[Skunkabilly]

Just curious what you guys say to folks who say "communism is a good idea...in theory". (note lower case 'c')

[Justin]

No, actually it's a terrible idea in theory, too.

[bountyhunter]

FWIW: communism (small "c") bears absolutely no resemblance to the governments which exist in Communist countries which are actually fascist dictatorships (like China). The closest thing to actual comminism would have been back in the 60's when a bunch of hippies lived on a farm, shared all their goodies (and women) and everybody did their share of the work.

Governments of any form are incapable of ever existing in an uncorrupted form. Ours comes closest to it, due in no small part to all the safeguards the people who set it up built in. But, with all that, corruption is still rampant and 9as many have said) the best description of what passes for our government is a "coin operated vending machine".

Mixing in idealistic concepts like communism or socialism into describing governments is basically self-defeating: when it comes right down to it, any government from our democracy to a monarchy to a communist state is just a guy who managed to get in power trying to get away with whatever he can. It's how much the citizen's will stand for that really separates them.

[ACP]

"In theory, Marge, Communism works - in theory. '' -- Homer Simpson

[Combat-wombat]

I have two friends who believe this. No, it is not. Even if there were not the millions killed as a result of it, communism (lowercase "c") in theory would still limit/destroy individual freedom.

[Duncan Idaho]

I used to go into lengthy discussions about it. Now I just laugh in their face.

[saddenedcitizen]

that look great on paper - but either have a hidden flaw or have
a condition that has been 'overlooked' (either on purpose or by
accident)
Communism is one of the latter -
First Karl Marx is not only dead, he was 'dead wrong' !!
Communism overlooks human nature.
There are people, who, by nature will do ANYTHING possible
to avoid 'working for a living' (we've all seen/heard of them)
Communism presupposes that everyone will be satisfied in
having the same 'things' and living identically. In addition,
everyone will 'do his best' and work hard for the betterment
of 'the group'
Humans don't function this way - there is always a little bit
of 'what's in it for me'
Work myself silly in the fields - WHY ?? I'm not going to eat any
better than the jerk who stands around all day so ..........
After a while, this attitude pervades all aspects of existence
and you then have the economic prosperous dynamos like
/sarcasm on - East Germany, France, Cuba. /sarcasm off
Without the 'promise' of 'something better' no one REALLY
'does his best', usually just enough to 'get by'
If you do something to 'improve your lot in life' it is taken away
by the 'state' because 'it belongs to everyone' and those
16 hour days you spent building a better mouse trap has done
nothing to improve your life ('cause you didn't have a mouse
problem but thought you might make some money/wealth)
Under communism, everyone is equal. Sorry but IN REALITY everyone
IS NOT equal (maybe before the law but it stops there).
Just a few random thoughts - I'm sure others have more and
can state them more eloquently that I.

[veloce851]

'
'
'
\/

[KC]

Communism probably did work in the USSR.
Not may people starved (accidently, of course)
Everybody had sufficient housing
Everyone had at least adequate medical care
Everyone had access to basic education
Everyone had a job (weather they worked at it or not)
It was a Workers Paradise. It just blew dead bunnies if you ever wanted to be anything other than a worker.

If all you are concerned about are the workers, communism is a damm good idea. If you assume that the workers are unable to comprehend their situation, are unwilling and/or unable to change it, and will be content to be as sheep under the new system as the old. If you are willing to accept the idea that people are not able to take care of themselves, to suceed or fail as the situation dictates, and that a select elite (compromised of the author and his friends) are the only ones qualified or even capable of governing this new perfect order, then you have communism, or at least a dictatorship with the mantle of communism.

As to the people who say, "Communism...What a good idea!" (in theory or practice) are in my considered opinion one or more of the following:
-Delusional
-Stupid
-Misinformed and not considering what they are saying
-An evil bastard
-An annoying person out looking to make trouble.

[Waitone]

A kinda quote from a sign seen at a recent street protest:

"Communism has only kill 100 million people. Give it another chance."

[bogie]

Hey, in theory it works. I don't have a problem with that concept.

However, when you apply the theory to an actual population, and factor in things like human greed, etc., then it breaks down.

Heck, look at "democracy," as a concept - when 51% of the people realize that they can vote that 49% of the folks support 'em in a life of leisure, well, that's a bad thing.

[MicroBalrog]

Well, Communism DOES work. The only condition is that everybody in the plan has to be a believing communist, ready to work for the sake of work, altruist, idealist.

Communist societies are possible, as evidenced by early Kibbutzim.

However, such societies must be VERY small, and they will usually deteriorate by the second and third generation, as it not possible to reliably raise children to fit that description.

[Skunkabilly]

What really bugs me is when people say that communism is good, but it'll never work because people are greedy.

As if communism is perfect but the failure is in man (ok..person...:o..).

IMO I think people just thinks it sounds nice, but sounding nice holds no water...

[Duncan Idaho]

Communist societies are possible, as evidenced by early Kibbutzim.And it doesn't hurt if the state that the Kibbutz is located in is the recipient of billions of dollars from it's older brother that doesn't want to watch little brother be subsumed by the barbarity surrounding it.

Yeah, and so if the folks on the Kibbutz then want to make believe they have such a thing as a viable economy in a subsidized situation like that, they can play commie all day long, and hardly have a care in the world. :uhoh:

[jsalcedo]

When there is no direct benefit to a persons innovation or extraordinary
talents there is little reason to go the extra mile.

Just like doctors in UK, they get paid the same no matter what they do.
Why should any of them strive for better training, advanced techniques
or innovative procedures. There is just no motivation other than altruism.

Communism is a cookie cutter approach to society. Those who distribute the goods and manage the process always come out on top.

[MicroBalrog]

And it doesn't hurt if the state that the Kibbutz is located in is the recipient of billions of dollars from it's older brother that doesn't want to watch little brother be subsumed by the barbarity surrounding it

Especially as Kibbutzim and similar communes have existed before Israel was even founded, let alone receiving American aid (that is to be spent on military hardware bought from US companies only). There is no doubt that EARLY kibbutzim worked. I also explained why they didn't and couldn't work for over a generation.

[Lictalon]

The early church looked very similiar to a communist state...Acts 4:33-37. Of course, that fell part REALLY quickly...Acts 5:1-6. If it couldn't work THEN it sure as heck won't work now...

One of the scariest things about communism (and its friend, liberalism) is that they're both "future" based systems. In other words, both like to say "Here's where we are now, and if we do THIS, then we can make that future world better."

The problem is that, with this mindset, you can excuse anything you do NOW, because it will all be worth it in the future. "It's for the children!" So it 100 million people need to die to bring about a perfect paradise, so be it...And the same attitude can be seen in many left-wing programs. "Sure, it hurts now, but it'll be better then..."

People get killed with that mindset. Usually by the million...

[Mark Tyson]

Even in theory, communism utterly abolishes property rights and therefore tramples individual liberty. People are all a little selfish and like having their own things. Heck, even animals have some sense of property.

Oh and one more thing. Karl Marx was an obnoxious, ivory tower intellectual who learned about the German working man from a library in Britain and who let his own kids starve rather than get a job. His wonderful theory brought on a system that enslaved half the world and killed enough people to make Hitler blush. If there's an afterlife, I hope Marx is burning.

