Communists.

irish_bob

turgon wrote: »

Thats news to me

man decides what god thinks and wants and it usually coincides with his own views , be it political or otherwise

p.s , i myself am agnositc

turgon

Oh right what you said went right over my head, I thought you had just misquoted the bible.

Good point.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Serenity Now!

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Someone has to be accountable and regulate however. This is where the failure has been with so-called 'free market economies' (an oxymoron given the amount of cartels and 'mini'-opolies that are prevalent). The thing is that some people mix up this government regulation (failed or not) and even part-ownership with 'socialist' economies and 'socialist' infrastructure.

Serenity Now!

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Highly debatable and unproven figure given the amount of 'sykemeldt' in the job market, for example amongst other silly additions such as housewives or people in transit between employment.
I know the list you're referring to about the disposable income drop by the way. It refers to one city (Stockholm). Not the entire country.

silverharp

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Someone has to be accountable and regulate however. This is where the failure has been with so-called 'free market economies' (an oxymoron given the amount of cartels and 'mini'-opolies that are prevalent). The thing is that some people mix up this government regulation (failed or not) and even part-ownership with 'socialist' economies and 'socialist' infrastructure.

The regulation tends to lead to the opolies you are talking about. Companies like Tesco and wallmart love regulation because they strangle small business.
In the US the Big banks and firms like Goldman Sachs have far too much influence with the Fed and the US gov.
Now you have the US and the Auto workers running GM . lol

asdasd

The problem with these threads is they become shouting matches between libertarians and communists. And a plague on both houses. Modern capitalism needs government regulation, and society needs government. In fact we can achieve "from each according to his needs" within the capitalist social democratic framework - whether libertarians like it or not.

That still makes Marxism an incredibly stupid theory since it gives no room for markets whatsoever. Marxists cant reform economically, or they become non-Marxist. Marxists have added to the theory since the 19th century - they would have had to given the intellectual paucity of Marx himself - but their additions are always mechanisms for explaining why the proletariat has not yet revolted, generally revolving around "hegemonic theories" of bourgeois control of "mass media" ( self-discredited since the hegemonic theorists published their books in the bourgeois system - along with all the other ideologies that free societies produce).

Increasingly complex theories were needed, and the obvious one - Marxist societies suck ( in theory or practice) could never be allowed.

I will post on the absurdities of Marxist Theory later in this thread ( I intended to do that sometime anyway). I have read quite a bit of Marx. In fact when I first read Marx I was prepared to be sympathetic.

It is all incredible pap.

Serenity Now!

silverharp wrote: »

The regulation tends to lead to the opolies you are talking about. Companies like Tesco and wallmart love regulation because they strangle small business.
In the US the Big banks and firms like Goldman Sachs have far too much influence with the Fed and the US gov.
Now you have the US and the Auto workers running GM . lol

On the contrary, the regulatory bodies turn a blind eye and are bent around what the corporations require. This is where govts fail in regulation for the reason of protectionism of industry and infrastructure, a trait that alleged Socialists want. A double hypocrisy. No such thing as a truly Free Market economy as well as there being no such thing as a truly Socialist state especially given the examples people in this thread are giving.

asdasd

A double hypocrisy. No such thing as a truly Free Market economy as well as there being no such thing as a truly Socialist state especially given the examples people in this thread are giving.

True. But Marxists call any Free Market economy capitalist no matter how regulated and is something that needs to be overthrown, but to the contrary a Marxist economy cannot have free enterprise or whats the point of the theory.

No one realistically sees China as communist anymore. It isn't.

In debating with Marxists then we dont have to be libertarians, any social democratic leanings will do.

luckat

Chanandler Bong wrote: »

Communism would inevitably lead to lack of efficiency and over-comfort from workers unless enforced with the threat of military and police reprisal, and the fact that it is inherrantly against the interests of big business means it would have to be initiated first of all through military upheaval. Ask any worker who ever lived under a communist regime about their quality of life, working out of fear and paranoia?

Depends on what you mean by a communist regime, really.

I'd have to disagree with the idea that the only reasons for people to work hard are (a) profit and (b) threats of being shot or jailed!

