that everyone is a moron because in the future there will undoubtedly be some common knowledge completely unknown to us that's regarded as obvious. But are we really morons for drawing conclusions from the data we have, and failing to magically conjure up the data that's going to be commonly available in the future? While Marx was far from genius, I think you should evaluate his intelligence from the historical context his works have been written in. It's only "obviously bullshit" in the hindsight that the 20th century provides us with.

[Peregrin Toker]

The social welfare programs in Europe are not really socialism, it's more akin to elements of socialist ideas. A socialist society is, according to Communists, one where classes are gradually being abolished... by any means necessary. In order to prevent capitalism from taking foothold again, dictatorship is actually necessary in order to make the step from socialism to communism, which is an utopic stage where the state doesn't exist and everyone is equal.

It is needless to say that no collectivist nation ever has progressed beyond socialism.

[Darth Servo]

You're missing Marx's point. The key difference is that all of the profit is passed to the workers of the factory, not the bourgeoisie owner of the factory.

Which results in having no one to own/run the factory since there's no profit in it. Are the proles going to finance the factory all by themselves through collective effort? Oh, thats right, the government does all that from their monopoly over all production and we all know how well monopolies run.

Assume you're a prole during that time; your family is working about sixty hours a week (including children in many families) and you're still barely making the ends meet, have zero benefits and no job security, how much pride in your work are you going to actually have? Now suppose an intellectual comes in, researches the economic situation that you and a large fraction of the population live in, are you still going to insist that he has no basis for concluding that you'd like to be able to actually provide for your family, for your children not to have to work when they're still children, and not have to worry about getting fired because there's someone even more desperate than you are and willing to work for even less?

1) If you don't need to worry about being fired, you are going to produce crappy work.

2) Children still worked under Marx's ideas.

3) Under Marx's ideals, you don't HAVE a family. He called for a free love society with state raised children.

Is Aristotle a moron because his physics is crap? I contend that he was much more intelligent than most of the people living today. Applying such an absolutist measure means that everyone is a moron because in the future there will undoubtedly be some common knowledge completely unknown to us that's regarded as obvious. But are we really morons for drawing conclusions from the data we have, and failing to magically conjure up the data that's going to be commonly available in the future? While Marx was far from genius, I think you should evaluate his intelligence from the historical context his works have been written in. It's only "obviously bullshit" in the hindsight that the 20th century provides us with.

Except for the fact that many of Marx's contemporaries could point out the enormous flaws in his ideas.

[jegs2]

One fatal human element will prevent communism from ever succeeding: GREED.

Those in power desire one thing: More power.

[Tom_Aurum]

Wow. Drop a post with the word "communism" and twenty four hours later I have two pages worth of albeit simmering, flamewar.

Anyways. Let's try to step away from Marx please (who post-dates the Paris Commune incident by decades anyways,) and step into application.

How are these relatively socialist european nations doing anyhow? Really? And how were those news bulletins linked to European Socialist nations? Don't expect me to look at a link and be able to make the evidently weak connection without further explanation. Also, anyone actually examined the living conditions in "socialist" parts of europe and or scandanavia?

So, Marx thought that it needed a dictatorship. How cute. I'm not talking about Marxism here. I'm talking about Communism.

There are hippies out in northern california that apply communism on a limited basis too. Successfully. Actually, my own personal theory on communism (or socialism) is that it would best work with something similar to Athenian democracy, or even more in depth town-hall like participation. The more participation a person has in a government, the less they're likely to be slighted by it anyways, and the more likely they are to get help from it when they're in trouble.

And socialism isn't communism. However it is a concept that is hybridizing communist elements into a normal society.

One last thing before I set this discussion to roll on for a few more pages: Definitions.

communism

\Com"mu*nism\, n. [F. communisme, fr. commun common.] A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.

Note: At different times, and in different countries, various schemes pertaining to socialism in government and the conditions of domestic life, as well as in the distribution of wealth, have been called communism.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


communism

n 1: a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership 2: a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society

Note that the original definition is from a French root.

[Joe]

GOD, I hate how people attribute communism's failure to "greed," as if that's a bad thing. How about wanting to secure a good life for yourself and your family that can't be confiscated by the state in the name of the people? Is that "greed?"

[jegs2]

GOD, I hate how people attribute communism's failure to "greed," as if that's a bad thing. How about wanting to secure a good life for yourself and your family that can't be confiscated by the state in the name of the people? Is that "greed?"