[Sean Smith]

A theory that doesn't account for how actual humans work is not a good theory. So communism is a bad theory, and of course even worse in actual practice.

[atk]

Hey,

I don't mean to derail the thread, but I'm curious: when you said, "(that is to be spent on military hardware bought from US countries only).", did you mean "... US companies", or "US approved countries", or something I just don't get?

Thanks :)

--
atk

[MicroBalrog]

Edited, thanks.

[atk]

Ah, okay. Much clearer.

It did make me start to wonder if we really had become an empire ;)

[MicroBalrog]

You remind me of being fourteen and watching Clinton on TV.
The poor sod was getting off a plane and wearing what looked long, black trenchcoat IIRC. Me, thinking: "He looks like Darth Vader".:what:

[trooper]

Communism probably did work in the USSR.
Not may people starved (accidently, of course)
Everybody had sufficient housing
Everyone had at least adequate medical care
Everyone had access to basic education
Everyone had a job (weather they worked at it or not)
It was a Workers Paradise. It just blew dead bunnies if you ever wanted to be anything other than a worker.

Hrmmm. I'd like to remind you that while indeed there was no unemployment in the eastern bloc states (of which my younger brother constantly likes to remind me), they came pretty close to bankrupcy because the state paid for everything.

If the masses hadn't been revolting the whole system would have soon collapsed anyway because of financial reasons.

I pay with my taxes for Eastern Germany's economical deficiencies even today. And after 13 years you can still instantly see the difference when you cross the former border.


Regards,

Trooper

[bogie]

What really bugs me is when people say that communism is good, but it'll never work because people are greedy.

Didn't say it was good - said it sounds good in theory. Many theories sound good. Doesn't mean that they work well when applied.

In a small, village-like, society, in essence an extended family, it is vital that everyone contribute. And everyone shares in the success. However, when one inflates that small closed society to a larger one, that's where the trouble emerges. Peer pressure to succeed is gone, replaced by a malaise that seems to consist of doing enough to get along, while at the same time trying to ensure that you get your thin sliver of the pie.

[DigitalWarrior]

Step 1. I give them a copy of "Atlas Shrugged".
Step 2. If their ideas change, then I register them to vote.

I asked my mother-in-law to read Atlas shrugged, and she said that she thought Ayn Rand was a Communist!
:what:

She apparently stopped reading after the dust jacket said she was from russia:banghead:

[Monkeyleg]

In the 1970's, the Soviets tried an experiment. They gave communal farm workers small plots of land that they could farm themselves, and sell their produce. The production rate for the privately-owned plots of land was higher than the rate for the state-owned farms.

That's human nature, pure and simple, and communism flies in the face of that nature.

[Duncan Idaho]

I also explained why they didn't and couldn't work for over a generation.Micro, I agree with you.

[Boats]

Step 1. I give them a copy of "Atlas Shrugged".
Step 2. If their ideas change, then I register them to vote.


Step 1. Give communists each a copy of Atlas Shrugged.
Step 2. Wait for the book to bore them to death. Problem solved.:evil:

As long as natural talents, looks, and other personal attributes are unequally distributed by nature, no amount of social engineering will ever bring about true egalitarianism.

The most cogent criticism of communism ever done was George Orwell's Animal Farm, which unlike everything Rand has written, is both concise and entertaining. It would probably do a better job of converting communists too.

[Keith]

If all you are concerned about are the workers, communism is a damm good idea.

That's a silly statement. Were Soviet workers better off than European or American workers?

Keith

[KC]

Hey Trooper: I said it was a Workers Paradise. Never would I try to make the claim that the USSSR was *at all* friendly to a consumer.:D

"...they're both "future" based systems. In other words, both like to say "Here's where we are now, and if we do THIS, then we can make that future world better."

Close, but not quite. Marx's vision of the communist society was one of perfection, not better. The "end of history" that you hear about; once in place, this perfect society would never change, because it would never need to. It would be incapable of change because all dissenting thought would have been eliminated from the subject populations. This cultural stasis is what destroyed the Chinese in the 18th-19th centuries. The Russian Empire also suffered from this, and it's rapid disentegration was in part due to the artificial stasis that had been forced upon it during the previous 150-200 years of isolation.

[Hkmp5sd]

However, when you apply the theory to an actual population, and factor in things like human greed, etc., then it breaks down.

Isn't that kind of like saying the Planet of the Apes is a theory of the future of the Earth, but the theory, when applied to the real world, doesn't work because the monkeys won't cooperate and start talking?

"No society can exist as an undifferentiated egalitarian mass. Any society, no matter how democratic its ethos, requires functional differentiation - a social and economic division of labor - in order to operate, indeed to exist. And differentiation of necessity entails some measure of hierarchy, subordination, and inequality, approximately according to the level, usefulness, and rarity of skills."

- The Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia, 1917-1991 by Martin Malia.

[igor]

There are a lot of theoretically good things in the ideology.

The track record of the actual implementations speaks for itself, though.

[Baba Louie]

Some Native American tribes practiced forms of communistic behavior (so I've read) and I guess it worked for them for awhile. Till somebody else came along with differing ideas, be they red or white men of adventure with better tools.

But most of the 20th century versions boiled down to a Totalitarian form of Dictatorship that embraced the word (Big C or little c... doesn't matter), as someone still had to collect the turnips for disbursement to those turnip needy few who had a bad year.

Therein lies the rub.

Who's on first? And why do they want to play with my ball and their rules?

Adios

[Moparmike]

I would say that communism works in theory, only on paper when human nature is completely taken out of the picture. If a group of automatons were to start a commune, it would work wonderfully as long as every work share was equal and all got done. It will not work for a group that has indivuiduals, individual liberties, and individual possession. That is why it would never work. That is why as nice as the society portrayed by Star Trek TNG is (look at it once and study it, no one owns anything, no money, etc ad infinitum), it would never work and is a COMPLETE FANTASY.

As stated, lots of things sound good on paper. Trench warfare was one of them, and look how it turned out.:uhoh:

[Standing Wolf]

Nope. Communism is a terrible theory and a worse practice.

[Gordon Fink]

Communism, in theory, would be a great socio-economic system, just like anarcho-capitalism, in theory, would be a great socio-economic system. In theory, everyone’s needs and wants would be met, all while allowing for virtually unlimited personal freedom. Unfortunately, neither system will work.

Please note also that neither system has ever been practiced within recorded history. Statist socialism is not communism.

In truth, we need capitalism to promote prosperity, with a dash of socialism thrown in to control capitalism’s natural excesses. However, this bit of socialism needs to be injected into the economy without coercion. This can be accomplished by basing social programs on market forces, rather than using the “command-economy” approach advocated by most socialists.

~G. Fink

[longeyes]

I'd say, "Go wash my car, comrade," and, "by the bye, empty your wallet
on the way out, I'm a bit short this month."

It's not about theory, it's about temperament, maybe hormones. Some
people like sharing, some don't. Some like taking orders, some don't.

As for theories in general, pretty is as pretty does. :D

[WonderNine]

Why Communism Is Evil

Often on the web I'll see people who say things like "Communism would be real nice if it worked." The idea seems to be that Communism would be a wonderful system, but people just aren't good enough to make it work: that the ideals of Communism are worthy, even if the practice of it seems to keep winding up with those dratted gulags and the odd bit of mass starvation here and there. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sounds like a hunky-dory little phrase, if you don't think about it too much. Since most people don't think too much about politics, there's a tendency to nurse, somewhere in the back of the mind, the notion that Communism might be kinda nice,"if it worked." This is the real problem with Communism: like most other liberalism, it sounds nice. Far nicer than it really is. At its heart, Communism is not nice, it is evil.

