385 replies to this topic

[Ash]

Russia and China are the only real succeeding methods of communism, as all other communist states were based on them. I have no doubt that if Trotsky had taken power when Lenin died things would have been far better.

You're tripping yourself up there, mate. Russia and China are not, and have never been, Communism, despite their intent. Russia went astray from the word go and ended up with the infinitely powerful dictatorship in power, leaving everyone else impoverished and powerless. It was a police state, not a communist one. The powerful stayed powerful and rich, the poor lived basically as feudal serfs on the lands of the lords (who are simply renamed 'Bolshevik Party Members'). Nothing changed, except people got poorer.

On the topic of China, I'm agreeing 100% with Spencer. They're capitalist, despite what their state nomenclature and the government and the flag will tell you. They might work 28 hours a day, 9 days a week for a penny a year, but there are still fat-cats at the top.

Edited by Comrade Jerkov, 03 January 2006 - 01:46 PM.

[Comrade Kal]

Well of course no communist state has ever existed, I meant the only examples of a communist state in the eyes of the people who created it. You can't claim all the other's as communist because they've all had support from Russia or China. Cuba distanced itself from the two but was never really communist, it's moderate socialism.

[Hostile]

Well the USA even had a fear of socialism, like Nicaragua, which was a poor country. Then the Sandinistas took control, and they had great healthcare and education. Then America invaded for absolutely no reason and today, they're the 2nd poorest country in the western hemisphere.

Communism and Stalinism are totally different, because the path to communism means you need to be more liberal, whereas Stalin was the opposite. Communism is much better than capitalism because it abolishes currency, the main obstacle in the way of creating a free and equal society. It prevents people from being oppressed and forced to work for far longer than necessary for the benefit of people above them who do less work.

I'm amazed this piece of working flew right over everyones head with no response. So how does a society conduct itself with no currency? Will I get a rice voucher? And if I do what makes that any differant than currency? What if I don't like your rice or want to buy rice in another country, my voucher won't do anything.

Currency is a medium of exchange. This is common knowledge and impossible to elminate without waking up in the bronze age. How can everyone be expected to work the same for the same pay. Do you expect your leader of state to work 10 hours in the field?

Can't run a country that way...

[Comrade Kal]

That's your trouble, Hostile, you expect something for something. There's no currency. Let me put it simply, into terms of someone who can't sotp thinking about money. Basically, nobody gets paid. But everything is free.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." You put in what you can depending on your job, and you take out what you need.

[Hostile]

That's your trouble, Hostile, you expect something for something. There's no currency. Let me put it simply, into terms of someone who can't sotp thinking about money. Basically, nobody gets paid. But everything is free.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." You put in what you can depending on your job, and you take out what you need.

But who would define the rules of this without human nature causing it to be biased for those who make the rules?

If everything is for free, than what about those who produce less in thier work due to less proficient work ability.

And how does one get rewarded for doing more work than what is expected of them? Going back to the bold words in your post, than this has to be done with currency, or some form resembling it.

If I work two more hours do I get another bag of rice? But what if I do more in two hours than another person. Will my bag of rice be the same size?

And how many bags of rice do I have to pay for broadband internet access? All these questions are answered through currency, a standardized medium of exchange. Not to be horded but to be exchanged for services and goods.

Or used to buy assets that produce positive cash flow. Positive cash flow of what? Simply more coming in than going out. So we can buy bigger houses to accommidate the larger families as our life moves on.

I can't be expected to live in the same size house as I used to if I have more babies, I also can't be rewarded more living space based on me having more babies. What If me and my wife can't have babies, than we are forced into smaller accommidations despite our ability to reproduce? I just don't see how it could work.

There has to be some medium of exchange...

[Comrade Kal]

But who would define the rules of this without human nature causing it to be biased for those who make the rules?

Because those who make the rules don't say "and an extra load of food for me." It's that simple, you have people who set the rules who aren't greedy. And nobody is in power so you can't exploit it that way.

If everything is for free, than what about those who produce less in thier work due to less proficient work ability.

Everybody gets the same amount. Well, people take out what they need. The clue is in the last bit - TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEED. Whereas now it's to each according to their ability. What you put in doesn't affect what you can take out. Everybody takes out according to their needs.

And how does one get rewarded for doing more work than what is expected of them? Going back to the bold words in your post, than this has to be done with currency, or some form resembling it.

STOP THINKING YOU 'GET' SOMETHING 'FOR' SOMETHING. That's rubbish. You put in what you can, take out what you need. Nobody gets 'rewarded'.

If I work two more hours do I get another bag of rice? But what if I do more in two hours than another person. Will my bag of rice be the same size?