Greed: An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth: “Many... attach to competition the stigma of selfish greed” (Henry Fawcett). (Dictionary.com)
Look at anyone who attains power over a nation, or look at any group of people who attain power over a nation. Watch greed in action.

[neoolong]

The way I see it, there is a difference between economic self interest and greed.

[jegs2]

The way I see it, there is a difference between economic self interest and greed.

Certainly. But in a pure system of Communism, all wealth is to be distributed evenly, regardless of who produces that wealth. Who will ensure that wealth is evenly redistributed? Who will ensure that that individual or group of individuals is distributing the wealth in accordance with doctrine? Who will ensure that those entrusted with redistribution of wealth do not abuse their positions of power in order to gain more wealth or power for themselves? Who will ensure that backwater deals are not being cut to distribute wealth unfairly to those who are friends, family, influential, etc.? In short, who will short-circuit the natural tendency toward greed?

[neoolong]

The way I see it, there is a difference between economic self interest and greed.

Certainly. But in a pure system of Communism, all wealth is to be distributed evenly, regardless of who produces that wealth. Who will ensure that wealth is evenly redistributed? Who will ensure that that individual or group of individuals is distributing the wealth in accordance with doctrine? Who will ensure that those entrusted with redistribution of wealth do not abuse their positions of power in order to gain more wealth or power for themselves? Who will ensure that backwater deals are not being cut to distribute wealth unfairly to those who are friends, family, influential, etc.? In short, who will short-circuit the natural tendency toward greed?

Well yeah. I was just pointing out that greed is different from economic self-interest, and while greed is bad, economic self-interest isn't.

[theski]

"Greed is Good" Gorden Gecko sorry it need to be said..

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Wow. Drop a post with the word "communism" and twenty four hours later I have two pages worth of albeit simmering, flamewar.

Anyways. Let's try to step away from Marx please (who post-dates the Paris Commune incident by decades anyways,) and step into application.

How are these relatively socialist european nations doing anyhow? Really? And how were those news bulletins linked to European Socialist nations? Don't expect me to look at a link and be able to make the evidently weak connection without further explanation. Also, anyone actually examined the living conditions in "socialist" parts of europe and or scandanavia?

So, Marx thought that it needed a dictatorship. How cute. I'm not talking about Marxism here. I'm talking about Communism.

There are hippies out in northern california that apply communism on a limited basis too. Successfully. Actually, my own personal theory on communism (or socialism) is that it would best work with something similar to Athenian democracy, or even more in depth town-hall like participation. The more participation a person has in a government, the less they're likely to be slighted by it anyways, and the more likely they are to get help from it when they're in trouble.

And socialism isn't communism. However it is a concept that is hybridizing communist elements into a normal society.

One last thing before I set this discussion to roll on for a few more pages: Definitions.

communism

\Com"mu*nism\, n. [F. communisme, fr. commun common.] A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.

Note: At different times, and in different countries, various schemes pertaining to socialism in government and the conditions of domestic life, as well as in the distribution of wealth, have been called communism.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


communism

n 1: a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership 2: a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society

Note that the original definition is from a French root.

And once again I remind you, Tom, that the only examples of successful Communism you've provided have existed for short durations within larger capitalist societies. Communism is an inherently parasitic form of government, and once it has utterly consumed its own resource base, it dies.

[Kuroneko]

Which results in having no one to own/run the factory since there's no profit in it.

Profit by the proles, hence they keep it running.

Are the proles going to finance the factory all by themselves through collective effort?

In a word: yes.

Oh, thats right, the government does all that from their monopoly over all production and we all know how well monopolies run.

The proles ARE the government.

And yes, I know precisely just how unrealistic the above is. It only applies to how communism was 'advertised', not how it was in reality.

1) If you don't need to worry about being fired, you are going to produce crappy work.

Only true if there are no penalties for refusing to produce the work that you're able. This need not be the case.

2) Children still worked under Marx's ideas.

True. I concede this.

3) Under Marx's ideals, you don't HAVE a family. He called for a free love society with state raised children.

When and only when the society evolves beyond the need, thus inapplicable to this scenario.

Except for the fact that many of Marx's contemporaries could point out the enormous flaws in his ideas.

A refutation of Marx during that time that's of any worth? If there really is, accept my concessions, but meanwhile please point to whom and where. But please, ones of Marx's work specifically, and not the various 'elaborations' that others have made.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

And yes, I know precisely just how unrealistic the above is. It only applies to how communism was 'advertised', not how it was in reality.

True. In reality, it was worse.

[Kuroneko]

True. In reality, it was worse.

Oh, yes.