To understand why, the first thing one has to do is get a reasonably clear understanding of what Communism is. What sets Communism apart from other systems of government is the particular goal of the system, which is the redistribution of goods among the governed, in accordance with the above-mentioned principle of "from each according to ability, to each according to need." In practice, this means that each separate individual living under a communist government should be willing to sacrifice their own good for the good of the community. After all, if you've been able to advance yourself, and someone else hasn't, then by Communist doctrine not only should you be willing to sacrifice some or all of that advancement to help that other person, but the state should force you to do so. Raising the lowest common denominator becomes the highest good. Since, in any society, some people are going to be more capable of advancement than others, and some people are going to be more productive and efficient than others, it becomes the responsibility of those few to support the needs and wants of the society as a whole; the most capable members of the community are, in essence, forcibly harnessed to the common good. There is a term for that, and it's "slavery."

Now, some try to get around this by arguing that, in an "ideal state," such servitude would be voluntary; that if somehow the force and compulsion of government could be separated from the system, everything would go all hunky-dory roses. Even if this were possible, it would be, essentially, arguing that slavery is fine as long as it's voluntary. Is it any less evil to allow a man to break himself in your service, than to break him in such service yourself? For any community of people to say, to an innocent individual, "our collective needs outweigh your individual ones," is an insanely, horribly selfish act on the part of that community, whether they then force that poor individual to sacrifice his needs or not. This is not to say a community cannot protect itself against individuals who do it harm; there is nothing unjustly selfish in telling the murderer he must sacrifice his life (in prison, if not in death) in order that he may not kill again. Yet to say the same thing to one who has in no way caused harm -- to one who has done nothing but create some good that did not exist before, and that the community now desires -- merely because he has done so, to say that merely because someone has surpassed their community they must sacrifice themselves to it, is the height of unjust selfishness. It is nothing more than collectivized greed. Sharing that greed out among the community does nothing to lessen the stink of it.

Once a community has made that step -- once it has, collectively, agreed that the (community-defined) needs of the community outweigh the (community-defined) needs of any given individual within that community, then the above desire that such an ideal Communist state be absent government is rendered inevitably void. Any system of rules by which a group of people agree to live their lives is at least in some sense a government; and the minute any amount of force or compulsion is coupled with those rules --which is necessary if they are to be rules at all -- it is unquestionably such. ("Government" is often defined as "a monopoly on force" for precisely this reason.) Even if those rules are merely the lightest of guidelines, even if the only force behind them is the collective disapproval of the community, they are still a form of government over that community, an enforced common agreement. If that common agreement sacrifices the good of innocent members of the community, in order to further the good of the community as a whole, then it is a covenant based on sacrifice, a common pact grounded in the enslavement of some for the better of others. The fact that the enslaved happen to be the brightest members of the community does not change that.

Many people try to argue against Communism based on practical considerations: that it saps productivity because people are denied the chance to advance themselves, that the State is incapable of organizing anything as complex as a working, efficient economy, that it just doesn't work for any number of reasons. All of those are valid objections to the practice. Yet they sidestep the real question, the moral question: whether or not, even if we could attain such a system, and make it work, it would be morally right or wrong to try to do so. And the answer is that to pursue Communism is horribly, horribly wrong. Not just because it doesn't work, and not just because it leads to a whole host of other, secondary, economic and social problems, but because it is evil, an evil system built upon evil principles. There is no moral difference between a society built upon Communism and a society built upon slavery.

[Silver Bullet]

Thirty-some years ago, on Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In television show, Jo Anne Worley (speaking of her husband Boris) observed that

"Boris says capitalism doesn't work. But then, neither does Boris !"

[matis]

Communism is bad even in theory because it ignores human nature.




"An economic system based on human greed and avarice is......

... ON A SOLID FOUNDATION!" :D



Actually, if you substitute "self-interest" for the silly moralizing of "greed and avarice", you arrive at the truth -- "...the only moral economic system -- the unkown ideal." (Ayn Rand) is CAPITALISM!


One reason: in order to survive and prosper humans need the products and innovations created by the human intellect -- the mind.


Communism is a form of dictatorship (of the proletariat -- yeah, sure!) and the lack of freedom inhibits thought and imposes dis-incentives to invent and to produce. So they don't have much.

But at least they share it.



I read of an encounter between an American diplomat and one of his Communist counterparts.

The Communist said, "In America you exploit your workers in the name of Capitalism; in the Soviet Union, however, we exploit the workers in the name of the workers!" :)



I'll take the commercial culture, any day. I'd much rather be surrounded by signs touting products than by signs proclaiming the glory of the maximun leader.


And for the city planners and beautifiers -- for the critics of "visual pollution -- trust me -- one way or the other -- there WILL be signs.



matis

[matis]

Wondernine said:
There is no moral difference between a society built upon Communism and a society built upon slavery
______________________________________________________

I agree with your post above, Wondernine, and with this quote.

But where does that leave us here in the good ole USA, where a middle-class person must work 'till June before he makes dollar one that he can keep for himself?





matis

[WonderNine]

There is no moral difference between a society built upon Communism and a society built upon slavery

I didn't say it. That was written by some other dude. He doesn't have a website anymore. It's the best short writeup I've ever seen though.

[Hkmp5sd]

But where does that leave us here in the good ole USA, where a middle-class person must work 'till June before he makes dollar one that he can keep for himself?

Unlike living in a communist country, in the US, you have options. You can elect politicians that lower the taxes. Of course, you then have to deal with middle and lower income democrats that are convinced that any tax rebate that gives the upper income taxpayers the same percent rebate as the middle and lower classes, thereby receiving more money, isn't fair so they don't want anyone to get them. Since the rich get more, they prefer to get nothing, allowing them to stick it to the rich folks.

Another option is to move to another country. Or join the military and get sent to Iraq. IIRC, soldiers don't have to pay income tax on pay received in a combat zone.

[rrader]

The worth of any theory is proven in practice and experiment. By that, communism is a terrible theory. It is fatally flawed by it's denial of universal human nature. It has always required armed coercion and / or heavy ideological indoctrination from an early age to induce people to tolerate its basic unfairness and inefficiency.

What would be a good estimate of communism's death toll over the past 100 years, 300-400 million? What would Russia look like today absent 80 years of communism?

[Destructo6]

Actually, I think Microbalrog is right on: communism works in very small units. Units so small and dependant that if one member is not contributing his fair share to the community, he risks being punted out of the group and dying. By "small" I mean nuclear family-sized. Anything larger than that and there's little reason to work.

Who said there was no unemployment in the ComBloc?

Define "adequate" when it comes to consumer goods, housing, and medical care. Is it sandpaper-like toilet paper, 3 families per 2-bedroom apartment, etc? On the job drinking was a virtual institution, job safety was nil, and production dropped year after year. What kind of worker's paradise is that? It's a paradise only for the Communist Party members, who enjoyed all the things denied to the workers.

