Left vs. Right

The brutto money makes them rich, and that leads to that it will almost be a class-less society.

 

Communism. A nice little theory. After all Marx did take a scientific approach to his research. (sound like the med students being paying too much attention in sociology.) However he ultimately failed to take into account the little equation of human nature. Sure sure if a human ultimatly wants to help out people and he happens to obtain power he may just use it to do that. But what happens when he loses that power? He wants it back! There are people out there who want power. In the end most people don't give a shit about anyother human being. I care for very few myself. The sheer fact that people are dissagreeing with you completly removes the whole point to it all anyway! If it was a communist government there wouldn't be a rich and poor class! I do agree that capitolism is ultimately going to destroy itself eventually. In the case of america anyway, when the gulf between rich and poor stretches to breaking point. But for everyone afterwards to go "hey! lets stop the fussin and the fuedin and all help each other out, and socialism to come suddenly emerge in a puff of joy and fun, is utter bull shit. People will count there losses make a grab for power, and the whole hideous cycle will go on and on. The only way we can all agree on something is if we bring about anarchy like original communists tried to do when they used to blow up tsars! That way everyone can have an opinion because no one is right. Of course the weak one'd band together and the whole idea is screwed so thats ultimately flawed as well. But hey at least we got to smash and destroy a lot of things in the process! Thanks to marx I have to put up with boring lecturers trying to convince me that the left wing politicians brought about the idea of free love. HA! And for you to say that capitalism is right wing or at least the opposite of communism you fucking idiot! Despotism is extreme right winged politics. Capitalism is an economic system! The way you decribe this was Right vs Left with us or against us. Sound like fascist propaganda to me! The two ideas are so similar anyway. I'm a liberal and by that i mean I don't support either side. I would preferably dismantle both. Neither did any good in the french revolution and nothing has changed. Marx and Engles you fools! Don't you realise what you have caused?!

 

Guys, there's no breaking through to this idealist's brain. I have said all I need to say, and I agree with everyone who's said something detracting from communism, because it's true.
Oh, and Bree;

Why not give everyone a flat tax rate of 30%, and make everyone earn the same amount in one month. The way you describe it, there are still social differences, and the rich would definitely be pissed.
How can you have a successful economy when the biggest earners hate you? They could move to another country. What would you do then?

 

I didn't say I hate getting an education. I said it were pointless if I can "get by" with less effort.

Any ideology disregarding the model of supply & demand IS inherently flawed. Communism does this TWICE. Once at its planned economy and once at its "social equality". (Like any communist country ever achieved equal wages...)

 

If Bree can give me one example of a nation where communism didn't turn into totalitarianism (or anarchy, or even capitalism), then I might start thinking about it being a reasonable governmental model. The only benefit to a totalitarian police state is that as a soldier I'd be able to abuse my power without fear of reprisal.





Kidding, of course. I joined the Army because I'm a patriot and a nationalist, and I'm those things because this country isn't a police state. Although I must sadly admit that things like the US PATRIOT ACT (all the letters actually stand for something - the US Government acronym dude does good work) are starting to push our nation in that direction. States rights and better adherence to the Constitution - especially my favorite amendment, of course.

 

I have a question, if communism worked than how come the only 'communist' countries that have existed were headed towards massive economic catastrophy until they became more capitalist in policies?

Also, how exactly WAS the USSR a communist country? How can a country where everyone is a worker, and the workers rule the party, not allow everyone in the country into the party? The USSR was incredibly selective; you had to know someone or be someone to get in. How can a government 'of the people,' as communism essentially claims to be, in similarity to democracy, be oppressive in nature? The only difference between true communism and true democracy is in economic theory, but we have a word for 'democracies' where people are allowed to starve for disobeying the ruler and the people's worst enemy is their own government's secret police: they're called fascist states. The USSR was never a communist nation, it was a fascist dictatorship with succession along lines of party appointment that, merely out of coincidence, happened to be extremely socialist in economic theory.

"I am not a Marxist" - Karl Marx, in response to hearing some of the 'conclusions' people had made about his theories. These 'conclusions' led to the creation of modern communism.

Frigo, all of the above said, you can't mistake misunderstanding communist theory for the theory not working. Suppy and demand AREN'T discounted in communism, they're left up to the state to decide. Just because you can't wrap your head around the idea that something other than capitalism could work, if only in Lala Land, doesn't mean no one else can.

