Thread: Common Misconceptions about Communism

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Halliday

Can I ask you where you were "born and raised" and also to mention any memories you care to share? Perhaps you would prefer to keep this information private!

I do not want to be rude or anything, but since I am using my real name both here and on all other forums I am active on, I prefer not to reveal or discuss any specifics, especially since this doesn't just involve me but all the rest of my family too.

Let's just say the memories are largely negative, though it needs to be remembered that nothing is ever just "black or white" - there were good aspects to the system too, and I have no doubt that so long as you kept quiet and just went along with the flow of things without ever expressing opinions that went contrary to approved political ideology, you were able to have a comfortable, secure and stable life. But the price to pay for this was of course your freedom, both physically as well as intellectually.

A few of my memories :

- queuing at the shop at 4am for a delivery of bananas
- ordering your car at the time your kids are born, because it took 20 years to build and deliver
- my sister not being allowed to go to college, simply because my parents weren't party members
- our phones being tapped, and the house bugged
- travelling required special permits, and was allowed only to approved socialist countries

These are the harmless ones, other memories are much worse, but I won't go into details.

Has no one even listened to what I have been saying for 90% of this whole thread. That is not Communism/Socialism. It is a shell, named Stalinism, where the paranoid government restricts everything to fashion. It is an invention of Stalin, and was the ideology that he spread to Eastern Europe, Mongolia, China, the DPRK etc.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Russia is so advanced and prosperous today that it makes the U.S. look like a third world, starving nation.

!!!!!!
When were you last in Russia? When did you last have a lengthy conversation with a Russian citizen, living in Russia about how things are going?

I concede I've spent a lot more time in the US than in Russia, but I've spent enough time there and have enough routine contact with Russians to know you are talking nonsense.

He is talking in the view of the period of time of the USSR. See he calls the European Union the EEC (European Economic Community?

Markus Henke......when I went with my mother and father to Slovenia to see our family, we were watched everywhere we went, and not allowed out of the police sight. I get what you are saying. I actually experienced it as an American. My mother escaped after the war from the Communist then "Yugoslavia", her return with her family was very much observed.

Originally Posted by Devon Keogh

Has no one even listened to what I have been saying for 90% of this whole thread. That is not Communism/Socialism. It is a shell, named Stalinism, where the paranoid government restricts everything to fashion. It is an invention of Stalin, and was the ideology that he spread to Eastern Europe, Mongolia, China, the DPRK etc.

This is the argument often put forward by the apologists for communism on the far left.. It states that Stalinism was an aberration that distorted the ideals of communism. Many of us believe that Stalinism followed naturally from the ideas of Lenin and many other communist thinkers/ideologists before, and after, the 1917 Revolution.
Communism was a utopian ideology. This surely means that, as time passed, the system would move closer to an almost "perfect" society. This view, created by the ideology, made it easier to tolerate the "temporary" existence of brutal policies because such policies were seen as necessary in order to defeat those elements determined to stop the march towards full communism.
Also 20th century communism, and not simply Stalin and his followers, was generally hostile towards the ideals of liberal/parliamentary democracy such as free speech and free elections. This system was contempuously referred to as "bourgeois" democracy and the term is an illustration of the default communist attitude to freedoms which most of us, in the West, consider to be of great importance.

I do not really support Communism, only Socialism. A "perfect" society is an empty shell where everyone does what they are meant to, crime is non-existent, creativity is none-existent, etc. Although there are good pages in this society, it is most definitely a bad thing. Science and creativity are to be recognized as my first choice, Socialism next, and Communism at the very last.

I just wish to state that there are many misconceptions, for example: McCarthyist propaganda, initiated on the pure assumption that Communism/Socialism is completely evil and must be destroyed.

For the McCarthyists, please do remember that Joseph McCarthy was a blundering and useless Senator, unable to rally to a worthy cause, and there hence latching onto the idea that Marxist ideologies are evil, in the sole purpose for himself to be re-elected so he could guzzle down his ridiculous salary for a few years more. McCarthy was also a homophobe.

I do not think Stalin exercised the ideology of socialism; he was a self-imposed radical that took Russia down a path that no one could imagine. The idea of socialism was never meant to deprive people of their status. The state of the Russia at that time was ripe for radicalism to enter and plunder. Because Stalin was successful, the idea traveled to other parts of the world and found fertile ground because of the poverty that was grown in these other countries. I do not see socialism different to any other system; if the ground is fertile any dictator can appear.

Originally Posted by Devon Keogh

If any person wishes to see true communism/socialism, read the original books by Karl Marx.

Marx's main work is about Capitalism, not Communism: Capital Volumes 1-3, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Grundrisse, Wage Labour & Capital, Theories of Surplus Value and other main books are about Capitalism and its related processes.
He only described some very general points of communism since no one can really know how a non existent system will be.

Originally Posted by Devon Keogh

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Devon Keogh

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Devon Keogh

Well, Term limits on Presidency are there to stop the President becoming a rule-for-life dictator...

I doubt it had anything do with it. The balance of power wasn't effected at all regardless of how long a president could serve--they couldn't make new law, nor would they be immune to being overruled or decisions stricken by US Supreme Court. It was in large part passed to codify a tradition that went back to President Washington followed by most presidents to that point, because a lot of Republicans wanted a shot at the White House, and there was a term limit political movement in many states at the time. I don't think avoiding a dictatorship was ever part of the serious discussion.

They did that for Consuls in the Roman Empire. The Consul could only spend one year of his life in the highest post of Roman society, this was for fear of the Kingdom of Rome which had been overthrown with King Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. I presume that this was the reason that the US adopted this policy.

If you grant a president infinite time of presidency, he will see himself as the upholder of the people, the country unable to function without him. He will become arrogant, greedy and ruthless in the belief of his own lie. He will probably gain a cult of personality, people whispering in his ears deeds of his greatness. This is how dictatorship starts.

I have no doubt that's your opinion. But it seems the question is about whether term limits exist to prevent dictatorship as you claimed. I suggested that it had no part in the US thinking which resulted in term limits and you've offered nothing to counter. Modern representatives governments with their checks and balances are not Rome.

You seem to be thinking of the Roman Empire. I am speaking of the Roman Republic, which can be described in theory as a modern representative government. I call it "modern" as it is similar to most modern democratic governments.

Why do you think that the Roman Republic is not alike to modern Western governments? They had a similar organization with a senate etc. They had Social Welfare for the poor, called the dole (a ration of food). Their society had two classes, the Patricians (modern: rich business-people) and the Plebians (modern: 99% of people). They had a Capitalist society based around money, trading with the known world. They were obsessed with the military and acted like the known world police force (just like the modern USA).

I could go on for centuries...

Roman Empire was not a capitalist society, not even close to one. A capitalist society requires among others, 1) labour market and 2) capital.
1) In precapitalist societies there was no free labour nor exchange of labour power for wage thus, the core concept of capitalism was nonexistent.
2) Not such thing as capital can be created unless accumulation of money exists. Money in all precapitalist societies is exogenous and corrosive. It only exists as commodity-money when various societies meet each other. I'm referring to money, not wealth in general. Wealth can not enter the circulation process easily since it has not great volatility. Money though, is the general equivalent. Of course, in Roman Empire money existed but, its functions were really limited. That's predictable since there was no division of labour thus, no need for markets.

Originally Posted by Achilleas

Originally Posted by Devon Keogh

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Devon Keogh

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Devon Keogh

Well, Term limits on Presidency are there to stop the President becoming a rule-for-life dictator...

I doubt it had anything do with it. The balance of power wasn't effected at all regardless of how long a president could serve--they couldn't make new law, nor would they be immune to being overruled or decisions stricken by US Supreme Court. It was in large part passed to codify a tradition that went back to President Washington followed by most presidents to that point, because a lot of Republicans wanted a shot at the White House, and there was a term limit political movement in many states at the time. I don't think avoiding a dictatorship was ever part of the serious discussion.

They did that for Consuls in the Roman Empire. The Consul could only spend one year of his life in the highest post of Roman society, this was for fear of the Kingdom of Rome which had been overthrown with King Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. I presume that this was the reason that the US adopted this policy.

If you grant a president infinite time of presidency, he will see himself as the upholder of the people, the country unable to function without him. He will become arrogant, greedy and ruthless in the belief of his own lie. He will probably gain a cult of personality, people whispering in his ears deeds of his greatness. This is how dictatorship starts.

I have no doubt that's your opinion. But it seems the question is about whether term limits exist to prevent dictatorship as you claimed. I suggested that it had no part in the US thinking which resulted in term limits and you've offered nothing to counter. Modern representatives governments with their checks and balances are not Rome.

You seem to be thinking of the Roman Empire. I am speaking of the Roman Republic, which can be described in theory as a modern representative government. I call it "modern" as it is similar to most modern democratic governments.

Why do you think that the Roman Republic is not alike to modern Western governments? They had a similar organization with a senate etc. They had Social Welfare for the poor, called the dole (a ration of food). Their society had two classes, the Patricians (modern: rich business-people) and the Plebians (modern: 99% of people). They had a Capitalist society based around money, trading with the known world. They were obsessed with the military and acted like the known world police force (just like the modern USA).

I could go on for centuries...

Roman Empire was not a capitalist society, not even close to one. A capitalist society requires among others, 1) labour market and 2) capital.
1) In precapitalist societies there was no free labour nor exchange of labour power for wage thus, the core concept of capitalism was nonexistent.
2) Not such thing as capital can be created unless accumulation of money exists. Money in all precapitalist societies is exogenous and corrosive. It only exists as commodity-money when various societies meet each other. I'm referring to money, not wealth in general. Wealth can not enter the circulation process easily since it has not great volatility. Money though, is the general equivalent. Of course, in Roman Empire money existed but, its functions were really limited. That's predictable since there was no division of labour thus, no need for markets.

Money permeated every aspect of Roman society. What are you talking about? Your place in society was denoted by your money. Only a rich man could afford to campaign for a higher government position etc. Very much like modern capitalist societies. Just because the term "capitalism" was not used at the time to describe the Roman republic, does not mean that it was not a capitalist empire.

Originally Posted by Achilleas

Originally Posted by Devon Keogh

If any person wishes to see true communism/socialism, read the original books by Karl Marx.

Marx's main work is about Capitalism, not Communism: Capital Volumes 1-3, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Grundrisse, Wage Labour & Capital, Theories of Surplus Value and other main books are about Capitalism and its related processes.
He only described some very general points of communism since no one can really know how a non existent system will be.

Read The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and others. It lays out the ideals of communism.

Originally Posted by Devon Keogh

Originally Posted by Achilleas

Originally Posted by Devon Keogh

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Devon Keogh

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Devon Keogh

Well, Term limits on Presidency are there to stop the President becoming a rule-for-life dictator...

I doubt it had anything do with it. The balance of power wasn't effected at all regardless of how long a president could serve--they couldn't make new law, nor would they be immune to being overruled or decisions stricken by US Supreme Court. It was in large part passed to codify a tradition that went back to President Washington followed by most presidents to that point, because a lot of Republicans wanted a shot at the White House, and there was a term limit political movement in many states at the time. I don't think avoiding a dictatorship was ever part of the serious discussion.

They did that for Consuls in the Roman Empire. The Consul could only spend one year of his life in the highest post of Roman society, this was for fear of the Kingdom of Rome which had been overthrown with King Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. I presume that this was the reason that the US adopted this policy.

If you grant a president infinite time of presidency, he will see himself as the upholder of the people, the country unable to function without him. He will become arrogant, greedy and ruthless in the belief of his own lie. He will probably gain a cult of personality, people whispering in his ears deeds of his greatness. This is how dictatorship starts.

I have no doubt that's your opinion. But it seems the question is about whether term limits exist to prevent dictatorship as you claimed. I suggested that it had no part in the US thinking which resulted in term limits and you've offered nothing to counter. Modern representatives governments with their checks and balances are not Rome.

You seem to be thinking of the Roman Empire. I am speaking of the Roman Republic, which can be described in theory as a modern representative government. I call it "modern" as it is similar to most modern democratic governments.

Why do you think that the Roman Republic is not alike to modern Western governments? They had a similar organization with a senate etc. They had Social Welfare for the poor, called the dole (a ration of food). Their society had two classes, the Patricians (modern: rich business-people) and the Plebians (modern: 99% of people). They had a Capitalist society based around money, trading with the known world. They were obsessed with the military and acted like the known world police force (just like the modern USA).

I could go on for centuries...

Roman Empire was not a capitalist society, not even close to one. A capitalist society requires among others, 1) labour market and 2) capital.
1) In precapitalist societies there was no free labour nor exchange of labour power for wage thus, the core concept of capitalism was nonexistent.
2) Not such thing as capital can be created unless accumulation of money exists. Money in all precapitalist societies is exogenous and corrosive. It only exists as commodity-money when various societies meet each other. I'm referring to money, not wealth in general. Wealth can not enter the circulation process easily since it has not great volatility. Money though, is the general equivalent. Of course, in Roman Empire money existed but, its functions were really limited. That's predictable since there was no division of labour thus, no need for markets.

Money permeated every aspect of Roman society. What are you talking about? Your place in society was denoted by your money. Only a rich man could afford to campaign for a higher government position etc. Very much like modern capitalist societies. Just because the term "capitalism" was not used at the time to describe the Roman republic, does not mean that it was not a capitalist empire.