No! Stop being greedy! You take out what you need, you don't get it on quota.

And how many bags of rice do I have to pay for broadband internet access? All these questions are answered through currency, a standardized medium of exchange. Not to be horded but to be exchanged for services and goods.

YOU. DON'T. PAY. ANYTHING. If you want broadband access, you take broadband access. If you can provide broadband access, you work providing that.

Or used to buy assets that produce positive cash flow. Positive cash flow of what? Simply more coming in than going out. So we can buy bigger houses to accommidate the larger families as our life moves on.

There's no cash flow. You take out what you need.

I can't be expected to live in the same size house as I used to if I have more babies, I also can't be rewarded more living space based oin me having more babies. Whay I f me and my wife can't have babies, than we are forced into smaller accommidations despite our ability to reproduceI just don't see how it could work.

If you want a bigger house, that's a need, so you get a bigger house. That particular principle is the same under socialism, let alone communism. State housing - if you've got children, you get a bigger house. In communism it wouldn't really be regulated but you'd take a big house if you had children.

There has to be some medium of exchange...

Only if you keep believing there has to be.

Edited by Kal, 03 January 2006 - 11:48 PM.

[Hostile]

What if I can't have childern, does that mean my living space will be smaller, and what stops people from simply having more children to gain more space.

[Comrade Kal]

Nothing stops people doing that in any system with welfare benefits. It's a minor issue with communism.

You take what you NEED. You're assuming there are people telling you what you can and can't have. There are 2 ways of stopping communism falling into anarchy (the bad anarchy, there not being enough food and things.)
One, you enforce rations on people, tell them what they can and can't have.
Two, you introduce it very slowly over a long period of time so people gently become indoctrinated to it.

Personally i'm an advocate of two but i'd use one in an emergency.

[Hostile]

Nothing stops people doing that in any system with welfare benefits. It's a minor issue with communism.

You take what you NEED. You're assuming there are people telling you what you can and can't have. There are 2 ways of stopping communism falling into anarchy (the bad anarchy, there not being enough food and things.)
One, you enforce rations on people, tell them what they can and can't have.
Two, you introduce it very slowly over a long period of time so people gently become indoctrinated to it.

Personally i'm an advocate of two but i'd use one in an emergency.

But I don't want to be told how much food I can buy. :( or told how much space I can live in. Maybe I don't want to be told how to live my life. Maybe I want it measured based on what my capabilites are and what i can produce.

Sorry, but your system is scarey. It forces me to live a way I don't want to...
Like a robot. All equal when I know that all are not equal because each has thier own strengths and weakneses.

[Blodo]

But Hostile we are equal. You are not special, and neither am I. That makes us equal. The strengths and weaknesses are there to allow a wide variety of workers instead of everyone doing the same thing. The fact that you can do something that I can't doesn't make you special, because most probably there are other people who can do the same as well. Just like there are other people who can do other things better than you. You should all be thinking how your abilities can compliment the community. That's the way of thinking that will make real communism possible, people just need to look out of today's capitalist doctrine and see that in fact it can be replaced.

Oh and i'll just throw in a quickie about Trotsky: I studied history about him, fact is if he would've been the premier of the Soviet Union, the country would be much better off but how would it survive the war without the police state dictatorship? It is widely known that only thanks to Stalin and his quick decisions, his methods of propaganda and the widespread work of entire ranks of commisars that Russia survived and won the war. So basically everyone should be grateful to Stalin for allowing Soviet Russia to take the bulk of the nazi army on themselves. If Russia was to fall, every european would be speaking german for the next 100 years.

Trotsky's policy would be great during peace-time though.

[Hostile]

While not special, definately some are more qualified or equal than others. Should MM get more rice based on his job. Of course.

Blodo, you and I are not equal, as there are many things you can do that I cannot. Yet there are things I have done that you cannot.

In order to make all things equal there must be a medium of exchange. IMO. We can choose to not agree. That is fine also. I can except that.

[Comrade Kal]

But I don't want to be told how much food I can buy. :( or told how much space I can live in.

Capitalism is far more oppressive than communism when it comes to things like that. Haven't got the money? You can't do it. In communism, all you need to get something is to need it. And if you don't need it - why would you want it?

[Hostile]

I'm not ready to say how much one form is more efficient than the other. I am also open to understasnding your passionate idealogy for the idea. While I see the heart felt warm of all being equal, I do see the reality that not are all created equal.

I see alot of stupid people, do just thier job and go home. While I see those who choose to work harder/smarter achieving more.