Serenity Now!

asdasd wrote: »

Marxists call any Free Market economy capitalist no matter how regulated and is something that needs to be overthrown

This says more about these self-perceived Marxists, communists, socialists or whatever they call themselves. If they can't spot a capitalist economy, they most certainly show themselves as someone who cannot spot a socialist state. As with the original poster of this thread and others like them. They give ill-informed examples such as Norway being a model socialist economy when it clearly isn't.

Like I said earlier, the 'communist' who started the thread should speak to people from the former Eastern Bloc countries that were of adult age during the repressive communist regimes that ran them.

anonymous_joe

luckat wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by a communist regime, really.

I'd have to disagree with the idea that the only reasons for people to work hard are (a) profit and (b) threats of being shot or jailed!

Well...

Why else work hard?

I'm a student, so not in employment at the moment, but I worked most summers. Including some internships. Now you could argue that I did internships to enhance employability etc. So not for money. But there's still a profit motive - improve employability is just another way of securing further profits in the future.

At a base level, we work to survive, we work to provide ourselves with the necessities of life. Food shelter etc. Because we're not communists however, we can also work for things we want.

Communism suggests people will work together to give everyone what they need, but true communism (which is impossible, because no country's small enough) requires leaders which creates classes which means it's not communism. Also, what people don;t realise is how dull, grey and tedious communism would be. There's no motivation to work hard, there's just enough to get by, (in true communism) and so there's no choice, no joie de vivre, no nothing. Just dull cohesion. It sounds like hell on earth.

If you really want to be a communist, move to a small village, raise animals, farm crops and do so with a few others. Grow just enough. That's it. That's the only way for communism in a 'pure' form to work. It cannot and will not ever run a country because it's corrupt, violent and squalid. The last thing we want is some shower of fúcktards deciding to make things fairer and take everyone's stuff away to do so. It does not work because people are not perfect. People are greedy, and self-centred. Those are animalstic survival traits built into us. You cannot change that. Nothing can. That's what makes us people.

asdasd

I'd have to disagree with the idea that the only reasons for people to work hard are (a) profit and (b) threats of being shot or jailed!

The evidence is for profit alone. During the Chinese Great Leap forward, of which there were two phases, the peasants were made produce in communes. if they didnt produce enough they were shot. They didnt produce enough. 20 million died.

Mao lost some control, and reform was introduced by Liu Shaoqi who decided to end many Leap policies, such as rural communes, and to restore the economic policies used before the Great Leap Forward.

So the profit motive was introduced. Famine ended.

Back came Mao and reintroduced the policies. Famine ensued again.

We are talking millions of deaths here. More than Naziism.

By the way Mao was trying here to move on to the last part of communism that the OP mentioned on page one.

In 1957, after China’s first Five-Year Plan, Mao Zedong called for an increase in the speed of the growth of “actual socialism” in China (as opposed to “dictatorial socialism”), as the first step in making the country into a self-sufficient Communist society.

From wikipedia.

lmtduffy

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I agree with a Socialist health and education policies. The regualted free market does work. I have a mate in the People Before Profit alliance, thinks everything should be nationalised. I always use this argument with him. If the state was to provide everything as it did in Soviet Russia, lack of competition would mean they would (and indeed they did) produce crap. Would you prefer a Lada over a Mercedes or a BMW.

Id call you a Social democrat if you needed a name!

lmtduffy

SeanW wrote: »

Precisely.

One thing about Communism, is that it's defenders like the OP all complain that it wasn't a perfect implementation. But that is irrelevant since any implementation of any ideology that was perfect would indeed have no problems regardless of what the ideology was, be it communism, fascism, corporatism, authoritarianism, liberalism, libertarianism etc.

Much like the way our state tries to do Social Democracy - we have a highly funded education system, but I think 1 in 4 of our people are barely literate, a well funded health system where most of the money goes on administration and management, while people die on trolleys.

The problem lies in the mongrel mix of low tax and big public services, its stems from a silly populist Government. The fact is life is better in social democratic states than more free market states.

The only question therefore is, assuming given imperfections in approach, what kind of government do you want? The logical answer IMO is a constitutionally limited small government, with few powers other than the defence of the State and the creation of sound currency. Has the advantage of having less to screw up, for a start.