I agree, roman empire was indeed highly monetised but, that doesn't mean that accumulation of money as capital was a general, social rule. To be more specific in the total circulation of products money was just the general equivalent and it had no any other functions (plus some limited credit which is a characteristic pre-capitalist function).
A typical product circulation in roman empire should be just like general trading. You start with a product (C) you go to the market, you sell the product and receive money (M) then you buy another product (C').

Schematically: C-M-C'

This kind of circulation was really common in pre-capitalist economies. Also, this kind of circulation mostly occured when various societies (eg villages, cities) meet each other. It was extremely rare to find marketplaces everywhere and economic units didn't trade largely within their societies. There was no bakeries, no clothes stores, no groceries in each city or village. Lack of division of labour means almost no trading after all. That's why I'm saying that money is exogenous. Economic activity was not based on money but on self-consumption + some general trading.

On the other hand a capitalistic circulation would look like:

M-P(production process)-C-M'

Your starting point is money. You buy means of production (raw materials, labour power in labour market, machines, etc), you sell the product, then have more money to reinvest. This scheme was non existent until late 15th-16th century. Capitalism is about compound growth for ever. Roman empire achieved growth but can not be compared with capitalism.

Also, since there was not labour market technically, is not capitalism. Slaves and lack of labour division means that there's no necessity for labour market thus it's pre-capitalistic even though general trading may be the rule between regions. You describe very well the social mobility, I'm just suggesting that this is not technically, a capitalist society. . I'd say it was the first pre-capitalist, merchantilist economy though.

Read The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and others. It lays out the ideals of communism.

I'm well aware of his Manifesto. Of course you will find Marx's work referring to communism and socialism, after all he participated in International Workingmen's Assosiassion and had several radical actions. But his main work is about capitalism, political economy and their critique. Marx actually highlited the processes of social change. No one can be very descriptive. It's like going back in Middle Age and asking Thomas Aqcuinas how capitalism would look like.

Originally Posted by Devon Keogh

Originally Posted by Achilleas

Originally Posted by Devon Keogh

If any person wishes to see true communism/socialism, read the original books by Karl Marx.

Marx's main work is about Capitalism, not Communism: Capital Volumes 1-3, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Grundrisse, Wage Labour & Capital, Theories of Surplus Value and other main books are about Capitalism and its related processes.
He only described some very general points of communism since no one can really know how a non existent system will be.

Read The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and others. It lays out the ideals of communism.

What ideals are you talking about? Again you are using communism as a system. As far as I know Marx was addressing some general points of capitalism.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Communism suffers the same singular problem faced by Capitalism and, indeed, all other forms of government; people.Every system can and will be abused to the detriment of those involved.

As Madison said:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by Devon Keogh

Has no one even listened to what I have been saying for 90% of this whole thread. That is not Communism/Socialism. It is a shell, named Stalinism, where the paranoid government restricts everything to fashion. It is an invention of Stalin, and was the ideology that he spread to Eastern Europe, Mongolia, China, the DPRK etc.

This is the argument often put forward by the apologists for communism on the far left.. It states that Stalinism was an aberration that distorted the ideals of communism. Many of us believe that Stalinism followed naturally from the ideas of Lenin and many other communist thinkers/ideologists before, and after, the 1917 Revolution.
Communism was a utopian ideology. This surely means that, as time passed, the system would move closer to an almost "perfect" society. This view, created by the ideology, made it easier to tolerate the "temporary" existence of brutal policies because such policies were seen as necessary in order to defeat those elements determined to stop the march towards full communism.
.

That seems like a pretty good statement of the core misconception that enabled Communism to exist in the first place: That the police state is temporary.

The truth: The police state was set up in a way that guaranteed the country would always be dependent on it. No system of incentives was being put in place to motivate workers to do what they were supposed to do absent the threat of being taken away by the police. So they system, if it progressed at all, would only progress in the direction of needing more and more police. It couldn't possibly go the other way.

The only possibility, I suppose, would be if the Communist party had accepted Darwinism. Selection against greed (by eliminating the greedy, while sparing the altruistic people) would gradually have changed the genome of the people.

However...... greedy people were the most likely to aspire to become police, because the police were generally treated well compared to the rest of the population (in order to ensure their loyalty). So.... the police would need to select against themselves. Good luck getting them to do that.

.... which leads us back to Madanthonywayne's quote.

How can you achieve an altruistic communist society if you put mean people in charge of administering the change? Who else other than mean people would take the job?

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by Devon Keogh

Has no one even listened to what I have been saying for 90% of this whole thread. That is not Communism/Socialism. It is a shell, named Stalinism, where the paranoid government restricts everything to fashion. It is an invention of Stalin, and was the ideology that he spread to Eastern Europe, Mongolia, China, the DPRK etc.

This is the argument often put forward by the apologists for communism on the far left.. It states that Stalinism was an aberration that distorted the ideals of communism. Many of us believe that Stalinism followed naturally from the ideas of Lenin and many other communist thinkers/ideologists before, and after, the 1917 Revolution.
Communism was a utopian ideology. This surely means that, as time passed, the system would move closer to an almost "perfect" society. This view, created by the ideology, made it easier to tolerate the "temporary" existence of brutal policies because such policies were seen as necessary in order to defeat those elements determined to stop the march towards full communism.
.

That seems like a pretty good statement of the core misconception that enabled Communism to exist in the first place: That the police state is temporary.

The truth: The police state was set up in a way that guaranteed the country would always be dependent on it. No system of incentives was being put in place to motivate workers to do what they were supposed to do absent the threat of being taken away by the police. So they system, if it progressed at all, would only progress in the direction of needing more and more police. It couldn't possibly go the other way.

The only possibility, I suppose, would be if the Communist party had accepted Darwinism. Selection against greed (by eliminating the greedy, while sparing the altruistic people) would gradually have changed the genome of the people.

However...... greedy people were the most likely to aspire to become police, because the police were generally treated well compared to the rest of the population (in order to ensure their loyalty). So.... the police would need to select against themselves. Good luck getting them to do that.

.... which leads us back to Madanthonywayne's quote.

How can you achieve an altruistic communist society if you put mean people in charge of administering the change? Who else other than mean people would take the job?

Interesting view. Waiting for other comments

One misconception IMO is that the Purges and general hardship in the 30's was unnecessary and cruel. I think history proves that an oversimplification. German hawks including Hitler made their desire to conquer and rule the backward people of Eastern Europe quite obvious, and as early as 1931 Stalin believed war inevitable. His formula: "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us. " Then right on schedule the bulk of German industry moved to conquer Russia, and was driven back... by what? Artillery, tanks, bombers, an inexhaustible supply of ordinance, and yeah right snow too. Could Russia have industrialized in time, without the whip? Had Stalin's ten years been like nine, what would have happened?

Not to say I like any of it. But if I had to choose between evils... slavery under Stalin to prepare for war, or slavery under Hitler to provide a Germanic utopia...?

Originally Posted by Pong

One misconception IMO is that the Purges and general hardship in the 30's was unnecessary and cruel. I think history proves that an oversimplification. German hawks including Hitler made their desire to conquer and rule the backward people of Eastern Europe quite obvious, and as early as 1931 Stalin believed war inevitable. His formula: "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us. " Then right on schedule the bulk of German industry moved to conquer Russia, and was driven back... by what? Artillery, tanks, bombers, an inexhaustible supply of ordinance, and yeah right snow too. Could Russia have industrialized in time, without the whip? Had Stalin's ten years been like nine, what would have happened?

Not to say I like any of it. But if I had to choose between evils... slavery under Stalin to prepare for war, or slavery under Hitler to provide a Germanic utopia...?

mother loved through both...both evil

Good post, its surprising to hear a defence of communism these days, you just don't hear that.

I think the smartest critiques of communism, real communism, were on the issue of centralized planning. Free market capitalism is this crazy, peer-to-peer system of exchange of goods and services, which tends to concentrate wealth/power in the hands of those who invest in the means of production of goods, rather than goods, and spirals into greater and greater concentration of wealth for those people. Communism was supposed to be the antidote, But requires a centralized force to manage distribution of wealth, to ensure ownership of too much doesn't occur. The smartest critiques I've read said this creates an information problem, because free markets are actually distributed information systems, almost like a form of collective intelligence, which are constantly computing the value of things, trying to anticipate what people will need. The central authority can't keep up with all the thoughts of all the merchants, interacting in this market system. So the controls on the market become controls on information flow, and disrupt the collective intelligence of the country.

Gorbachev and Andropov, according to books I read, came to understand this from KGB research, and set out to save the USSR with the policy of Glasnost, or openess, in hopes of creating a more free exchange of information, not just with government, but with the entire culture. (Wiki page does not support this idea, but its what I read)

But then things collapsed, and now communism is mostly a historical footnote. However the ever growing gap between the haves and have nots, which lead to communism in the first place, is back:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...change-epi.jpg

So the core issues it tried to solve are not solved.

This website is excellent Index to Misconceptions About Socialism and from my studies of Marx and other philosophers associated with socialism very accurate and objective. I don't regard the Soviet Union as a communist state, it was certainly a socialist one (at least when the Bolsheviks abolished private property after they seized power), but there didn't seem to be any progress towards a stateless, classless society, actually completely in the opposite, on another note Marxism is actually perfectly compatible with democracy and the revolution must be done by the people in the interest of the people, in contrast to the bourgeois revolution you get with the Bolshevik party.

The real Marxists were the Mensheviks.

Originally Posted by Pong

One misconception IMO is that the Purges and general hardship in the 30's was unnecessary and cruel. I think history proves that an oversimplification. German hawks including Hitler made their desire to conquer and rule the backward people of Eastern Europe quite obvious, and as early as 1931 Stalin believed war inevitable. His formula: "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us. " Then right on schedule the bulk of German industry moved to conquer Russia, and was driven back... by what? Artillery, tanks, bombers, an inexhaustible supply of ordinance, and yeah right snow too. Could Russia have industrialized in time, without the whip? Had Stalin's ten years been like nine, what would have happened?

Not to say I like any of it. But if I had to choose between evils... slavery under Stalin to prepare for war, or slavery under Hitler to provide a Germanic utopia...?

From what I've read one could make a very strong case for the view the Soviets won the war in the East in spite of many of the policies of Stalin and not because of them.
It would be difficult to argue that the extensive purges affecting the military, before and during the War, strengthened the Soviet armed forces in the struggle.
For example there were five Marshals of the Soviet military in the late 193o's. Three of these men were executed in the period 1937-38. The Marshals who survived, Voroshilov and Budyonny, were cronies of Stalin and he appeared to have faith in them during the early stages of the War. Both were later dismissed and replaced by far more abler officers who understood the tactics of modern warfare.
Budyonny actually believed that tank formations, in a battle, would never be as effective as the Cavalry.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by Pong

One misconception IMO is that the Purges and general hardship in the 30's was unnecessary and cruel. I think history proves that an oversimplification. German hawks including Hitler made their desire to conquer and rule the backward people of Eastern Europe quite obvious, and as early as 1931 Stalin believed war inevitable. His formula: "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us. " Then right on schedule the bulk of German industry moved to conquer Russia, and was driven back... by what? Artillery, tanks, bombers, an inexhaustible supply of ordinance, and yeah right snow too. Could Russia have industrialized in time, without the whip? Had Stalin's ten years been like nine, what would have happened?

Not to say I like any of it. But if I had to choose between evils... slavery under Stalin to prepare for war, or slavery under Hitler to provide a Germanic utopia...?

From what I've read one could make a very strong case for the view the Soviets won the war in the East in spite of many of the policies of Stalin and not because of them.
It would be difficult to argue that the extensive purges affecting the military, before and during the War, strengthened the Soviet armed forces in the struggle.
For example there were five Marshals of the Soviet military in the late 193o's. Three of these men were executed in the period 1937-38. The Marshals who survived, Voroshilov and Budyonny, were cronies of Stalin and he appeared to have faith in them during the early stages of the War. Both were later dismissed and replaced by far more abler officers who understood the tactics of modern warfare.
Budyonny actually believed that tank formations, in a battle, would never be as effective as the Cavalry.

I didn't know that!! THANK YOU!

Originally Posted by Halliday

From what I've read one could make a very strong case for the view the Soviets won the war in the East in spite of many of the policies of Stalin and not because of them.
It would be difficult to argue that the extensive purges affecting the military, before and during the War, strengthened the Soviet armed forces in the struggle.

Budyonny actually believed that tank formations, in a battle, would never be as effective as the Cavalry.

You point to Stalin's stupid execution of unfavored marshals. Yes he blew a lot of brains out of the military. You're saying the war was won with brains, not brawn. I think you underestimate the importance of industrial output in war.

Stalin's famine-inducing policy of industry over agriculture, and dependence on the Gulag system to build infrastructure and draw raw materials, was nasty. It was like whipping slaves. But it did produce tanks. You're right, tanks not cavalry was what Russia needed. You must understand that no officer, able or inept, could face the German war machine when his men have no rifles, no air support, no ammunition trains. And when war begun, the Gulag system turned to full-on war production. That war was a close one. Remove the forced labour from history, what would be the outcome?

Originally Posted by TridentBlue

Good post, its surprising to hear a defence of communism these days, you just don't hear that.