Marx (1818-1883) never worked a day in his life! What the hell does he know about the worker, economics, history, or anything other than abstract philosophy? He twisted the ideas of Rousseau, blended that with Robespierre, added a bit of highly questionable history and called it a system. It's false.

[KC]

"That is why as nice as the society portrayed by Star Trek TNG is (look at it once and study it, no one owns anything, no money, etc ad infinitum), it would never work and is a COMPLETE FANTASY."


"no one owns anything" I do not know where you got this idea, nor is it correct. (At least so far as ST:TOS, ST:TBG, and ST: DS9 are concerned. Voyager became a 'particle of the week, let's play tag with the Borg' show, and 'Enterprise' is making s*** up as they go along, and not part of the mythos.)

The society protrayed in Star Trek is construed by some as communist since there is no money. This isnt necessarily the case. Our economic theories are created around, at their deep dark little heart, the production of that which we need to survive and make our lives more enjoyable. Marx believed that the most equitable would be a system that would put control over the means of production in the hands of the workers (whomever they are), enforced though (at first, at least) a centralized heirarchy.
Star Trek does in fact put control of the means of production into everyone's hands, except in a far more literal sense than Marx envisioned. To create all that a person needs to live, food, water, clothing, shelter, etc., can be had with three things: a replicator, a power source, and a source of raw material. As there is no need for anyone to exchange labor or intellectual capitol for a living, the need for a medium of exchange becomes obsolete. Thus, the members of a society do in fact 'work to better themselves, not for money' (to paraphrase Picards line in ST:First Contact.)

Is this a complete fantasy? Yes, but only given the limits of current technology.
Would it work (given adequate technology)? Well, why wouldn't it?
Is it possible? Yes, but only if we stop pissing away capitol on social welfare that has no objective benefit and put it back to work.

Am I a raving Trekkie? Not as much as I used to be.:cool:

KC

[Moparmike]

Well, I am not going to get this thread locked because we want to debate Trek alot.:o However, I will say that it is close to communism because everyone on the planet generally contributes to the welfare of the whole, but more so if they wish. In ST, no one has to do anything. But you also dont see alot of firearms there.

But I want a replicator for my own armory and ammo. Say goodbye to reloading!:D

That said, I still stand by my statement that communism is a good idea if the human equation is taken out of it.

[Hkmp5sd]

There was money and/or capitalism in Star Trek, from the original to the end. Remember Harry Mudd and the three women he was trying to sell as wives or "The Trouble with Tribbles". In TNG, there are many instances of people seeking riches and in both TNG and DS9, the entire Ferengi race was based on commerce and getting rich.

[Brian Maffei]

Bad in theory, criminal in practice. :fire:

[Gordon Fink]

I’d say, “Go wash my car, comrade,” and, “by the bye, empty your wallet on the way out, I’m a bit short this month.”

Longeyes, you’re not talking about communism. You’re talking about criminalism. Besides, in a communist system, there would be no money. :D

At their heart, theories of communism and anarcho-capitalism attempt to describe an economy that operates at or very near 100-percent efficiency. Communism dispenses with the need for a currency of exchange (i.e., money), so it can be argued that communism would actually be marginally more efficient than anarcho-capitalism. However, no closed system (economic or otherwise) can operate at 100-percent efficiency, so the very basis of the theories are flawed, regardless of how we view human nature.

~G. Fink

[Mike Irwin]

Interesting...

Many here consider Jesus to be their savoir.

But if you read his words, you'll note that Jesus was, in large part, advocating a largely proto-C/communistic ideology...

Communism is a fine theory.

So is, for that matter, Capitalism.

It's a pity that they both generally suck as a basis for a formal governmental structure.

[Gordon Fink]

Mike, please remember that capitalism and communism are economic rather than political theories. Neither theory really addresses government, though communism is stateless by definition, which is why I have previously distinguished between capitalism and anarcho-capitalism.

Though somewhat similar, communism and socialism are not the same thing. Their relationship is more akin to that of historical mercantilism and modern capitalism.

~G. Fink

[Mike Irwin]

Gordon,

But as goes the economic life of a country, so to largely goes the political structure, as well.

The two are intrinsically linked.

What makes communism communism at its very core, whether it's practiced in a small utopian society in upstate New York or in the world's most populous nation, is control of the economy.

Governmental economic theory in the United States is largely driven by, and couched in terms of, capitalist market development.

[Gordon Fink]

Mike, you are, of course, correct in most respects. However, in theory, government does not control the economy in a communist system. In fact, no government is needed. It is an anarchic system. Of course, communism does not and cannot exist, as I have already explained.

When you talk about government controls on the economy, you are describing socialism. I’m arguing the semantics of this issue because most people, whether they are lauding communism or decrying it, don’t really know what they are talking about.

Communism = community ownership of the means of production.
Socialism = state ownership of the means of production.
Capitalism = private (individual or corporate) ownership of the means of production.

Of the three systems defined above, only socialism requires the existence of government.

~G. Fink

[Glock Glockler]

But if you read his words, you'll note that Jesus was, in large part, advocating a largely proto-C/communistic ideology...

I disagree completely. Essentially what Jesus advocated was giving ahand to those that are down, done out of free will and lacking any govt complusion, not giving handouts. This board might not be the most appropriate place for this discussion, but PM me if you want to discuss it:)

Trooper,

You might want to remind your brother that prisons have full employment as well, but is full employment the main criteria one wants to use when judging a country? If you think about it, socialism is a lot like a prison.

[trooper]

You might want to remind your brother that prisons have full employment as well, but is full employment the main criteria one wants to use when judging a country? If you think about it, socialism is a lot like a prison.

I've discussed this topic with him countless times and eventually I got tired of it because he would never admit that communism has any flaws (which are pretty obvious to me).

Strangely enough, I get along with him very well as far as politics are not concerned. He's a nice guy and a very moral person, but his concept of right and wrong are a bit different from mine (read: he's an obnoxious bastard when it comes to politics :-).


Regards,

Trooper

[incursion]

Skunk, I wonder what prompted this thread? heh :)

[Skunkabilly]

incursion.... :D

Believe me I had a reply, but I don't like to set demo charges on bridges before I cross them....

[Telperion]

Actually, communism works in theory and in practice ...

... for ants and bees! :D

[Keith]

It works in theory only if you use a very flawed theory!

To believe that communism works "in theory" you have to believe that removing incentive will motivate people to work harder.

Keith

[Chris Rhines]

A couple of things:

First - there is a big difference between a system that works, and a system that is 'good.' The first is at least somewhat an objective observation (i.e. if a particular system achieves its stated goals, one can objectively say that it works.) The second is strictly a value judgement.

Under certain conditions, communism can work. It never has worked as a system for governing a nation-state (although many people say that Soviet Russia was 'not really communist', the Soviet government never strayed from the strict definition of communism; that is, ownership of all property controlled by a small group in the name of the population at large.)

As for communism being good or bad, make your own decision on that one. Myself, I'm an individualist who likes owning property. For me, communism is very bad, both in theory and in actual practice.

Second - it is a logical fallacy to draw distinctions between economic and political systems - they're the same thing (or at least entwined like mating snakes.) Economics as a science is an attempt to apply mathematical models to human behaivor, with varying degrees of success. Political science tries to do the same thing without the math.