 

"common ownership of the means of production" = central planning, state enterprises = inherent violation of the model of supply & demand

If every single communist leader "misunderstands" communism then there's really no need to distinguish between theory and practice.

 

Not yet. I'll be working with my ROTC unit all summer, then to Fort Benning for Infantry training from October to May (depending on my Ranger School slot), and then on to Germany. Of course, I'll probably be there for a week before I go to Iraq.

They both graduated and are working jobs that don't even need a high school degree. That's what a bachelor's in Liberal Arts (English for me, History for them) does for you. And that's why I joined ROTC.

The 2nd, of course! Evidence of me loving my guns -

And -

I actually just happened to be wearing the dress clothes in the top picture (some formal event, don't remember) and decided to take some glamor shots with the 12-gauge. The other one is obviously an ROTC training exercise.

 

Frigo, I'm sorry, I tend to use "hate" for anything below like, and enjoy doing without being paid for it. For example, I hate keeping things tidy means to me: "I won't clean stuff unless I'm paid to do it or it is really needed because you have a hard time eating stuff you don't hold in your hands". If you don't like getting an education, maybe you shouldn't. I know I would, even if I'd make just as much money as somebody without one.

The only difference between communism and a free market, concerning Supply and Demand is that in a communist country, the people produce what they need, putting the capitalists, who use the people to create things that the people need, out of work.

And about the "show me a successful communist country" "communism has always failed" therefore communism sucks, is missing the fact that the "communists" who failed weren't really communists.

If you go back in time to the beginning of the 19th century and ask people if they think that in 200 years, people will be flying around the world all the time. Some people would probably answer that they thought it was possible, and some would claim it impossible. Maybe somebody'd even state that since every attempt at human flight (except hot air balloons and stuff) has failed so far, so there's no chance it'll ever work.

 

Alright, I get this question a LOT of times, and as always, I use Cuba as an example. Why? Yes, because Fidel, if the don't like him, why don't they carry on a new revolution then?

For an example, Fulgenico Batista lost the guerilla war DUE TO THE REVOLUTION. Now, if the people aren't happy, why don't they just carry out a new revolution then, it is possible after all. Communism really works.

 

Cuban people can barely eat. There's a reason why so many of them come to Miami every year. Taking a raft across the ocean is not exactly safe or comfortable, but apparently it's better than the shit-show in Cuba. The reason why they haven't revolted against Castro is because totalitarian regimes like that are designed to keep revolts from happening. If it was worth the trouble, the US would have stomped Cuba decades ago.

I'm assuming you've never actually lived under a communist regime?

 

No, he hasn't, because as much as he blaims Gorbachov, he actually got food in his stomach. Funny how that would change someone's opinion of old Mother Russia.

Frigo, I didn't include that quote from Marx because I'm just hot for quoting 19th century social philosophers. Why the fuck don't you read it? Here, I'll help:
"I am not a Marxist."

Now, if you breezed through that too quick, you might think that Marx was saying, 'Oh, that's a brilliant idea, I agree with everything you say.' But then you would have missed the word 'not,' which, in English anyway, has this nasty habit of actually reversing the meaning. Imagine that, he actually means the OPPOSITE of what he said. Silly English.

Marx founded the basics which were then expanded into communist theory, so let's start there. A classless society, where the workers control the means of production. It's essentially a commune, and as history would state, the commune system, or it's very similar monastery system, has worked as a method of organizing moderately small groups of people, but eventually turns into a very onerous, overbearing beauracracy at the larger levels.

You want a truer example of communism, let's look at the Catholic Church, although I'll stipulate that this is a somewhat flawed example, since it's a non-governmental organization. But look at priests and nuns, their vows of poverty. They work, Church takes, and then the Church provides them with the basic sustenance left to survive. Marx never explicated this point, mostly because he was positing a socialogical theory and NOT a methodology of government, so many a thing might get lost in translation, but it is an easy step from the 'true' Marxist stance to the more socialist idea that instead of providing everything exactly equally, wealth should first be divided amongst need.

That stated, every social organization needs leadership; and since you stand on the position that even in theory it can't work, allow me to make a working theory so you can shut up as much as I'd make Bree shut up if he continues prattling as defensively as you have been. One of the primary problems with 'communist' states in reality is that they have underproduced to meet the demands of their population. This is, in my opinion, an inefficiency issue due to lack of motivation on the part of the workers, an issue I'll return to, as it IS important. For now, let us hypothesize at least drawing even in terms of revenue.