I think the smartest critiques of communism, real communism, were on the issue of centralized planning. Free market capitalism is this crazy, peer-to-peer system of exchange of goods and services, which tends to concentrate wealth/power in the hands of those who invest in the means of production of goods, rather than goods, and spirals into greater and greater concentration of wealth for those people. Communism was supposed to be the antidote, But requires a centralized force to manage distribution of wealth, to ensure ownership of too much doesn't occur. The smartest critiques I've read said this creates an information problem, because free markets are actually distributed information systems, almost like a form of collective intelligence, which are constantly computing the value of things, trying to anticipate what people will need. The central authority can't keep up with all the thoughts of all the merchants, interacting in this market system. So the controls on the market become controls on information flow, and disrupt the collective intelligence of the country.

I also would add that the central planning agency ultimately becomes a wealthy elite. The difference between owning vast wealth, and controlling vast wealth is only really a difference in name. How's the saying go? Possession is 90% of of ownership?

If you control the wealth, then the wealth goes to where you want it to go. That means you can decide to give it to people who do you favors. Or you can steer it toward yourself. Maybe decide that the planners need the best food, and nicest houses. A state owned Mercedes Benz parked in the drive way to carry you to and from work, with your name on it, and a chauffeur to drive it. But your personal possessions are the same as a factory worker. The Benz is state owned, of course, and the chauffeur is a state employee. And the apartment also. You're just as poor as everyone else, except when it affects your job, ..... and of course everything affects your job.

Originally Posted by kojax

I also would add that the central planning agency ultimately becomes a wealthy elite.

Orwell understood this a long time ago.

"Comrades!" he cried. "You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organization of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for YOUR sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples." - Squealer the Pig

I also would add that the central planning agency ultimately becomes a wealthy elite.

This doesn't exist under Utopian communism. In real communism (not dictatorship pretending to be communism or socialist dictatorship assigned the label, "communism") everybody is in charge and nobody is in charge. Workers elect their bosses, neighborhoods elect their police etc. etc. With a call to vote at any time. (The "central planning" agency doesn't exist as you describe it) It's one big old "majority rules" vote on EVERYTHING. The problem with this, I'm surprised no one has pointed out yet, is with all the voting it leaves little time for anything else. The other problem, as I think a mod pointed out, is the populace being subject to the tyranny of the majority. De Tocqueville points out that all some charismatic person needs to do is get the majority on his side and now the majority is basically a puppet controlled by charisma. However, this is not limited to communism. California saw this over prop 8, and there are any one of a dozen instances of th minority being subject to the wrath of the majority

The difference between owning vast wealth, and controlling vast wealth is only really a difference in name. How's the saying go? Possession is 90% of of ownership?

Kinda sounds like the elite 1% here in the USA doesn't it? All Capitalism is, is a slower march to autocracy. What's the goal of capitalism? To own everything. If you own everything you get to make the rules. Supposedly, we have anti trust laws in place to stop this from happening but they are followed on whims. How many times have the anti trusts laws been ignored/bent/looked over in order for Rupert to buy another media outlet? (Sorry, he's an easy target at the moment)

If you control the wealth, then the wealth goes to where you want it to go. That means you can decide to give it to people who do you favors. Or you can steer it toward yourself. Maybe decide that the planners need the best food, and nicest houses. A state owned Mercedes Benz parked in the drive way to carry you to and from work, with your name on it, and a chauffeur to drive it. But your personal possessions are the same as a factory worker. The Benz is state owned, of course, and the chauffeur is a state employee. And the apartment also. You're just as poor as everyone else, except when it affects your job, ..... and of course everything affects your job.

How is this not capitalism again?
The ultimate problem with communism is inevitably some capitalist shows up and ruins it.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by kojax

I also would add that the central planning agency ultimately becomes a wealthy elite.

Orwell understood this a long time ago.

"Comrades!" he cried. "You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organization of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for YOUR sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples." - Squealer the Pig

As much as you would like it to be, Animal Farm nor 1984 are even close to examples of a communist state. Those are stories of fascism.

Fascism =/= Communism.

At best, Fascism is bastardized socialism. (probably run by a capitalist! )

Funny how that AF Quote applies quite nicely to the Republican party... They're keeping the middle class even more poor for their own good. "Money corrupts don't you know! So, it's better that we hold on to it!" They're the brain workers after all.

You've got down and out people robbed of their pensions and their futures screaming from their door steps of their mobile home not to tax the rich even though it was the rich that put them on that doorstep. Hard work be damned, I guess it just wasn't hard enough! "Hey those pigs are right... let them have the milk and apples!"

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

The ultimate problem with communism is inevitably some capitalist shows up and ruins it.

That's yours? I like it.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

As much as you would like it to be, Animal Farm nor 1984 are even close to examples of a communist state. Those are stories of fascism.

Fascism =/= Communism.

At best, Fascism is bastardized socialism. (probably run by a capitalist! )

Animal farm is clearly intended to be a satire of communism. The workers (animals) rise up and take control of the means of production (the farm). Of course the animals never expected the elites to feather their own nests, but that's what happens due to human nature, or in this case, "pig" nature. Orwell knew a bit about fascism and communism. He fought on the side of the communists against the fascists in the Spanish civil war.

Funny how that AF Quote applies quite nicely to the Republican party...

It looks to me like they apply to the Democratic party. Obama's raking in millions, going on expensive taxpayer funded vacations, golfing on all the best golf courses, all the while pretending to represent the workers, who are mostly out of jobs because of his policies.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

As much as you would like it to be, Animal Farm nor 1984 are even close to examples of a communist state. Those are stories of fascism.

Fascism =/= Communism.

At best, Fascism is bastardized socialism. (probably run by a capitalist! )

Animal farm is clearly intended to be a satire of communism. The workers (animals) rise up and take control of the means of production (the farm). Of course the animals never expected the elites to feather their own nests, but that's what happens due to human nature, or in this case, "pig" nature. Orwell knew a bit about fascism and communism. He fought on the side of the communists against the fascists in the Spanish civil war.

Funny how that AF Quote applies quite nicely to the Republican party...

It looks to me like they apply to the Democratic party. Obama's raking in millions, going on expensive taxpayer funded vacations, golfing on all the best golf courses, all the while pretending to represent the workers, who are mostly out of jobs because of his policies.

While I feel the President deserves vacations, just like anyone else, I feel his need for celebrity has overwhelmed his desire to "serve" which is his job. I cannot tell you how many vacations have been cancelled over the years because..."Business comes first".

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Animal farm is clearly intended to be a satire of communism. The workers (animals) rise up and take control of the means of production...

Fair enough. You could also say The Sorcerer's Apprentice shown by Disney in 1940, was a timely warning about switching on the war machine. Fairy tales seldom lack a political aspect. But let's not pretend they depict reality okay.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It looks to me like they apply to the Democratic party. Obama's raking in millions, going on expensive taxpayer funded vacations, golfing on all the best golf courses, all the while pretending to represent the workers, who are mostly out of jobs because of his policies.

Given that Bush took three times the vacation days that Obama did, and spent far more money on them, and presided over the beginning of the recession while taking them - looks like it applies to both.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Animal farm is clearly intended to be a satire of communism. The workers (animals) rise up and take control of the means of production...

Fair enough. You could also say The Sorcerer's Apprentice shown by Disney in 1940, was a timely warning about switching on the war machine. Fairy tales seldom lack a political aspect. But let's not pretend they depict reality okay.

But as I said, Orwell got to see communism up close and personal. The reality was the Soviet Union, and the fairy tale is some mythical communist system that actually works.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

As much as you would like it to be, Animal Farm nor 1984 are even close to examples of a communist state. Those are stories of fascism.

Orwell hated totalitarianism and because he was basically a socialist a particular hatred for left-wing totalitarian political systems of the Communist (Stalinist) type.
His publishers (Gollancz) refused to publish Animal Farm, in 1944, considering it to be a satire and an attack on the Soviet regime.
Anyone who has read 1984 must surely realise the system described there has far more in common with that of the Soviet Union, under Josef Stalin, than any other political system.

.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by Pong

One misconception IMO is that the Purges and general hardship in the 30's was unnecessary and cruel. I think history proves that an oversimplification. German hawks including Hitler made their desire to conquer and rule the backward people of Eastern Europe quite obvious, and as early as 1931 Stalin believed war inevitable. His formula: "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us. " Then right on schedule the bulk of German industry moved to conquer Russia, and was driven back... by what? Artillery, tanks, bombers, an inexhaustible supply of ordinance, and yeah right snow too. Could Russia have industrialized in time, without the whip? Had Stalin's ten years been like nine, what would have happened?

Not to say I like any of it. But if I had to choose between evils... slavery under Stalin to prepare for war, or slavery under Hitler to provide a Germanic utopia...?

From what I've read one could make a very strong case for the view the Soviets won the war in the East in spite of many of the policies of Stalin and not because of them.
It would be difficult to argue that the extensive purges affecting the military, before and during the War, strengthened the Soviet armed forces in the struggle.
For example there were five Marshals of the Soviet military in the late 193o's. Three of these men were executed in the period 1937-38. The Marshals who survived, Voroshilov and Budyonny, were cronies of Stalin and he appeared to have faith in them during the early stages of the War. Both were later dismissed and replaced by far more abler officers who understood the tactics of modern warfare.
Budyonny actually believed that tank formations, in a battle, would never be as effective as the Cavalry.

If there were no perks, nobody would want to go into politics. What sense would it make for the presidents to be boss over the riches and play in the worst tennis court in the land? On the other hand when one is in office they are not supposed to breath without the public sanctioning it. The sad part is, they always seem to overdo it.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

The ultimate problem with communism is inevitably some capitalist shows up and ruins it.

That's yours? I like it.

Yeah, thanks. I got my B.A. in Sociology so these types of conversations in class were frequent. We'd often times debate and not necessarily take the side we agreed with.

I like that one cause it's a short sound bite with punch. Something my wordy diatribes are not known for. My other sound bite is that capitalism is just a slow march towards dictatorship.

I haven't had these types of conversations in years. I'm really enjoying this thread.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

The ultimate problem with communism is inevitably some capitalist shows up and ruins it.

That's yours? I like it.

Yeah, thanks. I got my B.A. in Sociology so these types of conversations in class were frequent. We'd often times debate and not necessarily take the side we agreed with.

I like that one cause it's a short sound bite with punch. Something my wordy diatribes are not known for. My other sound bite is that capitalism is just a slow march towards dictatorship.

I haven't had these types of conversations in years. I'm really enjoying this thread.

I agree with your statement in one sense, I just do not know what you mean by "slow march towards dictatorship". I see capitalism like a vertical system, once you grow too high, it leads to dictatorship and eventually to war. How do you quantify the speed?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Animal farm is clearly intended to be a satire of communism. The workers (animals) rise up and take control of the means of production (the farm). Of course the animals never expected the elites to feather their own nests, but that's what happens due to human nature, or in this case, "pig" nature. Orwell knew a bit about fascism and communism. He fought on the side of the communists against the fascists in the Spanish civil war.

Perhaps the beginning of Animal farm is rooted in communism but as the story plays out it is clearly no where near the actual intended practice of it. The pigs quickly became capitalists owning the means of production.

Funny how that AF Quote applies quite nicely to the Republican party...

It looks to me like they apply to the Democratic party. Obama's raking in millions, going on expensive taxpayer funded vacations, golfing on all the best golf courses, all the while pretending to represent the workers, who are mostly out of jobs because of his policies.

How would that Animal Farm quote fit the democratic party when obama is clearly trying to give away the "Milk and Apples" of the republican party? remember? that's what has the repubs and tea partiers so up in arms over him "he's trying to give away the stuff that our tax consultants WORKED SO HARD to steal. They don't deserve that Milk and Apple because the fact that they haven't found work after I stole their Job and their retirement proves just how lazy they are." Obama's policies didn't put them out of work. people like Mitt Romney who come in and destroy businesses to make a quick but do. People who move operations over seas because of free trade agreements do. Exploiting hungry workers which drives wages down. Breaking unions because you want more money and less worker input does.

The democratic party is clearly trying to level the playing field, much to the anger of the republicans.

golfing on all the best golf courses

I think you're getting Obama mixed up with W.

"we're gonna get those terrorists... Now watch this drive." -W

"Hey did anybody say nice drive? Anybody? (of camera 'Nice Drive') Thank you!" -W

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Animal farm is clearly intended to be a satire of communism. The workers (animals) rise up and take control of the means of production (the farm). Of course the animals never expected the elites to feather their own nests, but that's what happens due to human nature, or in this case, "pig" nature. Orwell knew a bit about fascism and communism. He fought on the side of the communists against the fascists in the Spanish civil war.

Perhaps the beginning of Animal farm is rooted in communism but as the story plays out it is clearly no where near the actual intended practice of it. The pigs quickly became capitalists owning the means of production.

Funny how that AF Quote applies quite nicely to the Republican party...

It looks to me like they apply to the Democratic party. Obama's raking in millions, going on expensive taxpayer funded vacations, golfing on all the best golf courses, all the while pretending to represent the workers, who are mostly out of jobs because of his policies.

How would that Animal Farm quote fit the democratic party when obama is clearly trying to give away the "Milk and Apples" of the republican party? remember? that's what has the repubs and tea partiers so up in arms over him "he's trying to give away the stuff that our tax consultants WORKED SO HARD to steal. They don't deserve that Milk and Apple because the fact that they haven't found work after I stole their Job and their retirement proves just how lazy they are." Obama's policies didn't put them out of work. people like Mitt Romney who come in and destroy businesses to make a quick but do. People who move operations over seas because of free trade agreements do. Exploiting hungry workers which drives wages down. Breaking unions because you want more money and less worker input does.