As such, communism can only be described as both an economic and a political system. Capitalism, despite the '-ism', really isn't an eco-political system in the same way as communism, mercantilism, fascism, etc. Instead, capitalism is the lack of a central economic system; all economic transactions in a capitalist society are arranged, brokered, and conducted by individuals.

A handy way of differentiating between political/economic systems is to look at how such a system treats ownership of property.

- If all property is owned by the government, it's a Fascist system.
- If all property is owned by society, you have Socialism.
- If all property is owned collectively by a small group of individuals (the Commune,) you have Communism.
- If all property is owned by individuals, it's Capitalism.
- Combinations of the above include things like mercantilism, third-way fascism, and lots of others.

Since government and society are at best abstract concepts, I come down squarely on the side of Capitalism. It doesn't hurt that communism, socialism, and fascism all require some coercive agency with unlimited police power to enforce abstract property claims.

- Chris

[Soap]

Yesterday I was sitting on leather seats in my Mercedes-Benz burning fossil fuel while flipping a Balisong coming home from my banking job so I could go eat a steak. Try that in a Marxist society! :D

[dustind]

Yes, it is a good theory, so is banning all weapons so that no one is harmed by anone else. :barf:
So is taping paper wings to your arms and jumping off a roof.

They are all great if you do not look past the most basic logic.

Communism requires force, so does socialism, if you are not willing to kill or atleast throw anyone in jail for not going along with it, it is doomed to fail. You absolutely can not have a working communist or socialist society without giving the goverment the power to jail or kill anyone who resists.

How many of us would pay for a lot of those social programs if we were not forced to? I would opt out of most of them myself, if I could without being killed or jailed.

[T.Stahl]

Had a discussion with a wannabee communist a few weeks ago. I asked him how many millions of people communists like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, ... had murdered. I stated that - so far - every communist experiment proved to be a huge failure and cost many lives.
"Well," he said, "that doesn't mean that it's a bad idea and that it can't be tried successfully another time." :)
To which I asked, "So, just because that one experiment at national socialism ended in a desaster doesn't mean that it's a bad idea either and that it can't be tried sucessfully?" :confused:
"Eh, uuh, well..."

[USGuns]

Communism only works for ants/ant colonies, not humans.

[Loaded]

Communisim, Socialism, Marxism, etc. -- They all suck. Just ask those who have lived under it and have recently tasted freedom.

Capitalism rewards those who succeed. Socialism and Communism has no concern for the betterment of mankind. Our system here in America fuels competition, which in turn causes another and usually better products. Socialism you purchase what the government run factories produce.

God Bless America!

[Loaded]

Communisim, Socialism, Marxism, etc. -- They all suck. Just ask those who have lived under it and have recently tasted freedom.

Capitalism rewards those who succeed. Socialism and Communism has no concern for the betterment of mankind. Our system here in America fuels competition, which in turn causes different and usually better products. Socialism, you purchase what the government-run factories produce. You have no other choices.

God Bless America!

[Coronach]

Communism is a perfectly viable system, so long as everyone in it is a true believer who has no objection to that whole "no personal property" thing.

...and thats about as far as it goes. This means that it is completely unworkable as a large scale system, where the participants are not completely voluntary. This is a major not-so-hidden flaw.

Its a nice theory...if you completely ignore human nature.

Mike

[4v50 Gary]

Communism is wonderful if:

(1) You're a high ranking party member and get a mansion, car, modern western applicances, and your kids go to school in the West;
(2) You're a high ranking military officer and get a mansion, car & modern western applicances, and your kids go to school in the West;
(3) You're a member of the Secret Police and as a mere Lieutenant, you can make a high ranking general or politician piss in their boots, you can move into their mansion and enjoy their western applicances, and when your kids go to school in the West, they report on everybody else's kids.

Just gotta work yourself up the food chain.

[Ian]

I think T.H. White did an excellent job of describing pure communism in 'The Book of Merlyn.' It's the fifth book of White's version of the King Arthur legend (some of the scenes are form the second book, 'The Sword in the Stone'), and includes a lot of contemplation of human nature. Merlyn magically puts Arthur into animal form in different environments to introduce him to the way different systems and beliefs work. The two most significant are the communistic authoritarianism of the ant colony and the free, borderless live of the wild goose.

The whole text, titled 'The Once and Future King,' is long but very well worth the time to read.

[jimpeel]

Communism is a Good Idea in TheoryThis is true; as long as you can keep humans out of the equation.

[Dorrin79]

it's an evil and immoral idea, in theory or in practice

in my experience, people who say that "communism works in theory" are far left of center.

:cuss:

[jimpeel]

in my experience, people who say that "communism works in theory" are far left of center.

Pro-firearms

Pro-life

Pro death penalty

Anti Gay marriage

Registered Republican

Pro small government

Pro states' powers

Pro school vouchers

Pro tax reduction

Anti redistribution of wealth

Anti social programs

Anti-communist

Anti-socialist

Anti militarization of police

Politically incorrect

Pro property rights

Pro Bill of Rights

Pro Constitution

Believe that "Communism is a Good Idea in Theory" as long as it stays on paper and is not implemented among human beings who will immediately screw it up.

Sincerely,

Jim "far left of center" Peel

[Gordon Fink]

I give up. :banghead:

For anyone who’s interested, not even ants and bees are communistic.

~G. Fink

[Erik]

"Communism is a Good Idea in Theory"

No it is not. At least not if you are talking about groups measuring larger than, oh say, a few dozen people or so.

No? Ever hear of anyone other than small groups, interestingly enough typically religious in nature, pulling off "succussful communism?" Certainly not governments, in the modern sense of the term.

[Coronach]

There are plenty of examples of small-scale, successful, communist enterprises. The system actually works when you can stock it with true believers and can vote out people who are screwing up the system.

Naturally, this is a highly artificial environment, and as such it is worthless to try and extend the system to the real world, where not everyone is a true believer, and the overwhelming majority of us really like owning stuff and having a modicum of control over our existence.

Communism sucks.

Mike

[Coronach]

Ah. I misread what Erik posted. If it sounded like I started off disagreeing with him, but we ended up saying the same thing...thats why :D

Mike

[Tamara]

In every language, the first word after "Mama" that every kid learns is "Mine!" A system that doesn't allow ownership, that doesn't allow you to say "Mine!" when you grow up, has -to put it mildly- a fatal design flaw. -Frank Zappa

[Dorrin79]

Jim Peel-

then you need to check your premises.

how can something that is only "good on paper" be objectively good, if, when acted upon, it destroys everything it touches?

Interesting standard of "good" you're using...

[Delmar]

"communism is a good idea...in theory"., so long as you are at the top!

[jimpeel]

how can something that is only "good on paper" be objectively good, if, when acted upon, it destroys everything it touches?You miss the point. "It" does nothing. "It" destroys nothing. It is the human element that comes to play with all of its failings, emotions, and greed -- the seven deadly sins as it were -- that makes "it" so.

Communism is the documented thesis of Utopia put into play. As a concept of the unification of mankind into a collective of sharing and production it is wonderful -- IN CONCEPT. Know the difference. :banghead:

You take my remarks as an endorsement of what has been or come to be but I do not in any way endorse Communism. I merely agree that it is, on paper, as a concept, as a theory, as a documentation of Utopia, as a wishlist, as a mindset of a single author (excluding Engels), a good thing. It is only the implementation by humans that screws it up.