Less to screw up but very little to gain, people in society need the state to survive, roles once upon fulfilled by the family and religious bodies need to be fulfilled by the state as the world is getting to big and to smart to have this done by families and religious bodies.

lmtduffy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

that is assuming perfect information and equality of opportunity based on merits, none if which is possible.

What we have, actually, is a grossly expanded socialist sector living parasitically off an ever-decreasing private sector.

Its not expanded as much as it is stretched, beef it up and believe it or not you will see the private sector grow.

Consider Sweden's history with socialist policies. The country had a thriving free-market economy during the latter half of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth. Its highly productive economy yielded the highest per-capita income growth in the world between 1870 and 1950. It spawned countless entrepreneurs, inventors, and innovators (including Alfred Nobel, who created the Nobel Prize), and spawned successful corporations such as Volvo, Saab, Ericsson, and so on.

By 1970, Sweden was the world's third-richest nation. But social democracy really took off in the 1970s, with top income tax rates of 87 percent imposed by the late 1970s. Payroll taxes today total almost 40 percent of income. VAT rates are 25 percent, the maximum allowed by the EU. Although Sweden has a lavish welfare state, it has slipped to the 18th richest nation in the world. Swedes now have less per capita disposable income than the average Western European, and less than half of what Americans take home. Government spending consumes 55 percent of GDP. The true unemployment rate is estimated to be between 20 and 25 percent.

How can you define these policies as having "worked well"?

Yeh we had a great GDP here too, but many people still suffered.

And another poster as already questioned your data, but assuming its true I think youll also find that the quality of life there is much higher and the people are happier and safer.

You see many people value quality of life over economic efficiency,
economics show us how things work not how they should work.

You may very well prefer that we maximise efficiency alone, but have you forgotten why we aim to maximise efficiency?, it is to profit and that profit is greatest and longer lasting in a society that grows together.

It is efficient to invest in society why, because you live in it, it makes you capable of making profit.

lmtduffy

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Well...

Why else work hard?

I'm a student, so not in employment at the moment, but I worked most summers. Including some internships. Now you could argue that I did internships to enhance employability etc. So not for money. But there's still a profit motive - improve employability is just another way of securing further profits in the future.

At a base level, we work to survive, we work to provide ourselves with the necessities of life. Food shelter etc. Because we're not communists however, we can also work for things we want.

yes and what do you do with profits?

And at a higher level than working for things we want, we want things beyond profit, have you heard of maslows hierarchy of needs? its quiet interesting.

Communism suggests people will work together to give everyone what they need, but true communism (which is impossible, because no country's small enough) requires leaders which creates classes which means it's not communism. Also, what people don;t realise is how dull, grey and tedious communism would be. There's no motivation to work hard, there's just enough to get by, (in true communism) and so there's no choice, no joie de vivre, no nothing. Just dull cohesion. It sounds like hell on earth.

I dont support communism but oyu are being unfair here, people live for more than profits, its what they need the profits to do that matters, so as you say in true communism(which is impossible) everyone will have equal access to the resources to do what they like.

If you really want to be a communist, move to a small village, raise animals, farm crops and do so with a few others. Grow just enough. That's it. That's the only way for communism in a 'pure' form to work. It cannot and will not ever run a country because it's corrupt, violent and squalid. The last thing we want is some shower of fúcktards deciding to make things fairer and take everyone's stuff away to do so. It does not work because people are not perfect. People are greedy, and self-centred. Those are animalstic survival traits built into us. You cannot change that. Nothing can. That's what makes us people.

The small village scenario is called anarchism not very far away from the free marketeering your defending.

Yes people are all those things but we are also surrounded by each other and have to deal with each other as such, so things aren't so simple and there a hell of a lot we can do look around you at what we have done and look at history and you will see the development of how we deal with each other and you will see things are getting better.

Lady Luck

Serenity Now! wrote: »

In what way are you a communist then? Socialist even?

Any Polish, Baltic or East German posters here who would care to shed light as to how Communism 'wasn't given a fair go'?

Ricky Gervais was right.

I am a Marxist in that I agree with all his teachings. Simple as. I do NOT agree with Stalin however. I know that the introduction of Communism into western society now is merely a pipe dream, and for that I settle for supporting the Socialist party, as they follow certain communist ideas.