The democratic party is clearly trying to level the playing field, much to the anger of the republicans.

golfing on all the best golf courses

I think you're getting Obama mixed up with W.

"we're gonna get those terrorists... Now watch this drive." -W

"Hey did anybody say nice drive? Anybody? (of camera 'Nice Drive') Thank you!" -W

The question would have to be, whats new?

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

The ultimate problem with communism is inevitably some capitalist shows up and ruins it.

That's yours? I like it.

Yeah, thanks. I got my B.A. in Sociology so these types of conversations in class were frequent. We'd often times debate and not necessarily take the side we agreed with.

I like that one cause it's a short sound bite with punch. Something my wordy diatribes are not known for. My other sound bite is that capitalism is just a slow march towards dictatorship.

I haven't had these types of conversations in years. I'm really enjoying this thread.

I agree with your statement in one sense, I just do not know what you mean by "slow march towards dictatorship". I see capitalism like a vertical system, once you grow too high, it leads to dictatorship and eventually to war. How do you quantify the speed?

I posted earlier that the goal of capitalism is to own everything. That's really what it comes down to if you're participating properly (you either buy everything or you get bought). It's a "slow" march because it takes time to acquire the amount of wealth that would let you purchase everything. Aside from the time needed to build up your capital there are regulations that are in place (or at least supposed to be) that blocks individuals/companies from becoming to powerful (owning everything), but as the wealth stacks up and the regulations come down (or are ignored) we move closer and closer towards corporate overlords because once you own everything, in a society where the chief freedom is the ability to buy things, it doesn't take very long for those with the power to start changing laws and shaping government to their liking and it's no longer a representative government.

Originally Posted by babe

While I feel the President deserves vacations, just like anyone else, I feel his need for celebrity has overwhelmed his desire to "serve" which is his job. I cannot tell you how many vacations have been cancelled over the years because..."Business comes first".

I wouldn't say that at all. I would say how can you serve when you are blocked and opposed at ever step of your leadership? I understand that dissent is healthy and definitely keeps a Democracy running but this whole lock step partisan nonsense is out of control. there can be No way that republican's believe or supports everything that their colleagues are doing and there can be no way the Democrats can believe in everything their colleagues are doing and saying. I want the individuals back not the parties.

Under this current climate there is no way that Nixon would have been impeached had this been the climate during Watergate... but then again with out partisan crap neither would Clinton have been.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Animal farm is clearly intended to be a satire of communism. The workers (animals) rise up and take control of the means of production...

Fair enough. You could also say The Sorcerer's Apprentice shown by Disney in 1940, was a timely warning about switching on the war machine. Fairy tales seldom lack a political aspect. But let's not pretend they depict reality okay.

But as I said, Orwell got to see communism up close and personal. The reality was the Soviet Union, and the fairy tale is some mythical communist system that actually works.

as the topic has been the whole time... that was not Communism. I don't mean to be argumentative with you, especially since I'm new here, and I don't want enemies, but the text book definition of communism has not ever taken root anywhere, that I know of. To assign Russia as communist is disingenuous of the word Communism.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by Pong

One misconception IMO is that the Purges and general hardship in the 30's was unnecessary and cruel. I think history proves that an oversimplification. German hawks including Hitler made their desire to conquer and rule the backward people of Eastern Europe quite obvious, and as early as 1931 Stalin believed war inevitable. His formula: "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us. " Then right on schedule the bulk of German industry moved to conquer Russia, and was driven back... by what? Artillery, tanks, bombers, an inexhaustible supply of ordinance, and yeah right snow too. Could Russia have industrialized in time, without the whip? Had Stalin's ten years been like nine, what would have happened?

Not to say I like any of it. But if I had to choose between evils... slavery under Stalin to prepare for war, or slavery under Hitler to provide a Germanic utopia...?

From what I've read one could make a very strong case for the view the Soviets won the war in the East in spite of many of the policies of Stalin and not because of them.
It would be difficult to argue that the extensive purges affecting the military, before and during the War, strengthened the Soviet armed forces in the struggle.
For example there were five Marshals of the Soviet military in the late 193o's. Three of these men were executed in the period 1937-38. The Marshals who survived, Voroshilov and Budyonny, were cronies of Stalin and he appeared to have faith in them during the early stages of the War. Both were later dismissed and replaced by far more abler officers who understood the tactics of modern warfare.
Budyonny actually believed that tank formations, in a battle, would never be as effective as the Cavalry.

If there were no perks, nobody would want to go into politics. What sense would it make for the presidents to be boss over the riches and play in the worst tennis court in the land? On the other hand when one is in office they are not supposed to breath without the public sanctioning it. The sad part is, they always seem to overdo it.

The people don't want their leader to be a pauper do they? if he's an extension of "we the people" we like to see ourselves as decadent even if it's not the truth.

What sense would it make for the presidents to be boss over the riches and play in the worst tennis court in the land?

LOL The pope is doing it!

kojax,

Yeah, that's the irony. In many ways, North Korea is waved around as this example of what's wrong with communism, but the examples we are shown are examples of monarchy, with the Kims as kings. So you have communism the ideal, and then communism the label for these things that actually happen. As far as the ideal, the John Lennon Imagine picture, I think its pretty. But the first time you meet a hoarder, picking up the trash you left on the curb to take home, you realize why "imagine no possessions" would require draconian enforcement measures, and you realize the gap between that particular pretty picture and reality is far indeed.

It's actually interesting to note how non idealistic US government (and many of the more functional governments) are, rhetoric aside. The whole US constitution is based on trying to create a balance of powers so the inevitable corrupt a-holes can be kept in check. That's really cynical, but its worked for 250 years. Maybe the highest ideal in leadership is to look at reality as it is...

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

I also would add that the central planning agency ultimately becomes a wealthy elite.

This doesn't exist under Utopian communism. In real communism (not dictatorship pretending to be communism or socialist dictatorship assigned the label, "communism") everybody is in charge and nobody is in charge. Workers elect their bosses, neighborhoods elect their police etc. etc. With a call to vote at any time. (The "central planning" agency doesn't exist as you describe it) It's one big old "majority rules" vote on EVERYTHING. The problem with this, I'm surprised no one has pointed out yet, is with all the voting it leaves little time for anything else.

So real communism is impossible. It's like the "true Scottsman".

No matter how a system is set up, it will never quite match all the criteria of a "true Communist System".

The other problem, as I think a mod pointed out, is the populace being subject to the tyranny of the majority. De Tocqueville points out that all some charismatic person needs to do is get the majority on his side and now the majority is basically a puppet controlled by charisma. However, this is not limited to communism. California saw this over prop 8, and there are any one of a dozen instances of th minority being subject to the wrath of the majority.

Yeah. It allows a majority to pillage a minority. Vote for a "gay tax" where homosexual people pay all the taxes for the whole state. If they can't, we set up forced labor camps.

The excise tax on cigarettes would be lighter example. Making smokers bear a higher tax burden because the majority of the population doesn't smoke.

The difference between owning vast wealth, and controlling vast wealth is only really a difference in name. How's the saying go? Possession is 90% of of ownership?

Kinda sounds like the elite 1% here in the USA doesn't it? All Capitalism is, is a slower march to autocracy. What's the goal of capitalism? To own everything. If you own everything you get to make the rules. Supposedly, we have anti trust laws in place to stop this from happening but they are followed on whims. How many times have the anti trusts laws been ignored/bent/looked over in order for Rupert to buy another media outlet? (Sorry, he's an easy target at the moment)

The problem for both systems is not in letting individuals become more powerful, but letting roles become more powerful. If the president has a certain limited set of powers, and a new person wants to become president, then that individual gets more powerful, but the nation doesn't move toward tyranny.

If that person then begins to expand his offices' powers, then we start to move toward tyranny.

Same for concentration of wealth. As long as wealth remains unconcentrated, it's fine for individuals to aspire to become wealthy.

If you control the wealth, then the wealth goes to where you want it to go. That means you can decide to give it to people who do you favors. Or you can steer it toward yourself. Maybe decide that the planners need the best food, and nicest houses. A state owned Mercedes Benz parked in the drive way to carry you to and from work, with your name on it, and a chauffeur to drive it. But your personal possessions are the same as a factory worker. The Benz is state owned, of course, and the chauffeur is a state employee. And the apartment also. You're just as poor as everyone else, except when it affects your job, ..... and of course everything affects your job.

How is this not capitalism again?
The ultimate problem with communism is inevitably some capitalist shows up and ruins it.

It just seems like a lot of work to have a communist revolution and then end up right back where we started.

We have to acknowledge that some things are unchangeable and then try to change the things that are changeable. The "1%" happened when the USA allowed its minimum wage laws to be undermined by free trade, and unions to be broken up. With safeguards in place, capitalism doesn't have to become a tyranny.

Maybe there is a set of viable safeguards for communism too? I don't know. France is socialist, and they don't seem to be suffering under evil dictators.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

The ultimate problem with communism is inevitably some capitalist shows up and ruins it.

That's yours? I like it.

Yeah, thanks. I got my B.A. in Sociology so these types of conversations in class were frequent. We'd often times debate and not necessarily take the side we agreed with.

I like that one cause it's a short sound bite with punch. Something my wordy diatribes are not known for. My other sound bite is that capitalism is just a slow march towards dictatorship.

I haven't had these types of conversations in years. I'm really enjoying this thread.

I agree with your statement in one sense, I just do not know what you mean by "slow march towards dictatorship". I see capitalism like a vertical system, once you grow too high, it leads to dictatorship and eventually to war. How do you quantify the speed?

I posted earlier that the goal of capitalism is to own everything. That's really what it comes down to if you're participating properly (you either buy everything or you get bought). It's a "slow" march because it takes time to acquire the amount of wealth that would let you purchase everything. Aside from the time needed to build up your capital there are regulations that are in place (or at least supposed to be) that blocks individuals/companies from becoming to powerful (owning everything), but as the wealth stacks up and the regulations come down (or are ignored) we move closer and closer towards corporate overlords because once you own everything, in a society where the chief freedom is the ability to buy things, it doesn't take very long for those with the power to start changing laws and shaping government to their liking and it's no longer a representative government.

I see what you mean.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by Pong

One misconception IMO is that the Purges and general hardship in the 30's was unnecessary and cruel. I think history proves that an oversimplification. German hawks including Hitler made their desire to conquer and rule the backward people of Eastern Europe quite obvious, and as early as 1931 Stalin believed war inevitable. His formula: "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us. " Then right on schedule the bulk of German industry moved to conquer Russia, and was driven back... by what? Artillery, tanks, bombers, an inexhaustible supply of ordinance, and yeah right snow too. Could Russia have industrialized in time, without the whip? Had Stalin's ten years been like nine, what would have happened?

Not to say I like any of it. But if I had to choose between evils... slavery under Stalin to prepare for war, or slavery under Hitler to provide a Germanic utopia...?

From what I've read one could make a very strong case for the view the Soviets won the war in the East in spite of many of the policies of Stalin and not because of them.
It would be difficult to argue that the extensive purges affecting the military, before and during the War, strengthened the Soviet armed forces in the struggle.
For example there were five Marshals of the Soviet military in the late 193o's. Three of these men were executed in the period 1937-38. The Marshals who survived, Voroshilov and Budyonny, were cronies of Stalin and he appeared to have faith in them during the early stages of the War. Both were later dismissed and replaced by far more abler officers who understood the tactics of modern warfare.
Budyonny actually believed that tank formations, in a battle, would never be as effective as the Cavalry.

If there were no perks, nobody would want to go into politics. What sense would it make for the presidents to be boss over the riches and play in the worst tennis court in the land? On the other hand when one is in office they are not supposed to breath without the public sanctioning it. The sad part is, they always seem to overdo it.

The people don't want their leader to be a pauper do they? if he's an extension of "we the people" we like to see ourselves as decadent even if it's not the truth.

What sense would it make for the presidents to be boss over the riches and play in the worst tennis court in the land?

LOL The pope is doing it!

maybe the pope did not pay attention in class, al the others are playing the game, he should wake up or the game could be over soon.

Originally Posted by Stargate

maybe the pope did not pay attention in class, al the others are playing the game, he should wake up or the game could be over soon.

Oh, man, you're not kidding. I'm completely anti organized religion. I mean, not to the point of trying to pass laws on their right to have organized religion, but just all of the destruction that seems to come out of it, I just wish people would smarten up. But, I really like this new pope. He seems to embody everything that I understand the church should stand for but does not because somewhere along the way Jesus became a Conservative Republican because some woman somewhere might have an abortion...

So, now this new pope shows up that is realistic in his approach to the hardships of his flock, and presents himself as the humble servant of god that he is supposed to be and I think the time may come (probably sooner than later) that he has an unfortunate tumble down a flight of stairs. Which really sucks because as the leader of the catholic church he really has an opportunity to shape the attitudes of his flock.

If the Catholics are right and he truly is the prophet of God, you'd think God wouldn't let anything happen to his chosen one... but then again if something does happen it will be that God decided to martyr him so either way Catholics have some magic to point to.

Anyway, I hope he's able to stick around if this is the direction he's headed.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Stargate

maybe the pope did not pay attention in class, al the others are playing the game, he should wake up or the game could be over soon.