Remember the Star Trek (original) where the people were under the spell of the computer that ran the planet? The entire civilization was under the control of this thing and it provided everything for them. Along came the Star Trek crew and destroyed the thing so the people would be happy. The problem was that they were already happy with the status quo when the crew got there. They thought they had acheived perfection but they had only acheived perfect Communism. The one thing they lacked that made the system work, prior to the arrival of the crew, was emotion -- the failing aspect of Communism.

Ever hear of anyone other than small groups, interestingly enough typically religious in nature, pulling off "succussful communism?" Certainly not governments, in the modern sense of the term.Yep. Cuba. Think of it. Cuba had an economy that was booming. They traded freely with the United States and the world. They had good products to trade.

When they went Commie, the world turned their backs upon them. What does anyone here think would have happened if Fidel Castro had been able to continue trade with the world? He would have been successful. That was what scared the Hell out of the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Here was an isolated country that had everything they needed to make a successful attempt at Communism and the U.S. and the world couldn't let that happen. If he had been able to pull it off, and he could have, it would have led to a resurgence of Communism as others sought to replicate his feat. Of course, there were no connecting countries to Cuba and this was the reason he could have pulled it off -- no greedy conquering neighbors. Of course noone would have recognized that fact.

I am still not endorsing Communism in any manner. I am merely pointing out the most successful attempt at the concept in its history. I am sure that there will still be those who post here that will be blissfully ignorant of that fact.

Let the flames begin.

[telomerase]

Most people say that communism fails because it provides no incentives. This is true but not as important as the fact that communism provides no information on what to produce. A free market is a giant parallel-processing computer, with everyone who produces, buys and sells doing some of the thinking. A communist system is a serial processing system with only a few working processors, and they're all thinking about how to stay on top and avoid assassination. People in a communist state have no idea what to make or what anything is worth.

Those of you who think that the Soviet Union "worked" as a communist state are ignoring three major factors:
1. the huge aid flow from the US taxpayers (via "monetized" bank loans) to the Warsaw Pact. The Pact was into us for over $200 billion when it collapsed. All these bad debts (and those of all the other dictatorships and banana republics) are covered by the Fed printing money and giving it to banks. This is all perfectly legal under the Monetary Control Act of 1980.

2. The Soviet Union had a huge private sector.

3. They wrecked their environment. Look at the Aral Sea.

[telomerase]

>What does anyone here think would have happened if Fidel Castro had been able to continue trade with the world?

He would have been overthrown in six months, like any normal Latin military dictator. Only the trade embargo and the CIA could keep Castro in to die of old age.

[Tamara]

I merely agree that it is, on paper, as a concept, as a theory, as a documentation of Utopia, as a wishlist, as a mindset of a single author (excluding Engels), a good thing.

Not owning the product of the sweat of my brow is a "good thing"? What an odd moral code... :scrutiny:

[Hutch]

JimPeel, is it your assertion that Marxism would have worked on Cuba, and the only reason for our embargo is because we (the US) were afraid of its ultimate success?:scrutiny: Did I chip that up to within putting distance of the pin???? The old Soviet Union was/is arguably one of the richest patches of natural resource on the planet. They were an abysmal failure, as in the wods of George Will (IIRC) "The most colossal failure in the history of human organization." Or words to that effect. It doesn't matter the richness of the land, nor the wisdom or strength of the leader. Communism, Marxism, call it what you will, is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Bereft of a future. Not to flame toooo hotly, but your earlier assertion sounds like Clinton's health care plan -- The only reason it hasn't worked yet is because no one as brilliant as Hillary.:barf: has been put in charge of it.:p

Your trivial cases (family groups, religion monastaries, etc.) notwithstanding, it ain't never worked, and it ain't never GONNA work. 'Cause it don't work

[telomerase]

>Your trivial cases (family groups, religion monastaries, etc.) notwithstanding, it ain't never worked, and it ain't never GONNA work. 'Cause it don't work


Probably true. However, in a free-market system you are always free to try it, as many did in the 1800s US. Under communism, no one is ever allowed to try the free market... and that pretty much sums up the communist's opinion of their own system.

Now if we could only get a free-market system in the US, we'd be set...

[jimpeel]

JimPeel, is it your assertion that Marxism would have worked on Cuba, and the only reason for our embargo is because we (the US) were afraid of its ultimate success? Did I chip that up to within putting distance of the pin???? Yep, and yep.

Actually, what I asserted was that Fidel was the only person in the history of Communism who had a chance in Hell of making it work; and he may have made it work but for the interference of outside forces.

His sole advantage in that endeavor was that he was completely isolated from the rest of the world.

Conversely, his sole disadvantage in that endeavor was that he was completely isolated from the rest of the world.

Was the U.S. and the rest of the "free" world scared to death he might succeed? You're damned right they were. Success on his part would have been devastating because others would have seen his sucess as laying bare the "big lie"; and they had to stop him at all costs.

The thing I find amusing in America is that we have open trade with China. We have open trade with Vietnam for God's sake. Vietnam! But Cuba? Hell no. After all, wasn't it Cuba that killed 58,200 American GIs? Wasn't it Cuba that helped defeat America and the UN in the Korean War? Wasn't it Cuba that engendered the domino theory by its incessant invasion of country after country; you know, the Cuban Soviet Socialist Republic?

Cuba never fired a shot -- with the possible exception of the shot that killed Kennedy (but that's a subject for another thread) -- at America. They buddied up to the Soviet Union -- birds of a feather, ya know -- and ended up with missles there. Trade with the West was out the window so where else were they supposed to go but to the Eastern bloc countries? Anyone here think they wouldn't have traded their goods to America and the West if they had been able?

Instead, we invaded the country (which further embarrased us), tried to assassinate its leader with an exploding cigar (original but not very friendly) and cut them off from the world for all time; while we were buddying up to countries that had actually done real harm to America and threatened its population with total annihilation for decades.

We constantly hear of humanitarian aid to countries that are our sworn enemies -- Iraq, Iran, North Korea, the former Soviet Union, et al -- but does anyone on this board think that if Cuba were to experience a drought (fat chance) or famine, or pestilence, or disease, or weather related crop devastation that we would send a single farthing's worth of aid to them? Don't hold your breath on that one unless you look absolutely smashing in blue.

Cuba has been singled out as the world's whipping boy while the countries that threatened us, killed our soldiers, and supported our sworn enemies bent on our destruction have year after year stood with both front feet in the American largess trough.

We talk of the human rights violations in Cuba and ignore the human rights violations of those countries I have cited above. We talk of how bad the dictator Fidel is but softsell the dictators of the countries I have cited above. We talk of how Fidel must be stopped in his tracks while we sip champagne with the rest of the dictators of the world. We speak of how he is starving his countrymen while we send shipload after shipload of grain to countries which use those foodstuffs to warm the bellies of their military while their people starve.

Yeah, that Fidel fella is one bad egg all right. Far, far worse than all of those other guys we coddle, and gladhand, and entertain, and wheedle, and cajole, and ... and ... and ...

[Tamara]

I'm missing the connection between "We were mean to poor ol' Fidel" and "Denying people control over the fruits of their labor is a good idea in theory." Help me out here... :scrutiny:

[Duncan Idaho]

What does anyone here think would have happened if Fidel Castro had been able to continue trade with the world?That most of the world would have suddenly discovered that they had no use for crap built by peasants whose intelligencia had (quite correctly) abandoned them.