O'Coonassa

asdasd wrote: »

oh no he wasnt. we are talking about a worldwide revolution where the dictatorship of the proletariat takes over the means of production. Jesus said nothing about that.

<sigh>

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."

Book of Acts 2:24

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Karl Marx.

turgon

asdasd wrote: »

Modern capitalism needs government regulation, and society needs government. In fact we can achieve "from each according to his needs" within the capitalist social democratic framework - whether libertarians like it or not.

Because it has worked so well for Ireland at the moment??

The way this country is run is shìte. Loads of tax thrown at crap services and making sure those who dont feel like working can stay in the pub all weekend. People are always giving out about the disgrace FF are. Well whos to say Labour/FG/anyone else is going to be any better?? Chances are they wont be because they will continue on with your "social democracy" nonsense and continue to prop up those who dont care about their lives.

lmtduffy

turgon wrote: »

Because it has worked so well for Ireland at the moment??

The way this country is run is shìte. Loads of tax thrown at crap services and making sure those who dont feel like working can stay in the pub all weekend. People are always giving out about the disgrace FF are. Well whos to say Labour/FG/anyone else is going to be any better?? Chances are they wont be because they will continue on with your "social democracy" nonsense and continue to prop up those who dont care about their lives.

Yes this country is ****e and no their is not loads of tax thrown at services which is why they are crap.

Labour will do better as they are competent and have solid social democratic values which are better than the absence of values FF have.

And chances are they would as if you know a few things about the social democratic model you will find it is the most useful model to getting us out of a recession, keeping us out of a recession and is the most best model in order to minimise the effects of global recessions.

Have oyu heard of the Nordic model and are you aware of the history and success of its implementation having carried the countries that adopted it out of the great depression in the 20's and on to have some of the most prosperous and safest societies that exist.

What is your alternative?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joey the lips

I dont believe in communism working fully human greed wount allow it but I like socialism. I like what ireland is. Socialist Democratic. I could write loads on the subject but I will leave it to the yanks

If communism was that bad the yanks would let it destroy itself the reason the yanks dont like communism is it stiffles free trade, greed and the capitialist need to stand on the shoulders of others. You will always have to remember we are constantly being told about the 1000's who die under communism but just look at the amount of homeless in america. I think both have there merits and for my worth i am closer to communism than to capitalism...

turgon

Joey the lips wrote: »

I like what ireland is.

There are some many things wrong with this statement.
So you like the sponger promoting social welfare system?
You like the fact that the government still has loads if not all control over Health and Transport even though it has been seen they cannot manage these thing effectively.
You like the fact our money is being spent on a plethora of crap and useless agencies.
You like the fact that starting s new business is a hurdle to high for many due to so much red tape etc.

Joey the lips wrote: »

You will always have to remember we are constantly being told about the 1000's who die under communism

Im never told about the thousands that died under communism.

Ive been told about the tens of millions that have though.

Joey the lips

turgon wrote: »

There are some many things wrong with this statement.
So you like the sponger promoting social welfare system?
You like the fact that the government still has loads if not all control over Health and Transport even though it has been seen they cannot manage these thing effectively.
You like the fact our money is being spent on a plethora of crap and useless agencies.
You like the fact that starting s new business is a hurdle to high for many due to so much red tape etc.





Im never told about the thousands that died under communism.

Ive been told about the tens of millions that have though.

Turgon you make such a habit of contacdicting yourself I am not going to try defend what I ment to you. Your last post before this crit a capitialist and now you crit me so where as some people like one or the other you like neither, that would be you I suppose. If it were anyone else I would challange it but needs to say i like the system we have I did not say OR imply I liked the running of the system. I simply said I like the fact we are a socialist democratic society.

turgon

How was I criticizing a "capitalist"? asdasd claimed to be a "social democrat" like yourself.