I sort of find it dangerous thought to think that we should all live in a hive based society. While my method may not be the best. Surely a mixture of the two AT LEAST should be reasonable.

I'm still more than spectator on socilalist ideas despite the humanity of the orginal thoughts. I don't trust it for some reason....seems there is a lack of conrol mechanisms on socialism.

Where does one draw the line on who's in control? In an equal society, who exactly makes these decisions for us? These equal decisions. And who decides who these people are? Are they democraticlly elected?

[Comrade Kal]

Equality and individuality are different things, Hostile.

How they are elected isn't important. Personally, i'm not a fan of democracy. It's a means of preserving the status quo. Compared to other times, the age of democracy has been very slow in terms of progress, politically and socially speaking. Two parties change hands all the time, undoing the others work. It's a stalemate. Having said that, it's just about better than a one-party state. All i'm saying is, there's such a thing as a compassionate dictatorship. I'd prefer a more progressive system, more like a one-party state where people vote on party policy, but that's a whole other issue.

Edited by Kal, 04 January 2006 - 01:32 AM.

[MSpencer]

The age old argument against from each according to his need is one of great simplicity. What is the motivation and drive for a man or woman to become a doctor, if they are going to make as much as a store clerk?

[Hostile]

Having said that, it's just about better than a one-party state. All i'm saying is, there's such a thing as a compassionate dictatorship. I'd prefer a more progressive system, more like a one-party state where people vote on party policy, but that's a whole other issue.

:( Not sure what else to say. I'll let your words speak for themselves vs. mine and we'll see who follows the same thoughts....

[Comrade Kal]

The motivation is in doing good for the community. In Britain, plumbers earn about twice as much as doctors. We have doctors. A small shortage, I grant you, but enough to keep 60 million people in free healthcare.

And Hostile, I meant that not all dictatorships are immediately bad. Democracy is just about better, I said that, but a one-party state where the people are the party would work. But that's only for achieving communism. None of that matters when you actually have a communist state.

Edited by Kal, 04 January 2006 - 01:42 AM.

[MSpencer]

The people want representation. That has been seen by countless revolts, protests, petitions, and wars. The French Revolution, the American Revolution, Tiananmen, The July 20th Plot, the Roman Revolt of the 400s BC, the Russian Revolution, the creation of the Weimar Republic, the Syracusan revolts, all were somewhat in the name of representation. The people want to be heard, and not everyone wants communism. What do you do with those people who don't want to be paid as much as a manual laborer if they completed ten years of college? Shoot them? Deport them? The great Soviet crisis ensues, for Russia is not full of idiots, they just shot all the academics during and immediately after the revolution.
You speak of social and economic unity, yet you talk with a forked tongue much like Stalin and Lenin. You don't have an idea of how to accomplish such a feat which has plagued countries since the 1800s, and you don't speak of how people would be converted to your views. You can't force someone to be a communist, but you can force someone to be a capitalist. Communism requires committment to a society, and frankly, I'm not committed to my country enough to work for the equivalent of $5/hour if I have a PhD and years of experience while the guy who takes my trash makes the same amount. What if I resist? Just get the Red Army to shoot me, eh?

And also, it doesn't matter how many doctors you have, if you're paying doctors as much as manual laborers, nobody will have the motivation to go into med school or undertake years and years of study for a doctorate in another field. That's just how it is. People don't become doctors because they feel like it. The pay is a big part of it.

Edited by MSpencer, 04 January 2006 - 01:55 AM.

[Comrade Kal]

Fuck off and stop putting words into my mouth.

I DID NOT SAY THE PEOPLE WOULDN'T HAVE REPRESENTATION. I said it would be a one-party state BUT the party would be controlled by the people. The Soviet system worked well, IF you used it for decentralisation rather than keeping the feudal system like the USSR did. I also said democracy was better than totalitarianism.

I stated there are 2 ways of making sure the thign doesn't go arse-up earlier, you have rations or you do it slowly and gradually.

And define 'resist'. You'd have to do it with a majority, obviously.

If people dont' want to study for 10 years and get the same as a manual labourer then they're not going to study for 10 years! But a lot of - enough - people will to keep the system going. I've already proved that with a modern-day example, and it's not an isolated case.

If you already HAVE studied for 10 years and are annoyed at getting the same wage as a manual labourer - tough.

You could have a PhD in animal psychology and you could be an unskilled labourer working in, I don't know, the shipping industry. One didn't study, one did, one's a fuck of a lot more important.

Edited by Kal, 04 January 2006 - 01:59 AM.

[MSpencer]

But under your system, there are no provisions for the man who did study. True communism only applies to the working class, true communism can only work when all are of the same grade, rank, and status.