Those little painted nesting dolls that the Ruskies make are bad enough. What were Tio Fidel and friends going to produce to make their little world go around? Sugar? Cigars? Cheap thrill.

Look at East Germany under communism. Before the war the Germans were renowned for their precision machining/technology.

Post-war? While their West German analogs were producing precious and delightful objects like Porches and B.M.W.s, the East Germans (laboring under the thankless nightmare of communism) were producing that technological wonder...THE TRABANT!

http://www.esp.ele.tue.nl/persons/arnol/photogallery/trabant.jpg :scrutiny: :uhoh: :barf:

I rest my case.

[jimpeel]

I'm missing the connection between "We were mean to poor ol' Fidel" and "Denying people control over the fruits of their labor is a good idea in theory." Help me out here... Under the tenets of Communism you were to get the fruits of your labor. You would do as much work as averyone else and you would reap what you sowed. That's the theory.

Of course the theory is shot to Hell by human greed. Everyone wants to have more and more and they want it for doing less and less. The tenets of Communism make the mistaken assumption that everyone would do their fair share in the workers paradise and they would enjoy their fair share of the production. Communism simply ignores human frailty, human emotion, and human laziness. It assumes the lobotomizing of an entire population by their reading the tenets.

The premise is spoiled by the introduction of humans into the equation. I have stated this emphatically time after time on this thread. I also stated "I am still not endorsing Communism in any manner. I am merely pointing out the most successful attempt at the concept in its history. I am sure that there will still be those who post here that will be blissfully ignorant of that fact." The responses I have recieved have proven my prescience.

[Duncan Idaho]

The responses I have recieved have proven my prescience.Bwaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaa

Jim, you're killin' me! LMAO

[jimpeel]

What were Tio Fidel and friends going to produce to make their little world go around? Sugar? Cigars? Cheap thrill.Their "little world" was going around quite nicely based on their production of the goods you have named prior to Fidel's takeover. There is no reason to believe that their "little world" would have stopped without outside intervention.

[Duncan Idaho]

Their "little world" was going around quite nicely based on their production of the goods you have named prior to Fidel's takeover.Except that everyone responsible for managing, and increasing that "production" had fled, was fleeing, or had been killed.

Anyone can be a field monkey for an afternoon, or even as much as a week. Said field monkey may even manage to load a wagon in that time.

The trick, and it's a big one, is to live in a system where there is an actual incentive to find other ways to load the wagon. In communism, there is no incentive. One is paid the same regardless of how the wagon is loaded. Under capitalism, one may find a way to load 10 wagons in the same amount of time. The person that succeeds in that endeavor is often rewarded under capitalism with more pay and perqs. Capitalism contains within it the ability to recognize those that succeed in rising above field monkey status. Their 10x increase in production can be rewarded, thereby helping other field monkeys to want to get clues of their own.

In other words, capitalism rewards the individual first, and the net result is a benefit to society as a whole in terms of the increase in production and innovation. Communism never benefits the individual, and increased production only results from a lowering of the overall standard of the object being produced. What would you rather have? 10 Trabants, or 1 Mercedes Benz?

The East Germans were a good 50 years ahead of the Cubans in terms of virtually anything you care to name (with the possible exception of casinos), and they fell so flat onto their face under communism, that they still haven't been able to get up.

The Cubans would still be where they are today. Hovering at the edge of ruin.

[jimpeel]

For some reason, my posts have made not a single dent here. The responses are such that one would believe that the posters actually believe that I am on the defense of Communism. I AM NOT!

I have merely posited the theory that Cuba would have been the most likely candidate to succeed under the tenets of Communism. I have also stated unequivocally that once brought to fruition, Communism in practice rots on the vine.

I have never stated that Communism in practice is a good thing; only that Communism in theory is a good thing.

I have stated over and over that the failure of Communism is the human element.

I have stated over and over that Communism must fail in practice, but not necessarily on paper.

I have stated over and over that human emotion and greed are the failing of Communism. Human emotion and greed does not exist in a piece of paper.

What do I get? What I already know being argued back at me from the standpoint that I am in opposition. I AM NOT! That I am in some way in favor of the tenets of Communism -- which I have stated unequivocally that I AM NOT!

I get these arguments on how Communism fails in production and how goods and services wane under its yoke. I KNOW THAT! Don't bore me further with comparisons of goods and services in Communist vs. non-communist countries and how those goods and services are crap. I KNOW THAT!

Go back and read what I stated on Cuba. How it is isolated. How it had a ready economy. How it was ostracized. How it was forced to deal with Eastern bloc countries. How it would have gladly traded with Western countries. How they have been treated exactly opposite of countries which have done us actual harm. How they have been treated as though they are worse than those other countries. How Fidel is considered worse than Saddam, the Iranian Mullahs, Kim Jong Il, and all of the other dictators we regularly appease and send our goods to under the banner of "humanitarian aid". How Cuba will never see any of that same aid.

I am now lowered to simply repeating myself to deaf ears. The debate is lost as it has turned away from the original thread subject. I stand by my previous posts and therein lies my offering to the debate. Since no further input will suffice to ameliorate the discussion or dissuade the detractors, I shall post no further on this thread.

Flame away unchallenged.

[Dilettante]

Just curious what you guys say to folks who say "communism is a good idea...in theory"
What do you say to someone who says "perpetual motion machines are a good idea, in theory"?

"Flying by flapping your arms really fast is a good idea, in theory"?

"Curing cancer by channelling Nuandar and visualizing geometric shapes and colors while holding the patient's pinkie is a good idea, in theory"?

Not a very good theory, is it?

[Tamara]

only that Communism in theory is a good thing.

...and I am telling you that even in theory, it is a bad thing. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is how farms are run; pigs have the ability to make bacon, and farmers need to eat.

Communism isn't a theory where you are entitled to the fruits of your labor, it's a theory where everybody is entitled to the fruits of your labor, whether you want to share, or not.

[Moparmike]

Communism isn't a theory where you are entitled to the fruits of your labor, it's a theory where everybody is entitled to the fruits of your labor, whether you want to share, or not.Ahh yes, but you are also entitled to the fruits of the others' labor as well IN THEORY.

IN THEORY, I think that the community working together for the benifit of the community is a great idea. It will never happen though, but it sounds good.

(Great, now I am going to get flamed. Just great. :mumble: :mumble: :mumble: damned vortex-like threads... :mumble: :mumble: ):banghead:

[Duncan Idaho]

I am now lowered to simply repeating myself to deaf ears. No. Now you are lowered to the equivalent of shouting about how smart you are, and how stupid everyone else is. Big deal.

[ReadyontheRight]

I cannot say it better than Ayn Rand said it in "Atlas Shrugged":

----------------------------

"If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater the effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders—what would you tell him to do?"

"I…don’t know. What…could he do? What would you tell him?"

"To shrug."

-----------------------------

Communism PRODUCES nothing.

[ReadyontheRight]

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"

So...The "coin" in a communist society is "need", not ability.

[rrader]

jimpeel:

Go back and read what I stated on Cuba. How it is isolated. How it had a ready economy.