Oh, man, you're not kidding. I'm completely anti organized religion. I mean, not to the point of trying to pass laws on their right to have organized religion, but just all of the destruction that seems to come out of it, I just wish people would smarten up. But, I really like this new pope. He seems to embody everything that I understand the church should stand for but does not because somewhere along the way Jesus became a Conservative Republican because some woman somewhere might have an abortion...

So, now this new pope shows up that is realistic in his approach to the hardships of his flock, and presents himself as the humble servant of god that he is supposed to be and I think the time may come (probably sooner than later) that he has an unfortunate tumble down a flight of stairs. Which really sucks because as the leader of the catholic church he really has an opportunity to shape the attitudes of his flock.

If the Catholics are right and he truly is the prophet of God, you'd think God wouldn't let anything happen to his chosen one... but then again if something does happen it will be that God decided to martyr him so either way Catholics have some magic to point to.

Anyway, I hope he's able to stick around if this is the direction he's headed.

God has never saved anybody from anything, so I think the pope should not have to worry about god doing anything, if he the pope does not do it himself.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Perhaps the beginning of Animal farm is rooted in communism but as the story plays out it is clearly no where near the actual intended practice of it. The pigs quickly became capitalists owning the means of production.

The key word there is "intended." There is an old saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The pigs didn't have to own the means of production. All they had to do was be in control. It's even better, because capitalists have to be able to make a profit. Politicians don't.

How would that Animal Farm quote fit the democratic party when obama is clearly trying to give away the "Milk and Apples" of the republican party? remember? that's what has the repubs and tea partiers so up in arms over him "he's trying to give away the stuff that our tax consultants WORKED SO HARD to steal.

It fits Obama to a tee, because he is using the reins of power to help him and his family live a life of luxury. The only skill he needs is the ability to get elected. Look at what a hash he made out of the health care web site. Did he get fired for that? Did anybody get fired?

The Washington DC area has one of the highest if not the highest average income in the country. That's because those people have access to the national treasury. They are immune to insider trading laws. They can send business to their crony capitalist friends, and make a killing. The possibilities for corruption are endless.

Originally Posted by kojax

So real communism is impossible.

Not necessarily. ..trying to take the place of an existing capitalist structure? almost assuredly impossible.

Originally Posted by kojax

It's like the "true Scottsman".

No matter how a system is set up, it will never quite match all the criteria of a "true Communist System".

Not really, actually not at all. I mean if you want to get ridiculously technical then yes but that means that capitalism doesn't exist either because not all criteria are met. The US has more capitalist traits than Russia had Communist traits. So if you wanna apply The Scotsman you'd have to call the US socialist because it has elements of Socialism while ignoring the majority of it's characteristic. The majority of Russia's economic policy was not communist so what you're getting at is that you want to demonize a country for having an economic system that it really doesn't. As stated before, Russia has more in common with totalitarianism with no elements of communism except the name that has been given to it.

When it comes to Communism and Russia there are not enough of the actual specifics of communism in Russia to actually label Russia Communist. So, the Scotsman Fallacy really has nothing to with anything. Russia had more totalitarian traits than communist. The fact that Russia had "representatives" they couldn't vote out pretty much strikes down any notion of communism.

Think of it this way... Communism is the purest form of democracy you can get. Does that sound in any way like the Russia you are talking about?

Originally Posted by kojax

Yeah. It allows a majority to pillage a minority. Vote for a "gay tax" where homosexual people pay all the taxes for the whole state. If they can't, we set up forced labor camps.

The excise tax on cigarettes would be lighter example. Making smokers bear a higher tax burden because the majority of the population doesn't smoke.

Well, your first example is a bit hyperbolic but certainly valid for making your point. But I think you're right on the money when it come to an actual working example of how it's not fair for smokers. I'm not a smoker, I don't like smoking, but I think what has happened to smokers is criminal, not just the taxes but the shunning of smokers, the laws passed to make it illegal to smoke in an establishment... I think it ought to be up to the establishment if they want to allow smoking or not. But as you can see this "tyranny of the majority" has the potential to exists anywhere you have a democracy based system.

Originally Posted by kojax

The problem for both systems is not in letting individuals become more powerful, but letting roles become more powerful. If the president has a certain limited set of powers, and a new person wants to become president, then that individual gets more powerful, but the nation doesn't move toward tyranny.

If that person then begins to expand his offices' powers, then we start to move toward tyranny.

Not sure how that works? If the president has a "certain limited set of powers" then it doesn't matter who is president or who comes in to be president. that new person can't expand the offices' powers unless that specific ability was already granted to him in the a fore mentioned "certain limited set of powers"

Originally Posted by kojax

Same for concentration of wealth. As long as wealth remains unconcentrated, it's fine for individuals to aspire to become wealthy.

I agree, but in obama's current quest to stop the concentration of wealth he's been called everything for socialist/communist (as if they're the same LOL) to Kenyan usurper who has greatly expanded the power's of his office

If you control the wealth, then the wealth goes to where you want it to go. That means you can decide to give it to people who do you favors. Or you can steer it toward yourself. Maybe decide that the planners need the best food, and nicest houses. A state owned Mercedes Benz parked in the drive way to carry you to and from work, with your name on it, and a chauffeur to drive it. But your personal possessions are the same as a factory worker. The Benz is state owned, of course, and the chauffeur is a state employee. And the apartment also. You're just as poor as everyone else, except when it affects your job, ..... and of course everything affects your job.

How is this not capitalism again?
The ultimate problem with communism is inevitably some capitalist shows up and ruins it.

Originally Posted by kojax

It just seems like a lot of work to have a communist revolution and then end up right back where we started.

Whoa whoa whoa slow down there cowboy, I don't think anybody is talking communist revolution. There is too much greed running around for anybody to go for for revolution. you would not get Communism, you would get Animal Farm (which again is not communism)

Originally Posted by kojax

We have to acknowledge that some things are unchangeable and then try to change the things that are changeable. The "1%" happened when the USA allowed its minimum wage laws to be undermined by free trade, and unions to be broken up.

you'll get no argument from me there, sir

Originally Posted by kojax

With safeguards in place, capitalism doesn't have to become a tyranny.

Well I think the biggest problem right now with the USA is everyone wants to think in absolutes. Pure capitalism is horrible and Pure communism is too easily corrupted. We need to have a healthy balance and that is done with regulation but conservatives have effectively campaigned to have the word "regulation" to be made over as dirty word, and instead want to yell "free market" to a population that has no jobs, no money and can't afford shit, which eventually opens the door to a lower standard of living for everyone except for those that own the means of production, because the people will allow themselves to be exploited for the lowest wage possible just so they can make a "living" and that's where the standards will start to be set.

"I won't work for 2$ an hour!"
"Well, look at you you're lazy! Because bob over there has no problem working for 2$ an hour."

Guess what the new standard is while prices in the market stay the same?

Originally Posted by kojax

Maybe there is a set of viable safeguards for communism too? I don't know. France is socialist, and they don't seem to be suffering under evil dictators.

I think the answer is just balance. Yeah, France seems to be ok for the moment, but let's face, it France has a revolution every 10 minutes.

Originally Posted by Stargate

God has never saved anybody from anything, so I think the pope should not have to worry about god doing anything, if he the pope does not do it himself.

Well, I like the fact that he has put his faith back in God and not the bullet proof glass on the pope mobile

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The key word there is "intended." There is an old saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The pigs didn't have to own the means of production. All they had to do was be in control. It's even better, because capitalists have to be able to make a profit. Politicians don't.

LOL what do you think control is? It's the very definition of the means of production. Politicians are particularly efficient because they own ALL of the means of production. They own health care and they own the tobacco industry... If capitalists don't make a profit neither do politicians.

How would that Animal Farm quote fit the democratic party when obama is clearly trying to give away the "Milk and Apples" of the republican party? remember? that's what has the repubs and tea partiers so up in arms over him "he's trying to give away the stuff that our tax consultants WORKED SO HARD to steal.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It fits Obama to a tee, because he is using the reins of power to help him and his family live a life of luxury. The only skill he needs is the ability to get elected.

This is by far your weakest retort in all of this. For one he already lived a life of luxury, although I would argue having your life and the lives of your family threatened on a daily basis would hardly fit the example I have in my head of Luxury. Having an entire cable "news" channel dedicated to your smearing an intentionally misinterpreting policy in order to sway the populace against you, again, hardly luxury. but ignoring that, that is ANY president as far back as... pick one

You could probably say that about any politician with the exception of Jerry brown who refused to the Imperial governors mansion (Built by Reagan) in favor of a flat and forwent the Limo to his inauguration in favor of a taxi the first time he was elected.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Look at what a hash he made out of the health care web site. Did he get fired for that? Did anybody get fired?

at least nobody died as a result of this misstep versus the how many dead over weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The Washington DC area has one of the highest if not the highest average income in the country. That's because those people have access to the national treasury. They are immune to insider trading laws. They can send business to their crony capitalist friends, and make a killing. The possibilities for corruption are endless.

Something Bush and Cheney took advantage of CONSTANTLY

It's amusing to me that the people that complain the loudest about obama's abuse of his offices' power were strangely silent when W was committing far worse abuses for far more nefarious reasons... silent back then and at best offer up now the non sequitur, "well he's out of office now, stop complaining." as if just because the fire is out the damage no longer exists and that, somehow, excuses their complete lack of consistancy

That's one thing neither communist nor dictatorship states enjoy: past sins absolved for turning over a new leaf. Every 4 or 8 years! My country falls for the same line "The former Administration cheated you, but we're a brand-new Administration, this time it'll be different." Meanwhile a guy like Saddam can sit ten years under sanctions awaiting punishment for weapons he abolished twenty years in the past.

Can a hypothetical communist democracy be forgiven for past wrongs? At what rate?

Originally Posted by Pong

Can a hypothetical communist democracy be forgiven for past wrongs? At what rate?

"communist democracy" is redundant isn't it? (at least the way I understand communism)
That aside...
can a communist democracy be forgiven for past wrongs? I guess if a new vote decides wrongs were committed in the past and they then vote to forgive themselves. why not?

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The key word there is "intended." There is an old saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The pigs didn't have to own the means of production. All they had to do was be in control. It's even better, because capitalists have to be able to make a profit. Politicians don't.

LOL what do you think control is? It's the very definition of the means of production. Politicians are particularly efficient because they own ALL of the means of production. They own health care and they own the tobacco industry... If capitalists don't make a profit neither do politicians.

You have a strange definition of ownership. Politicians cannot buy or sell the businesses they regulate. If the business they regulate fails, they don't lose a penny.

How would that Animal Farm quote fit the democratic party when obama is clearly trying to give away the "Milk and Apples" of the republican party? remember? that's what has the repubs and tea partiers so up in arms over him "he's trying to give away the stuff that our tax consultants WORKED SO HARD to steal.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It fits Obama to a tee, because he is using the reins of power to help him and his family live a life of luxury. The only skill he needs is the ability to get elected.

This is by far your weakest retort in all of this. For one he already lived a life of luxury, although I would argue having your life and the lives of your family threatened on a daily basis would hardly fit the example I have in my head of Luxury. Having an entire cable "news" channel dedicated to your smearing an intentionally misinterpreting policy in order to sway the populace against you, again, hardly luxury. but ignoring that, that is ANY president as far back as... pick one

You could probably say that about any politician with the exception of Jerry brown who refused to the Imperial governors mansion (Built by Reagan) in favor of a flat and forwent the Limo to his inauguration in favor of a taxi the first time he was elected.

You forget about all the other news media that have their heads up Obama's butt. Anyway, we are not talking about individuals, but political systems.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Look at what a hash he made out of the health care web site. Did he get fired for that? Did anybody get fired?

at least nobody died as a result of this misstep versus the how many dead over weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist

How is it relevant to your point about communism?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The Washington DC area has one of the highest if not the highest average income in the country. That's because those people have access to the national treasury. They are immune to insider trading laws. They can send business to their crony capitalist friends, and make a killing. The possibilities for corruption are endless.

Something Bush and Cheney took advantage of CONSTANTLY

We are talking about political systems, not individuals, and how long are you going to use Bush for an excuse?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The key word there is "intended." There is an old saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The pigs didn't have to own the means of production. All they had to do was be in control. It's even better, because capitalists have to be able to make a profit. Politicians don't.

LOL what do you think control is? It's the very definition of the means of production. Politicians are particularly efficient because they own ALL of the means of production. They own health care and they own the tobacco industry... If capitalists don't make a profit neither do politicians.

You have a strange definition of ownership. Politicians cannot buy or sell the businesses they regulate. If the business they regulate fails, they don't lose a penny.

You don't think that politicians own business owners? yeah it's true politicians can't buy and sell directly but as you pointed out they can regulate... And yes they can regulate a business into failure but hmmm... ... ... ... ... I wonder what it would take to not regulate that business into failure? That's a mystery. Perhaps a portion of the profit from that business? and now lobbying is born. So, you see that if the businesses that they do regulate fail they are, in fact, out many pennies.

How would that Animal Farm quote fit the democratic party when obama is clearly trying to give away the "Milk and Apples" of the republican party? remember? that's what has the repubs and tea partiers so up in arms over him "he's trying to give away the stuff that our tax consultants WORKED SO HARD to steal.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It fits Obama to a tee, because he is using the reins of power to help him and his family live a life of luxury. The only skill he needs is the ability to get elected.