ilkhanid

It was no surprise that Communism was destined for disaster.Marx was astute in analyzing problems in capitalism ,and his utopian description of Communism was attractive, but the problem was Marx had no idea of how one got from one to the other, apart from vague-and-as it turned out-dangerous notions about the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. The administration of things he imagined..how was it to happen? It had to happen through a bureaucracy, something Marx gave little thought to, or to the idea that a non-capitalistic elite could be, at best, extraordinarily inefficient or at worst,develop its own autocratic habits. It was a failure of Marx's thought that he allowed no part for the market, as administration cannot allow-at least in the world as we know it- for the multitudinous decisions and micro-managing that the market allows for.
Once a Marxist regime achieved power, it was very possible that it would substitute dictatorship for administration or an attempt to achieve consensus. The belief in an utopian outcome that justified any sacrifices ,a belief in the infallibility of the Marxist method and a complete lack of the subtlety that Marx himself had in the minds of fanatical and half-educated men was bound to lead to disaster. The disaster duly happened, Marxism-Leninism was now substituted for all the competing versions of Marxism, displacing these with a more human face, and later-even worse- the Stalinist and Maoist versions of Marxism became supreme and infected all versions of left-wing doctrine based on Marx like a spreading virus.

brianthebard

That's a hugely skewed and uninformed reading of 160 years of history since Marx's communist manifesto ilkhanid. To reduce his entire works to "dictatorship of the proletariat" is frankly silly.

asdasd wrote: »

True. But Marxists call any Free Market economy capitalist no matter how regulated and is something that needs to be overthrown, but to the contrary a Marxist economy cannot have free enterprise or whats the point of the theory.

No one realistically sees China as communist anymore. It isn't.

In debating with Marxists then we dont have to be libertarians, any social democratic leanings will do.

Capitalism is a mode of production and social relation, not simply a form of administration as you seem to make out here. Yes any free market economy is capitalist, regardless of regulation, because they still continue the same mode of production. Similarly no real Marxist sees China or the USSR as communist, because they are both simply instances of state organised capitalist production, with no change in the social relations.

asdasd

Similarly no real Marxist sees China or the USSR as communist, because they are both simply instances of state organised capitalist production, with no change in the social relations.

The majority of real Marxists believed that China and the USSR were proper Marxist societies at the time, and Marxists - like you - are fans of Cuba now, although you shy away from the adoration of North Korea.

And Marx was clear that we wanted private ownership of property to cease, in particular the means of production ( although, frankly, everything). The mechanism for this was the proletarian dictatorship through the State.

Then, magically, the State would disappear. The mechanism about how the Sate would disappear, or how Stateless societies would transfer wealth according to need, and from ability ( without coercion like, I dunno, a tax law using State power), and what was meant by "need" anyway were all left up to the user. BTW come the revolution I need Alaska for my pad, and Gwentyh Paltrow to be my wife. Sorry I don't want, I need.

As i said before, Mao tried - in the Great Leap Forward - to move from dictatorial socialism to "real actual socialism", to give powers to communes - a procedure which resulted in the deaths of millions.

Any "scientific" theory would explain the transition from the dictatorship of the proletariat to "actual real socialism" but it is as harder to get a Marxist to explain how exactly that happens than to get a two year old to explain string theory. Throughout this thread you are not going to explain it either.

But, I feel I must ask: explain how you think it should happen. How does that Stateless propertyless society accidently appear from the State ownership of everything. For the latter is what you want initially.

To be fair Marx did not give much information to his cult on how exactly the communist State would actually work, thus allowing charlatans to claim that's not Marxist, and that's not Marxist when the said Marxist States collapse.

He did give one idea at the end of Capital:

" In the concluding volume of Das Kapital, Marx remarked that the average man in a communist society would be able to go fishing in the morning, work in a factory in the afternoon and read Plato in the evening "

I mean, Jesus wept. The man had no idea how work has to happen in a modern society. Thats Bertie Wooster's life. Well, except for the factory (and who would do that if their needs were going to be met by the nonexistent State anyway. why not fish all day?)

And what about a doctor? Does he also get to fish at will, what if someone is sick? And what about his training - do we train him and let him fish, read Plato, and pop into the local factory, or not, on whim?

But seriously, that is it. That claptrap is Marx's explanation of how life would be in the communist society taken from his definitive work Das Kapital. For that utopian nonsense millions died.

Thats how dumb it all is.

I think Marxism as an intellectual discipline is a joke and a historical fluke. Had the Bolsheviks lost to the mensheviks it would never have any "intellectual" founding whatsoever in the West, and I seriously believe that any social scientist who is a Marxist needs to leave, or be tossed out. Universities are not for idiots, It is not a free speech issue - we dont teach creationism either.