Basically, the state has produced enough to meet the needs of its citizens, as well as enough to maintain upkeep on its installations. Communism has therefore worked at least in that sense. The people elect, freely and democratically, a process that has only been made a mockery in most real 'communist' states. The leadership, however it is composed, acts as representatives and, in essence, CEOs of the state. Living in a true communist state is somewhat akin to living as a shareholder to a large corporation.

Now, in terms of receiving what you need, you don't get five loaves of bread every day, you get a calculated amount of currency based on necessity and the overall output of the state. Then, you go down to the state run grocer and you buy your bread, milk whatever. AS SUPPLY OF BREAD, NATIONWIDE INCREASES, the price drops. AS THE DEMAND FOR BREAD, NATIONWIDE INCREASES, the price will rise. Since this is an intrinsic part of the state's job, they put qualified personnel in the position of monitoring these phenomenon.

Capitalists work under the assumtion that any control is bad control. I have a rather different approach; half-measures are bad in general. It may also seem paradoxical that I also belive that a balance must be achieved, but there is a slight difference in meaning. You can either find the balance by allowing 'the good' aspects of an economy, as capitalists due, suffering through the bad, and let the balance achieve itself, hopefully. Or you can try the socialist approach, forbid the bad, and hope the good persist despite your efforts. Capitalist studies of restraining the economy often involve cases which are viewed in isolation, but are in fact the farthest from isolation, and then they apply these flawed studies to the whole.

I.E. You can't regulate the airline industry a little bit, then look to decreased profits as a sign that regulation is bad, since, firstly, if the company is forced to make an expense in one area, it invariably has to do so in others, and the quality of service usually suffers, or maintenance, which may or may not be worse, depending on your view of air crashes. Secondly, even if you were to fully regulate the airline industry, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. They still have to pay the same price for oil, rent on terminals, etc, etc, except now they have higher costs.

It is my view that the inherent complexity of the economic system required, in addition to the lack of drive instilled in workers, is what is keeping communism from being feasible.

If I've left something out or you need me to clarify, simply ask, I'll try to do it in fewer words next time.

As to the point of people not wanting to work hard enough to make the nation successful, that is in my opinion the problem. The system is too hard and people don't want to do it. There's a Confucian idea explaining the reasoning for humility, which basically says that we're all put in our lives by choice. You are born a farmer with no chance to grow beyond that, or a rich man with infinite possibilities. Sure, some people manage to change their role, but it is exceedingly difficult, and despite their claims, not possible for everyone.

That said, there are two parallel failings in human kind which I would like to illustrate. Confucious does so to say we should avoid them, I only do so to show why communism usually fails, precisely because people don't avoid them, but instead are quite susceptible to them. The poor feel cheated, as if they deserve more. The rich feel entitled, as if they've somehow 'earned it.' Indeed, in a few cases, that may be true, but that is a stark few cases. For the most part it's the luck of the draw, who inseminated who, and which little fishy was fastest to the draw. The rich, however, or in this case, the leadership, become corrupt and decadent, feeling that they don't have to worry or even care about their subordinates. They suffer from a moral decay. The true workers of this working society, that is, those who don't get the ability to lead instead of follow, suffer from a mental decay. They think they are entitled to more, and so they lose drive and ambition for the work they do. This is why communism fails, because, while it is possible to keep a small group motivated, even to as large a size as a few hundred people, eventually you reach a critical mass where you can't make everyone enjoy their role.

Once people become dissatisfied with how they are placed, the system's flaws show up, and they are serious failings. These flaws, however, are realistic, not theoretical. Marxism was never a governmental theory, and once it is expanded PROPERLY, it isn't that bad. The theory is sound. Life, however, isn't.

 

Oh yeah? My mother is from Poland, so am I. I lived in Poland in the late 80's you know.

 

I'll answer Blinky's points, but right now I have no time; need to learn for french and analysis (and I need sleeping too by the way). I've quoted the points I want to criticize.

In this case, they have the opportunity to leave for another job if they don't get enough (money or whatever). In (applied) communism, the state defends the boundaries to prevent people from escaping the perfect paradise of communism to the evil capitalistic hell.

Oooh, that's a nice definition of planned economy !

You just need to turn blatant self-interest into an advantage.

 

Infantry? Yuck. You should've gone Aviation. All I can say is you'd better get that Ranger tab if you plan on making a career out of this.

Also, try not to be the sterotypical butterbar who tries to call the shots before he knows what the fuck is going on. And never ever undermine your platoon sergeant.

 

Okay. When you were a little kid?