This is by far your weakest retort in all of this. For one he already lived a life of luxury, although I would argue having your life and the lives of your family threatened on a daily basis would hardly fit the example I have in my head of Luxury. Having an entire cable "news" channel dedicated to your smearing an intentionally misinterpreting policy in order to sway the populace against you, again, hardly luxury. but ignoring that, that is ANY president as far back as... pick one

You could probably say that about any politician with the exception of Jerry brown who refused to the Imperial governors mansion (Built by Reagan) in favor of a flat and forwent the Limo to his inauguration in favor of a taxi the first time he was elected.

You forget about all the other news media that have their heads up Obama's butt. Anyway, we are not talking about individuals, but political systems.

you think individuals aren't relative to the systems they work within? and what "other news media that have their heads up Obama's butt" Pray tell. Perhaps I could tune in instead having to pick between ultra republican and diet republican...

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Look at what a hash he made out of the health care web site. Did he get fired for that? Did anybody get fired?

at least nobody died as a result of this misstep versus the how many dead over weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist

How is it relevant to your point about communism?

About as relevant as your reply about Obama being fired over hiring incompetents to build a web site.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The Washington DC area has one of the highest if not the highest average income in the country. That's because those people have access to the national treasury. They are immune to insider trading laws. They can send business to their crony capitalist friends, and make a killing. The possibilities for corruption are endless.

Something Bush and Cheney took advantage of CONSTANTLY

We are talking about political systems, not individuals, and how long are you going to use Bush for an excuse?

Political systems don't exist without the people that run them. Exposing the corruption within said political systems is still on topic... Well, let's see, W used clinton as an excuse for the entire tenure of his presidency, even blaming the Katrina levies on him... So, if We are to use the never infallible republicans as the standard it would appear W will be the reason until 2016. However there is a difference between an "excuse" and the "reason." Obama is making huge strides in the economy especially where deficit is concerned despite the reason that is George W.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

how long are you going to use Bush for an excuse?

To be fair on America, about as long as Americans held Saddam's gassing Kurdish rebels as an excuse. Thirty-years okay with you? That means we forget the defoliation of Vietnam.

Or suggest a different grudge duration, Harold, applied equally to every country.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

You don't think that politicians own business owners? yeah it's true politicians can't buy and sell directly but as you pointed out they can regulate... And yes they can regulate a business into failure but hmmm... ... ... ... ... I wonder what it would take to not regulate that business into failure? That's a mystery. Perhaps a portion of the profit from that business? and now lobbying is born. So, you see that if the businesses that they do regulate fail they are, in fact, out many pennies.

And your solution is to put the government in charge of even more things. Yeah, that'll work.

you think individuals aren't relative to the systems they work within? and what "other news media that have their heads up Obama's butt" Pray tell. Perhaps I could tune in instead having to pick between ultra republican and diet republican...

Sure, individuals matter, but how will you change the political system to fix it? For left wing bias try MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NYT, Washington Post, etc., etc.

About as relevant as your reply about Obama being fired over hiring incompetents to build a web site.

You were the first one to bring up Republican vs Democrat.

Pong, hold your grudges as long as you want. It doesn't excuse or explain the failures of the people who are currently in office.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by kojax

It's like the "true Scottsman".

No matter how a system is set up, it will never quite match all the criteria of a "true Communist System".

Not really, actually not at all. I mean if you want to get ridiculously technical then yes but that means that capitalism doesn't exist either because not all criteria are met. The US has more capitalist traits than Russia had Communist traits. So if you wanna apply The Scotsman you'd have to call the US socialist because it has elements of Socialism while ignoring the majority of it's characteristic. The majority of Russia's economic policy was not communist so what you're getting at is that you want to demonize a country for having an economic system that it really doesn't. As stated before, Russia has more in common with totalitarianism with no elements of communism except the name that has been given to it.

Pure capitalism would be horrible. I like to hope that most capitalists know that.

Capitalism only works if you DON'T try and apply it completely.

When it comes to Communism and Russia there are not enough of the actual specifics of communism in Russia to actually label Russia Communist. So, the Scotsman Fallacy really has nothing to with anything. Russia had more totalitarian traits than communist. The fact that Russia had "representatives" they couldn't vote out pretty much strikes down any notion of communism.

Think of it this way... Communism is the purest form of democracy you can get. Does that sound in any way like the Russia you are talking about?

Your version of "communism" sounds a lot like a commonly circulated version of "anarchy". It basically requires a population 100% composed of the most noble and altruistic of people.

Of course, if you had a population like that, then you wouldn't need a government of any kind. You wouldn't need communism either.

So... basically communism only works if it isn't needed.

Originally Posted by kojax

The problem for both systems is not in letting individuals become more powerful, but letting roles become more powerful. If the president has a certain limited set of powers, and a new person wants to become president, then that individual gets more powerful, but the nation doesn't move toward tyranny.

If that person then begins to expand his offices' powers, then we start to move toward tyranny.

Not sure how that works? If the president has a "certain limited set of powers" then it doesn't matter who is president or who comes in to be president. that new person can't expand the offices' powers unless that specific ability was already granted to him in the a fore mentioned "certain limited set of powers"

You mean he can't expand his powers without a contrived justification? Reinterpreting his named powers in a way that no previous president has ever tried to interpret them? (In Obama's case, being the 44th president, that would mean 43 presidents had overlooked something.)

Originally Posted by kojax

Same for concentration of wealth. As long as wealth remains unconcentrated, it's fine for individuals to aspire to become wealthy.

I agree, but in obama's current quest to stop the concentration of wealth he's been called everything for socialist/communist (as if they're the same LOL) to Kenyan usurper who has greatly expanded the power's of his office

Obama has certainly expanded the welfare state, which increases the power of the government (because it is handling more wealth.)

Also... it hasn't bolstered the minimum wage. And that's the only way to un-concentrate wealth. Expanding the welfare state won't fix anything at all. It will make the poor more comfortable, but it won't make them less poor. (You can't get rich while you're on welfare.)

Bolstering the minimum wage, however, would require turning back the clock on globalization. We would need tariffs to protect against competition from workers in other countries who were not subject to a minimum wage. And of course that's anathema both in Washington DC, and in pretty much everywhere in the press. (Go figure. The 1% controls both.)

Originally Posted by kojax

It just seems like a lot of work to have a communist revolution and then end up right back where we started.

Whoa whoa whoa slow down there cowboy, I don't think anybody is talking communist revolution. There is too much greed running around for anybody to go for for revolution. you would not get Communism, you would get Animal Farm (which again is not communism)
[/quote]

Ok. This confirms it. Your definition of "communism" requires that nobody be greedy. That in turn requires unanimous agreement by a large population.

Large populations of human beings cannot unanimously agree. They wouldn't be human if they could do that.

Therefore, your definition of communism is utterly impossible to achieve with a human population.

Originally Posted by kojax

With safeguards in place, capitalism doesn't have to become a tyranny.

Well I think the biggest problem right now with the USA is everyone wants to think in absolutes. Pure capitalism is horrible and Pure communism is too easily corrupted. We need to have a healthy balance and that is done with regulation but conservatives have effectively campaigned to have the word "regulation" to be made over as dirty word, and instead want to yell "free market" to a population that has no jobs, no money and can't afford shit, which eventually opens the door to a lower standard of living for everyone except for those that own the means of production, because the people will allow themselves to be exploited for the lowest wage possible just so they can make a "living" and that's where the standards will start to be set.

"I won't work for 2$ an hour!"
"Well, look at you you're lazy! Because bob over there has no problem working for 2$ an hour."

Guess what the new standard is while prices in the market stay the same?

No disagreement from me on that. And I love how you described it!!

Originally Posted by kojax

Maybe there is a set of viable safeguards for communism too? I don't know. France is socialist, and they don't seem to be suffering under evil dictators.

I think the answer is just balance. Yeah, France seems to be ok for the moment, but let's face, it France has a revolution every 10 minutes.

Lol So true!

Originally Posted by kojax

Pure capitalism would be horrible. I like to hope that most capitalists know that.

Capitalism only works if you DON'T try and apply it completely.

Do you live in America? That's all the right wing talk about. "the free market will sort it out" and any mention of regulation is "punishing success" and "evidence of socialism" and it's not just morons like bachman and palin, it's lindsay graham, it's Boehner, It's Ryan, It's rubio, etc etc.

Originally Posted by kojax

Your version of "communism" sounds a lot like a commonly circulated version of "anarchy".

I don't know if that's "my version" so much as that's what it is. Or at least how I learned it. I don't know Who is suggesting that's what anarchy is. Anarchy is the absence of law and order, basically the "fastest gun." Communism is law and order based on the wants and the agreements of a collective community.

Originally Posted by kojax

It basically requires a population 100% composed of the most noble and altruistic of people.

Well, yes, from a capitalists perspective. The idea is that if people are taken care of to begin with (really taken care of not given the bare minimum while others have more thus creating jealousy) there is really nothing left but altruism and noble acts. There is no more real competition, it's just advancement of society for perhaps "pride" or "recognition." but being raised and indoctrinated into a capitalist society those ideas are generally hard for people to grasp.
I think of it like summer vacation during your school years. You live at home and you are provided for, you can only sit idle for so long before you become bored. If you have access to everything how soon do the creative juices start flowing? Conservatives tend to think that if you let people be lazy they will. Progressives seem to think that people will get tired of being bored and will be productive. I'm sure both accusations are true at any given time but not necessarily true all the time.

Originally Posted by kojax

Of course, if you had a population like that, then you wouldn't need a government of any kind. You wouldn't need communism either.

So... basically communism only works if it isn't needed.

Not necessarily. there are always problems that will come up within society, you have to have a way to deal with them. In communism the group works out the problem looking for the most beneficial good... In Anarchy the individual solves the problem however they fit with no repercussions from the group... because there is no group.

Originally Posted by kojax

You mean he can't expand his powers without a contrived justification? Reinterpreting his named powers in a way that no previous president has ever tried to interpret them? (In Obama's case, being the 44th president, that would mean 43 presidents had overlooked something.)

Only if his powers let him do that.

Originally Posted by kojax

Obama has certainly expanded the welfare state, which increases the power of the government (because it is handling more wealth.)

I don't find this to be true. What welfare exactly has he expanded? by letting unemployment and welfare go a little longer he has effectively given an opportunity to the lower class to stave off exploitation. because at this point it's a waiting game... (I'll explain below) besides, what's the alternative 30 million homeless people? That's hardly a way to manage a country.

Originally Posted by kojax

Also... it hasn't bolstered the minimum wage. And that's the only way to un-concentrate wealth.

Well I would argue that it has bolstered minimum wage somewhat in that our leaders seem to actually be discussing it seriously at this point. I'm sure you're aware that if Minimum wage had adjusted accordingly to inflation over the years it would be something like 23 Dollars now?

Originally Posted by kojax

Expanding the welfare state won't fix anything at all. It will make the poor more comfortable, but it won't make them less poor. (You can't get rich while you're on welfare.)

Here's where the the waiting game comes in. I disagree, I think the "welfare state" currently will fix things and here is why:
Right now, the rich are busting unions and moving companies over seas, that is if they are not dismantling companies and stealing retirements... That puts people out of work. If people are out work they are more likely to become desperate for income which means they may enter into a job or a contract that doesn't help them in the least. by doing this the rich continue to return a ridiculous amount of profit which means they can continue to stock pile resources.

If people are able to stave off entering into exploitative situations it forces the rich to entice a people back to work with more of their income/resources which means minimum wage goes up and perks show up in order to get people to go back to work for them. Welfare state right now means 2 things. number one nobody has to work for an exploitative company which means jobs at companies go unfilled. those unfilled jobs mean a higher burden on the rich to sell their product. if people aren't in those job positions then chances are they aren't spending their money on what ever it is that those companies are selling. in the end the rich are losing money, or more aptly, not earning as much as they could be/or have been.

here's the specifics of the waiting game. If there was currently no welfare the rich would continue to make money hand over fist by making the populace bid for the lowest starting wage and continue to stock pile their resources off of that wage. because there is welfare the people have a choice whether to be exploited or subsist until they can get a higher wage. So, the game comes in... Who has the patience to out wait the other? there's no doubt the wealthy have a lot of resources to wait this out but the government has the power to tax, so the rich can get taxed at a higher rate and still basically have to pay for those "moochers" anyway... So how long will it be before the rich decide they can offer something other than minimum wage (which is about 5 dollars less than what welfare pays) They can match the government welfare (or pay a little more) and actually get something for their dollar rather than paying those same people not to work?

12 dollars from the government and have a bare minimum life or 20 dollars minimum wage for working for Mickey D's? If people are greedy they want more money and welfare is out.

I guess we'll wait and see.

Originally Posted by kojax

Bolstering the minimum wage, however, would require turning back the clock on globalization. We would need tariffs to protect against competition from workers in other countries who were not subject to a minimum wage. And of course that's anathema both in Washington DC, and in pretty much everywhere in the press. (Go figure. The 1% controls both.)

I'd agree with this assessment as well. "free" trade does not help our situation.

Originally Posted by kojax

Ok. This confirms it. Your definition of "communism" requires that nobody be greedy. That in turn requires unanimous agreement by a large population.