Cuba has never been as isolated as you suggest. Areas that have traded with cuba for a long while now include Mexico, Central and South America, Canada, a lot of Europe, both east and west, a lot of Asia, and of course the USSR and Eastern Bloc almost from the start. The US embargo did little to isolate Cuba economically in any real sense.

How it was ostracized. How it was forced to deal with Eastern bloc countries. How it would have gladly traded with Western countries.

Cuba has traded with western countries like France and many other western nations for quite a long while now. BTW, if you're interested in vacationing in Cuba there are dozens of Canadian travel agencies that will set up a trip for you.

How they have been treated exactly opposite of countries which have done us actual harm. How they have been treated as though they are worse than those other countries. How Fidel is considered worse than Saddam, the Iranian Mullahs, Kim Jong Il, and all of the other dictators we regularly appease and send our goods to under the banner of "humanitarian aid". How Cuba will never see any of that same aid.

Cuba has done a great deal of actual harm to the US and is being treated as it deserves to be treated.

Cuba has done actual harm to the US by serving as a base for Soviet bombers, submarines, and ELINT facilities, and by attempting to serve as a base for Soviet nukes targeting the US. Cuba has also formented Marxist revolution in the western hemisphere and sent troops to Angola to prop up that communist dictatorship in opposition to US interests. Cuba has also harmed the US by repeatedly emptying out their prisons and mental hospitals and forcing these "refugees" on the US via boatlift, recall the Mariel boatlift. And don't forget the considerable US business property stolen (nationalized) by Castro after the revolution.

The US supported Iraq for a brief period as a buffer against an expanding Iranian fundamentalist revolution. Other than the period of the Iran-Iraq war the US has had little to do with Iraq in terms of support or trade exclusive of oil.

The US has had very little to do with the Iranians since their revolution beyond humanatarian aid and the Iran-Contra-Hostages fiasco, and has had several armed clashes with them since '79. Recall the shelling by the US battleship during the Regan Administration.

The US has only recently tried to appease Kim Jong Ill and it looks like that strategy is going to be changing to a far more hostile stance in the next few months.

The US has sent considerable amounts of humantarian aid to Cuba over the years, doesn't block Cuban-Americans from at least indirectly sending cash to destitute relatives living in Cuba, and has negoiated many agreements with the Cuban Government on commercial overflight, drug interdiction, orderly migration, etc...

No, Cuba is in its state of dire poverty as a direct result of it's socialist / communist economic policies and government and not by virtue of the US embargo. You have drawn exactly the wrong conclusion. Cuba has had a great deal of help over the years in terms of cash and raw materials sent from the USSR and elsewhere, and much open trade with the west, and still has descended into poverty directly as a result of communism.

Cuba is proof positive that even with a lot of help, communisim still doesn't work.

And thanks for the re-hash of the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" propaganda. It's always interesting to revisit the '60's.

[matis]

Very well said, rrader.

This time I'm in just about perfect agreement with you.


Cuba IS a perfect example of the failure of communism.

It IS broke and you CANNOT fix it.



matis

[rrader]

Matis:

Very well said, rrader.

Thanks.

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

I think it's pretty obvious that communism doesn't work very well in a society that is growing financially. The lack of rewards fails to stimulate growth and the inherent greed of all animals limits its effeciency.

But keep in mind that capitalism has a limit, too. The capitalist model demands that there is an ever increasing amount of raw materials and an ever increasing demand for finished products. If demand for new products drops, the economy goes with it and inflation insues. In other words, it doesn't work if everyone is selling and no one is buying.

There will come a point in our future when there isn't enough consumerism to keep a market economy afloat. At that point a rather benign communism may replace capitalism, but probably to no one's detriment as relative wealth will be much less meaningful.

[Mostly Harmless]

Communism cannot work in practice because it denies a fundamental truth of human nature: greed or acquisitiveness.

The human race did not become the dominant species on this planet because of our courtesy, altruism, and good table manners. We got to be where we are now because we are clever, adaptable, aggressive and greedy.

The more able (either through intelligence or strength) got the goodies and the rest followed in their footsteps and ate leftovers. Now, leftovers might not be as good as filet mignon, but they beat nothing.

Anarchy favors ability. Where there are few or no rules the smartest and strongest do much better than the needy.

In order to "organize the equitable redistribution of goods" among the population, there has to be some sort of controlling body which identifies need and assigns goods. Once you have people in those positions of power you have a setup for abuse, nepotism, favoritism, bribery, corruption etc. You also need a mechanism to ensure compliance and prevent people from "cheating" or holding out. This pretty much guarantees a police state.

Now, there's nothing wrong with a person of ability assisting another whose needs outweigh his abilities. But on one condition: the donor should be donating time/money/goods/services of his own free will. As soon as any form of compulsion, from religious guilt-tripping to force of arms, is instituted to facilitate donation, you have created a form of slavery.

Communism as practiced in the USSR, would have collapsed decades sooner if not propped up by US donations. They would have run out of money, goods, food, etc. and collapsed in chaos.

The pseudo-capitalism practiced in the US today, which is more a form of corporate socialism whereby the government gives grants, tax breaks, and other money to industries to "protect US interests and trade", will also collapse eventually when it runs out of money. It will do so eventually. No matter how creatively the Federal Reserve creates its fiat tokens, eventually the system will demonstrate its bankruptcy and there will be a collapse of galactic proportions.

J.

[Gordon Fink]

The human race did not become the dominant species on this planet because of our courtesy, altruism, and good table manners. We got to be where we are now because we are clever, adaptable, aggressive and greedy.

You forget that we also have the ability to cooperate and collaborate. Individual achievements, though important, were not the only thing that made us the dominant species. Group efforts (from families to whole civilizations) were what really allowed humanity to excel. It is in this ability to work together that overly optimistic economic theorists see the viability of communism, with its theoretical maximally efficient distribution of goods and services. However, even Karl Marx realized that most people weren’t ready for communism, which is why he postulated that there would have to be a period of socialism before communism could be achieved.


In order to “organize the equitable redistribution of goods” among the population, there has to be some sort of controlling body which identifies need and assigns goods.… This pretty much guarantees a police state.

In this case, you are describing socialism, rather than communism. You are quite correct that socialism requires a virtual police state, if it is to succeed as the only economic mechanism. Marx and Engels wrote about the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” if you will recall. However, in communism, central direction is not required to ensure the equitable distribution of goods and services. According to theory, this process happens naturally, thanks to the fact that the populace has internalized the communal ethic.


Now, there’s nothing wrong with a person of ability assisting another whose needs outweigh his abilities. But on one condition: the donor should be donating time/money/goods/services of his own free will. As soon as any form of compulsion … is instituted to facilitate donation, you have created a form of slavery.

You are correct again. However, in communism participation in the economy is completely voluntary. If participation is not voluntary, then you are describing something other than communism.


Communism as practiced in the USSR, would have collapsed decades sooner if not propped up by US donations. They would have run out of money, goods, food, etc. and collapsed in chaos.

Communism was never practiced in the U.S.S.R. Despite being ruled by a self-styled “Communist Party,” the Soviet Union was a socialist state. As for its collapse, don’t forget the arms race. A strong argument can be made that Soviet efforts to maintain military parity with the U.S. forced the U.S.S.R. into insolvency decades before the natural inefficiency of its Leninist socialism would have. Of course, even Marx could have told you that socialism would fail in the Soviet Union.

~G. Fink