Again, not my definition. It's the definition of communism. and yeah, it requires nobody be greedy, again, hard to fathom in a society that is built on that greed.

Originally Posted by kojax

Large populations of human beings cannot unanimously agree. They wouldn't be human if they could do that.

they could if they wanted too! no, you're right not very practical at all, and again which is why it has never been practiced.

Originally Posted by kojax

Therefore, your definition of communism is utterly impossible to achieve with a human population.

well, yes and no. with a large populations such as states and countries...probably not. with smaller pockets of populations where everybody is reachable, there may be a shot.

Originally Posted by kojax

With safeguards in place, capitalism doesn't have to become a tyranny.

Well I think the biggest problem right now with the USA is everyone wants to think in absolutes. Pure capitalism is horrible and Pure communism is too easily corrupted. We need to have a healthy balance and that is done with regulation but conservatives have effectively campaigned to have the word "regulation" to be made over as dirty word, and instead want to yell "free market" to a population that has no jobs, no money and can't afford shit, which eventually opens the door to a lower standard of living for everyone except for those that own the means of production, because the people will allow themselves to be exploited for the lowest wage possible just so they can make a "living" and that's where the standards will start to be set.

"I won't work for 2$ an hour!"
"Well, look at you you're lazy! Because bob over there has no problem working for 2$ an hour."

Guess what the new standard is while prices in the market stay the same?

Originally Posted by kojax

No disagreement from me on that. And I love how you described it!!

Originally Posted by kojax

Maybe there is a set of viable safeguards for communism too? I don't know. France is socialist, and they don't seem to be suffering under evil dictators.

I think the answer is just balance. Yeah, France seems to be ok for the moment, but let's face, it France has a revolution every 10 minutes.

Originally Posted by kojax

Lol So true!

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

You don't think that politicians own business owners? yeah it's true politicians can't buy and sell directly but as you pointed out they can regulate... And yes they can regulate a business into failure but hmmm... ... ... ... ... I wonder what it would take to not regulate that business into failure? That's a mystery. Perhaps a portion of the profit from that business? and now lobbying is born. So, you see that if the businesses that they do regulate fail they are, in fact, out many pennies.

And your solution is to put the government in charge of even more things. Yeah, that'll work.

You can always vote out a politician... Did you ever vote out the CEO of nike? I think not

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Sure, individuals matter, but how will you change the political system to fix it?

Seems to be the big question, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

For left wing bias try MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NYT, Washington Post, etc., etc.

HAHAHAHAHA you seriously gotta warn a fella if you're gonna start popping off jokes like that!! LOL I nearly spit water all over my keyboard!!
For somebody like myself who truly stands left... those organizations aren't even accidentally left wing. They don't represent progressive politics other wise I would identify with them. If that's what passes for left wing perspective, this country is in some serious trouble. Those outlets appear left to most Fox watchers because Fox is so right wing that anything in the middle or even center right appears to be "Left." Hell under current definitions of what makes a good conservative, Ronald Reagan becomes a flaming liberal bleeding heart.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You were the first one to bring up Republican vs Democrat.

That's the system we exist in.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Pong, hold your grudges as long as you want. It doesn't excuse or explain the failures of the people who are currently in office.

or the extreme failure of those directly before those currently in office but we'll go ahead and ignore them to concentrate on the less severe

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

You can always vote out a politician... Did you ever vote out the CEO of nike? I think not

You can always choose to buy someone else's shoes or go work for some other company. With the government, you have to listen and do what they say, or they'll come after you with guns.

It's not that easy to vote out corrupt politicians. They have a way of tilting the table in their favor. Have you heard of the IRS scandal where they targeted conservative organizations? Probably not, since you only listen to left wing propaganda.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You can always choose to buy someone else's shoes or go work for some other company.

Not if you don't have any money or a job, you can't. Not if no other companies aren't hiring, you can't.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

With the government, you have to listen and do what they say, or they'll come after you with guns.

This is hyperbole of the highest order... I don't know what country you're talking about. But then again, Bush did start yanking people off of the streets calling them traitors/enemy combatants and packing them away in off shore prisons without a trial or due process... so you may have a point there.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It's not that easy to vote out corrupt politicians.

Easier than voting out a CEO

Originally Posted by Harold14370

They have a way of tilting the table in their favor.

Much like how the wealthy has been doing to the job markets and standards of living...?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Have you heard of the IRS scandal where they targeted conservative organizations?

you mean your only source for fair and balanced news hasn't reported to you that the IRS didn't just target conservative groups? that it has quietly come out that Liberal groups were targeted as well. Hard to beleive in country so dominated by News Agencies that "have their heads up Obama's butt." Funny in a country that's SOOOOOO left winged, that a story about conservative's being targeted would even make the news, you'd think they would want to sweep that under the rug... and yet ALL of our "liberal" "news" stations ran that story for weeks on end with no mention of the liberal groups that were targeted. Odd how they would want to shoot themselves in the foot considering the agenda they are supposedly pushing.

Here's a tip. News agencies are owned by wealthy business owners which means they are profit driven. which makes them capitalist entities. as you and people like you like to point out, liberals aren't profit motivated. so the idea that Wealthy business owners would push a narrative that would ultimately put themselves out of business is absurd.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Probably not, since you only listen to left wing propaganda.

Weird how I seemingly know more about it than you since you only watch the right "news." It's not that I only listen to left wing propaganda (first off it doesn't exist here in America) it's that I hear the right wing mouth piece as well which makes me more informed than somebody who only pays attention to the side of the "news" that is most comfortable for them. you should listen to some left leaning ideas and see how they jive with what you're being told on fox.

The problem with only one source of information is that you have no way to fact check it.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You can always choose to buy someone else's shoes or go work for some other company.

Not if you don't have any money or a job, you can't. Not if no other companies aren't hiring, you can't.

Don't be a victim. Get some marketable skills. The world doesn't owe anybody a living.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

With the government, you have to listen and do what they say, or they'll come after you with guns.

This is hyperbole of the highest order... I don't know what country you're talking about. But then again, Bush did start yanking people off of the streets calling them traitors/enemy combatants and packing them away in off shore prisons without a trial or due process... so you may have a point there.

Try ignoring a law. then don't show up in court when you are summoned. Somebody will show up looking for you, and they will have a gun.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It's not that easy to vote out corrupt politicians.

Easier than voting out a CEO

What makes you think you should have a say in who is the CEO of a company?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

They have a way of tilting the table in their favor.

Much like how the wealthy has been doing to the job markets and standards of living...?

Did your candidate improve the job market?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Have you heard of the IRS scandal where they targeted conservative organizations?

you mean your only source for fair and balanced news hasn't reported to you that the IRS didn't just target conservative groups? that it has quietly come out that Liberal groups were targeted as well. Hard to beleive in country so dominated by News Agencies that "have their heads up Obama's butt." Funny in a country that's SOOOOOO left winged, that a story about conservative's being targeted would even make the news, you'd think they would want to sweep that under the rug... and yet ALL of our "liberal" "news" stations ran that story for weeks on end with no mention of the liberal groups that were targeted. Odd how they would want to shoot themselves in the foot considering the agenda they are supposedly pushing.

Here's a tip. News agencies are owned by wealthy business owners which means they are profit driven. which makes them capitalist entities. as you and people like you like to point out, liberals aren't profit motivated. so the idea that Wealthy business owners would push a narrative that would ultimately put themselves out of business is absurd.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Probably not, since you only listen to left wing propaganda.

Weird how I seemingly know more about it than you since you only watch the right "news." It's not that I only listen to left wing propaganda (first off it doesn't exist here in America) it's that I hear the right wing mouth piece as well which makes me more informed than somebody who only pays attention to the side of the "news" that is most comfortable for them. you should listen to some left leaning ideas and see how they jive with what you're being told on fox.

The problem with only one source of information is that you have no way to fact check it.

You've bought into the mainstream media spin. The targeting of "progressives" was nothing like the targeting of conservatives. Of course, the Obama administration has cleared itself of any wrongdoing, so I guess that's all there is to it.
Did the IRS target progressive groups, too? | Human Events

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You can always choose to buy someone else's shoes or go work for some other company.

Not if you don't have any money or a job, you can't. Not if no other companies aren't hiring, you can't.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Don't be a victim. Get some marketable skills. The world doesn't owe anybody a living.

That's it? Non Sequitur talking points? What else should I expect, huh?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Try ignoring a law. then don't show up in court when you are summoned. Somebody will show up looking for you, and they will have a gun.

This is almost criminally out of context. But what should anyone expect when you've been brainwashed by good ol' honest Hannity? This was talking about being denied due process, NOT avoiding the due process afforded to you.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What makes you think you should have a say in who is the CEO of a company?

What makes me think we should be able to vote out a CEO? The fact that we live in a democracy and when that CEO has way more influence over our laws than the average constituent and he uses that influence to influence the way we live... Or the fact that that particular CEO has "worked hard" should let him be above scrutiny? you know hard work and all.

To put it simply, if they are going to behave like a legislator they should be held to the same rules

Originally Posted by Harold14370

They have a way of tilting the table in their favor.

Much like how the wealthy has been doing to the job markets and standards of living...?

Did your candidate improve the job market?

Despite all of the republican cock blocking, Yes. unemployment down 3% from when he took office.
I know since Pravda hasn't reported it it doesn't exist to you but look it up.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Have you heard of the IRS scandal where they targeted conservative organizations?

you mean your only source for fair and balanced news hasn't reported to you that the IRS didn't just target conservative groups? that it has quietly come out that Liberal groups were targeted as well. Hard to beleive in country so dominated by News Agencies that "have their heads up Obama's butt." Funny in a country that's SOOOOOO left winged, that a story about conservative's being targeted would even make the news, you'd think they would want to sweep that under the rug... and yet ALL of our "liberal" "news" stations ran that story for weeks on end with no mention of the liberal groups that were targeted. Odd how they would want to shoot themselves in the foot considering the agenda they are supposedly pushing.

Here's a tip. News agencies are owned by wealthy business owners which means they are profit driven. which makes them capitalist entities. as you and people like you like to point out, liberals aren't profit motivated. so the idea that Wealthy business owners would push a narrative that would ultimately put themselves out of business is absurd.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Probably not, since you only listen to left wing propaganda.

Weird how I seemingly know more about it than you since you only watch the right "news." It's not that I only listen to left wing propaganda (first off it doesn't exist here in America) it's that I hear the right wing mouth piece as well which makes me more informed than somebody who only pays attention to the side of the "news" that is most comfortable for them. you should listen to some left leaning ideas and see how they jive with what you're being told on fox.

The problem with only one source of information is that you have no way to fact check it.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You've bought into the mainstream media spin.

What a wonderful precedent you have set for yourself. Unless Fox and the Drudge Report have reported it it's "mainstream spin" and you have no need to lend it credibility. Republican's new Mantra should be "we do the thinking so you don't have to."

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The targeting of "progressives" was nothing like the targeting of conservatives.

Actually, no it was just about equal. Again hard to believe that the "Lamestream media" didn't cover that or at the very least sweep it under the rug seeing as all of the damage it caused for the "left"

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Of course, the Obama administration has cleared itself of any wrongdoing, so I guess that's all there is to it.

Should it assume blame that isn't theirs? I know they did with 10% unemployment, wars on foreign soil, an exploded debt, a crumbling infrastructure... but just because Obama is shouldering the mess that your party created doesn't mean he has to take the blame for everything that he's not responsible for creating.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Did the IRS target progressive groups, too? | Human Events

Conservatives Are Right: Media Under-Covered The IRS "Scandal" | Blog | Media Matters for America

But now, almost two months later, we know that in fact the IRS targeted lots of different kinds of groups, not just conservative ones; that the only organizations whose tax-exempt statuses were actually denied were progressive ones; that many of the targeted conservative groups legitimately crossed the line; that the IG's report was limited to only Tea Party groups at congressional Republicans' request; and that the White House was in no wayinvolved in the targeting and didn't even know about it until shortly before the public did

Anymore non sequiturs to come from you?

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Try ignoring a law. then don't show up in court when you are summoned. Somebody will show up looking for you, and they will have a gun.

This is almost criminally out of context. But what should anyone expect when you've been brainwashed by good ol' honest Hannity? This was talking about being denied due process, NOT avoiding the due process afforded to you.

I don't know what context you are referring to, but it is perfectly well in context with the point I was making. That being, politicians are a lot scarier than businessmen because politicians pass laws which they enforce at the point of a gun. Whereas, your biggest complaint about businessmen seems to be that they won't give you a job.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What makes you think you should have a say in who is the CEO of a company?

What makes me think we should be able to vote out a CEO? The fact that we live in a democracy and when that CEO has way more influence over our laws than the average constituent and he uses that influence to influence the way we live... Or the fact that that particular CEO has "worked hard" should let him be above scrutiny? you know hard work and all.

To put it simply, if they are going to behave like a legislator they should be held to the same rules

I think you missed an important lesson from the health care website fiasco. That is, that you don't elect a CEO. Elected politicians typically do not know how to run a business enterprise. Obama was an egregious example because he had zero management experience. Do you know what an abject failure that was? This was a disgraceful exhibition of management skills. A first line supervisor in a tiny company would be demoted or fired for something like that. This is the kind of thing you see in communist countries that gets you empty shelves in supermarkets like in the soviet union, or toilet paper hoarding in oil rich Venezuela.

Conservatives Are Right: Media Under-Covered The IRS "Scandal" | Blog | Media Matters for America

You realize that Media Matters is nothing more than a left wing propaganda outlet don't you?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I don't know what context you are referring to, but it is perfectly well in context with the point I was making. That being, politicians are a lot scarier than businessmen because politicians pass laws which they enforce at the point of a gun. Whereas, your biggest complaint about businessmen seems to be that they won't give you a job

If only your over simplification was right... Who do you think the laws are made for? certainly isn't for rich people. It's against the law to sleep under a bridge... who's more likely to need to sleep under a bridge, a poor person/the guy who the CEO won't give a job or a rich person/CEO? Tell me again who is more dangerous.

Politicians are not more dangerous than CEO's because politicians serve at the pleasure of the people and will lose that ability to wield that gun when the constituency grows upset with their behavior or term limits curtail their reign.

In short, Politicians are responsible to the voters where as CEOs are responsible only to the profit margin.

Who should you put your stock into? the guy that needs to keep you happy or the guys that doesn't give a crap about you?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I think you missed an important lesson from the health care website fiasco. That is, that you don't elect a CEO.

Exactly my point. Since we don't elect A CEO means they should not have the reach and the behavior that our elected officials do have.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Elected politicians typically do not know how to run a business enterprise.

Says who? They have to know enough about management to get themselves elected. That is no small feat.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Obama was an egregious example because he had zero management experience.

he has plenty of management experience. certainly more than the darlings of the republican party Palin and bachman and yet I'm sure you're in favor of those two...

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Do you know what an abject failure that was? This was a disgraceful exhibition of management skills. A first line supervisor in a tiny company would be demoted or fired for something like that.

The hell they would. Companies take care of the family and worst than politicians there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it. Hiring a bad company to make your website certainly isn't anything to brag about (which is funny cause according to your business theory that horrible run company shouldn't exist cause of all of the failure it has exhibited and yet it does!) You want "Abject Failure and disgraceful exhibition of management skills" how about the 500 MIllion that was spent on the war everyday under Bush and with no exit strategy... Give me a break!

Originally Posted by Harold14370

This is the kind of thing you see in communist countries that gets you empty shelves in supermarkets like in the soviet union, or toilet paper hoarding in oil rich Venezuela.

Apparently you have not been paying attention to this thread (not surprising considering what you consider logical "information") because there have been NO COMMUNIST COUNTRIES EVER TO EXIST. Not even close. Reread this thread as many times as necessary until reading comprehension kicks in.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You realize that Media Matters is nothing more than a left wing propaganda outlet don't you?

Of course it is, 'cause it doesn't fit with your ONE (1) source of information. Of course it is, 'cause your ONE (1) source of information says it is. right?.


How convenient for you. Unless a conservative mouth piece says it or a network that agrees with the conservative mouthpiece says it, it's all left wing propaganda. How simple life must be for you. That course of 'thinking" would be adorable if you didn't vote, but since I'm sure you do, it's terrifying.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

there have been NO COMMUNIST COUNTRIES EVER TO EXIST.

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

I'm not sure how that applies here. Are you suggesting there have been, or are presently, commumist countries. If so, which. I am unaware of any communist country ever having existed thus far.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

there have been NO COMMUNIST COUNTRIES EVER TO EXIST.

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

There hasn't been a communist country by definition, since a communist country is a classless, stateless society, in fact you can't even have a communist country it's an oxymoron.

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

there have been NO COMMUNIST COUNTRIES EVER TO EXIST.

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

There hasn't been a communist country by definition, since a communist country is a classless, stateless society, in fact you can't even have a communist country it's an oxymoron.

It's a bit like having a thread titled "common misconceptions about unicorns." True unicorns are not narwhals or antelopes with a broken horn. If one ever found a true unicorn, it would have all the magical properties it is supposed to have according to the legends.

Every time someone has tried to set up a Marxist political system, they seem to end up with something else, usually a repressive dictatorship with shortages of consumer goods. But of course, the communist ideologist will then say, that's not true communism. True communism would never be like that at all.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

there have been NO COMMUNIST COUNTRIES EVER TO EXIST.

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

There hasn't been a communist country by definition, since a communist country is a classless, stateless society, in fact you can't even have a communist country it's an oxymoron.

It's a bit like having a thread titled "common misconceptions about unicorns." True unicorns are not narwhals or antelopes with a broken horn. If one ever found a true unicorn, it would have all the magical properties it is supposed to have according to the legends.

Every time someone has tried to set up a Marxist political system, they seem to end up with something else, usually a repressive dictatorship with shortages of consumer goods. But of course, the communist ideologist will then say, that's not true communism. True communism would never be like that at all.

But you don't seem to be understanding that true communism and Marxism are two distinct things, Bolshevism et al has been heavily modified Marxism for one, none of which were a real proletariat revolution. I don't agree with it either and think it's impractical. Marxism will result in dictatorship (one of the stages of orthodox Marxism, socialism is actually a dictatorship of the proletariat, key here is proletariat Lenin was most certainly not), but to say it was communism would be a distortion.

Originally Posted by Trivium

But you don't seem to be understanding that true communism and Marxism are two distinct things,

Now I am officially confused, because the OP cited the works of Karl Marx as the source of true communist ideas. Is there another communist manifesto that I don't know about?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Trivium

But you don't seem to be understanding that true communism and Marxism are two distinct things,

Now I am officially confused, because the OP cited the works of Karl Marx as the source of true communist ideas. Is there another communist manifesto that I don't know about?

The idea of communism existed before Marx and is apparent in the Utopian Socialists, all Marx did was write a 'scientific' version of it called Marxism. The communist manifesto is just Marxism, actually the opening lines that the 'history has hitherto been a history of class struggle' is the foundation of Marxism, that the inevitability of history will lead to a communist society, communism however is just the final stage of Marxist theory and exists independently of it.

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Trivium

But you don't seem to be understanding that true communism and Marxism are two distinct things,

Now I am officially confused, because the OP cited the works of Karl Marx as the source of true communist ideas. Is there another communist manifesto that I don't know about?

The idea of communism existed before Marx and is apparent in the Utopian Socialists, all Marx did was write a 'scientific' version of it called Marxism. The communist manifesto is just Marxism, actually the opening lines that the 'history has hitherto been a history of class struggle' is the foundation of Marxism, that the inevitability of history will lead to a communist society, communism however is just the final stage of Marxist theory and exists independently of it.

When you say it "exists" do you mean in reality or just as a theoretical concept? Do you think it is actually feasible, and if so, how would it be implemented?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Trivium

But you don't seem to be understanding that true communism and Marxism are two distinct things,

Now I am officially confused, because the OP cited the works of Karl Marx as the source of true communist ideas. Is there another communist manifesto that I don't know about?

The idea of communism existed before Marx and is apparent in the Utopian Socialists, all Marx did was write a 'scientific' version of it called Marxism. The communist manifesto is just Marxism, actually the opening lines that the 'history has hitherto been a history of class struggle' is the foundation of Marxism, that the inevitability of history will lead to a communist society, communism however is just the final stage of Marxist theory and exists independently of it.

When you say it "exists" do you mean in reality or just as a theoretical concept? Do you think it is actually feasible, and if so, how would it be implemented?

I simply mean it exists as a theoretical concept, I do not think it is feasible, not in a large scale society we live in. I'd be interested in a government created small-scale project for the sake of empirical verification....

I don't know that Mom lived in a communist COUNTRY....but she lived under communist rule...

Originally Posted by babe

I don't know that Mom lived in a communist COUNTRY....but she lived under communist rule...

Nah. Communists are wonderful people who work all day for the good of humanity with no expectation of personal gain, then in the evening they sing around the campfire, then everybody lives happily ever after. So those couldn't have been true communists. I think I have this figured out.

Originally Posted by harold14370

Originally Posted by babe

i don't know that mom lived in a communist country....but she lived under communist rule...

nah. Communists are wonderful people who work all day for the good of humanity with no expectation of personal gain, then in the evening they sing around the campfire, then everybody lives happily ever after. So those couldn't have been true communists. I think i have this figured out.

kicking you to pluto!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by babe

I don't know that Mom lived in a communist COUNTRY....but she lived under communist rule...

Nah. Communists are wonderful people who work all day for the good of humanity with no expectation of personal gain, then in the evening they sing around the campfire, then everybody lives happily ever after. So those couldn't have been true communists. I think I have this figured out.

I know you're ridiculing it but that's exactly what communism is....

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by babe

I don't know that Mom lived in a communist COUNTRY....but she lived under communist rule...

Nah. Communists are wonderful people who work all day for the good of humanity with no expectation of personal gain, then in the evening they sing around the campfire, then everybody lives happily ever after. So those couldn't have been true communists. I think I have this figured out.

Ad

But not better than capitalism, where everyone's self interest motivates them to be excellent and thoughtful producers, and the invisible hand of the free market raises everyone from poverty to prosperity! As long as the companies of the world are not fettered by unnecessary and intrusive government regulation, they will protect the environment, treat their workers well and make decisions to ensure long term profitability and sustainability. And at the end of the day everyone joins hands and sings "What a beautiful world."

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by babe

I don't know that Mom lived in a communist COUNTRY....but she lived under communist rule...

Nah. Communists are wonderful people who work all day for the good of humanity with no expectation of personal gain, then in the evening they sing around the campfire, then everybody lives happily ever after. So those couldn't have been true communists. I think I have this figured out.

Ad

But not better than capitalism, where everyone's self interest motivates them to be excellent and thoughtful producers, and the invisible hand of the free market raises everyone from poverty to prosperity! As long as the companies of the world are not fettered by unnecessary and intrusive government regulation, they will protect the environment, treat their workers well and make decisions to ensure long term profitability and sustainability. And at the end of the day everyone joins hands and sings "What a beautiful world."

Well, true capitalism has never been implemented anywhere. Somebody is always passing laws. So, it's no fair criticizing it. There, you see, anybody can play that game.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by babe

I don't know that Mom lived in a communist COUNTRY....but she lived under communist rule...

Nah. Communists are wonderful people who work all day for the good of humanity with no expectation of personal gain, then in the evening they sing around the campfire, then everybody lives happily ever after. So those couldn't have been true communists. I think I have this figured out.

Ad

But not better than capitalism, where everyone's self interest motivates them to be excellent and thoughtful producers, and the invisible hand of the free market raises everyone from poverty to prosperity! As long as the companies of the world are not fettered by unnecessary and intrusive government regulation, they will protect the environment, treat their workers well and make decisions to ensure long term profitability and sustainability. And at the end of the day everyone joins hands and sings "What a beautiful world."

Well, true capitalism has never been implemented anywhere. Somebody is always passing laws. So, it's no fair criticizing it. There, you see, anybody can play that game.

Nope. Capitalism is a system of private profit which clearly exists, if you mean there has never been a true free market you'd be correct...

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Well, true capitalism has never been implemented anywhere. Somebody is always passing laws. So, it's no fair criticizing it. There, you see, anybody can play that game.

Neither has true communism (fortunately.) True communism sounds as good as true capitalism in a perfect world. In the real world, both are toxic. (As is any pure "-ism.")

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

there have been NO COMMUNIST COUNTRIES EVER TO EXIST.

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

No, not at all, This has been covered already. re read this thread as necessary until you find the answer

Originally Posted by Trivium

There hasn't been a communist country by definition, since a communist country is a classless, stateless society, in fact you can't even have a communist country it's an oxymoron.

Trivium is correct. although not completely. you could, in theory, have a country dedicated the sole advancement of the land and the people that reside there. but that takes, as someone else pointed out, a level of altruism that the world has never seen on that large of a scale.

Originally Posted by Harold

It's a bit like having a thread titled "common misconceptions about unicorns." True unicorns are not narwhals or antelopes with a broken horn. If one ever found a true unicorn, it would have all the magical properties it is supposed to have according to the legends.

Yes, But then you fall apart below.

Originally Posted by Harold

Every time someone has tried to set up a Marxist political system, they seem to end up with something else, usually a repressive dictatorship with shortages of consumer goods. But of course, the communist ideologist will then say, that's not true communism. True communism would never be like that at all.

Which is TRUE. Everytime someone sets out to breed a unicorn they end up with a mule... Get it? No Communist country has ever existed just like no Unicorn has ever existed because what shows up doesn't follow the definition set forth forth for each. Why is this so hard for you?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Trivium

But you don't seem to be understanding that true communism and Marxism are two distinct things,

Now I am officially confused, because the OP cited the works of Karl Marx as the source of true communist ideas. Is there another communist manifesto that I don't know about?

The idea of communism existed before Marx and is apparent in the Utopian Socialists, all Marx did was write a 'scientific' version of it called Marxism. The communist manifesto is just Marxism, actually the opening lines that the 'history has hitherto been a history of class struggle' is the foundation of Marxism, that the inevitability of history will lead to a communist society, communism however is just the final stage of Marxist theory and exists independently of it.

When you say it "exists" do you mean in reality or just as a theoretical concept? Do you think it is actually feasible, and if so, how would it be implemented?

On small scales it has the potential to exist (Never, so far, country wide as Trivium pointed out). From what I understand of the Zapitista army down in Chiapas it may be the closest thing currently so far. No leader, just a bunch of farmers who have taken up arms against the state. As far as I know there is no leader just a group of revolutionaries doing what it takes to achieve their goal. their group runs as a democracy no one member has any more weight or power than any other member.