Political Change

[Second 0]

Let me post this video in dedication to you Spokesperson

A tribute to Communism

I know how Spokeperson will reply. It goes like this: "There hasn't been communistic society. Soviet Union was just sosialistic society, which didn't reach state of communism"

Now question is, why there hasn't been this pure communistic society? ... Or why there hasn't been purely democratic society?

Maybe they are just fairy tale fantasy? Maybe power corrupts? Maybe there will always be The Elite if we don't cease to speak and go back to our caves... This is fairy tale aswell. So The Elite will continue it's task.

[MehMan 0]

And besides that he'll reply: I see no problem because they were defending the revolution.

I suggest that you all stop now, just save yourself the time. He's not going to listen and accept other opinions, he believes he is right and everybody else must be wrong.

Also, I doubt communism will ever be achieved. What's more likely is anarchy like in Somalia. Due to human nature it's impossible to think that we would be just willing to live in peace and prosperity. Evolution is simply to slow to allow that in our imaginable time.

[chops 111]

If Cuba truly is paradise, why not move there and spend your days on the beach drinking rum and shagging Masters Degree qualified prostitutes?

I doubt you could get internet access there, and that way we'd all be happy.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]I know how Spokeperson will reply. It goes like this: "There hasn't been communistic society. Soviet Union was just sosialistic society, which didn't reach state of communism"

Now question is, why there hasn't been this pure communistic society? ... Or why there hasn't been purely democratic society?

Maybe they are just fairy tale fantasy? Maybe power corrupts? Maybe there will always be The Elite if we don't cease to speak and go back to our caves... This is fairy tale aswell. So The Elite will continue it's task.

Communism can't be implemented at once. Hunter Gatherer (primitive communism)->Slavery->Feodalism->Capitalism->Socialism->Communism

You can't just skip a stage or two. Of course this is no real explanation because it's quite complex but you get the idea.

Quote[/b] ]I suggest that you all stop now, just save yourself the time. He's not going to listen and accept other opinions, he believes he is right and everybody else must be wrong.

There is no general right or wrong here. What's right for one might be wrong for another. A slave thinks he has the right to fight himself out, a slave owner thinks he hasn't. A slave thinks he has the right to be free, the slave owner thinks he's wrong. It's all about interests.

My interests as a member of the working class is to break loose the chains and create a society where we rule.

Quote[/b] ]Also, I doubt communism will ever be achieved. What's more likely is anarchy like in Somalia. Due to human nature it's impossible to think that we would be just willing to live in peace and prosperity. Evolution is simply to slow to allow that in our imaginable time.

No it's exactly because of human nature that communism is possible. It's in the self-interests of all who don't have special privileges.

Quote[/b] ]If Cuba truly is paradise, why not move there and spend your days on the beach drinking rum and shagging Masters Degree qualified prostitutes?

I doubt you could get internet access there, and that way we'd all be happy

Another ignorant liberal. Yes Cuba is a paradise compared to the other third world countries. Socialism doesn't imply nukes, spacecrafts, shiny automobiles and an infinite amount of gold. That's up to the natural resources, production, education, population, infrastructure etc. Socialism just puts the worker class in power. It stops the exploitation of man by man. I work for socialism in my own country. After all it's where I live.

But certainly I will go to Cuba some day (but you know that costs money too, you're talking as if everyone is free to do so, well not US citizens). And of course they have internet on Cuba.

Prostitution is no problem in Cuba any longer. Before the revolution the whole island was a brothel and casino. Sure prostitution might have grown in the so called Special Period, but that one is over now since some years.

[Eda Mrcoch 0]

Communism can't be implemented at once. Hunter Gatherer (primitive communism)->Slavery->Feodalism->Capitalism->Socialism->Communism

You can't just skip a stage or two. Of course this is no real explanation because it's quite complex but you get the idea.

No, it is this way:

Monkey->Anarchosyndicalistic monkey commune->Atlantis->Antiquity->Feudalism->Capitalism->Cyborgs enslave humanity->Chemocracy->Ur-Quan Masters->Cthulhu eats all

You can optionally skip the cyborgs if we break enuf computers.

That is the historical nu-determinism which is The Science! Prove the opposite.

[-Snafu- 78]

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm

Very detailed sources.

So Spartacus was an imperialist when he liberated others than himself?

There have never been any democracies on a national level. Slavery evolves. It evolved into serfdom and wage-slavery. The only difference is how the slavery is separated (or not) from the work you do for your own gain in time and space. Slavery ends with socialism. Democracy begins with communism.

Stalin was good on the whole. But that doesn't mean Stalin would be good in the politics of today. And that's an opinion the ones who were subject of his so called "tyranny" agree with. The majority of the ex-Soviet population like Stalin even if the post-Stalin Soviet government condemned him.

Famine caused by rich peasants opposing democratized collective farming and who burn crops and slaughter animals can't be blamed on Stalin. And if you count in famines under Mao you should count the famines of the western world especially when it was getting industrialised (As in the case of China and the USSR).

The US and UK have killed dozens of millions of civilians in their wars, support for other dictatorships, embargoes and famines.

Yes they are detailed sources. But I do not see capitlaism as a cause anywhere.

I never mentioned Spartacus. The USSR had an 'Empire' in Eastern Europe and they wanted to extend their power = Imperialism.

Stalin was not good on the whole. He killed more people than Hitler. That must make him a saint in your books. The reason why people in Russia allegdly like him is rather simple and obvious to anyone who would actually look into it unlike someone who is brainwashed such as yourself.

They 'like' him because he was the ultimate symbol of Russian power. He was leader at the time when Russia entered the world stage as a superpower. But that time is long gone. That is why he is looked at through rose tinted spectacles. It's ok to like him today because he is gone and presents no threat to the population because he is long dead. It was just like Jacobitism in Scotland. Once it had passed as a threat it was ok for people to 'flirt' with it.

The famine in Russia was not caused by the supposed 'kulaks'. People were starving because communism was not working at that time. The 'kulaks' were used as a scapegoat by the Soviet government to fool the population. De-classified Soviet documents from the time admit that communism was not working. That is why they re-introduced some capitalism into the grain market.(Look at the 'Decree Of The All-Russian Soviet Executive Committee on the Substitution Of A Tax In Kind For Requisitioning' March 1921. Pay particular attention to point 8. Which allows peasnts to sell on any surplus grain that they have. It's an official Soviet document so no need for you to distrust it.)

What you can't seem to understand is that you (specifically you) can't claim to be 'for the people' ("wage slaves") and denounce Hitler's executuions of the people while supporting Stalin's cull of the people. They both killed huge numbers of the population (what you would call "wage slaves"). If you are truly supportive of the people you would denounce both. Whereas I don't defend the modern west and the people killed directly by them.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]No, it is this way:

Monkey->Anarchosyndicalistic monkey commune->Atlantis->Antiquity->Feudalism->Capitalism->Cyborgs enslave humanity->Chemocracy->Ur-Quan Masters->Cthulhu eats all

You can optionally skip the cyborgs if we break enuf computers.

That is the historical nu-determinism which is The Science! Prove the opposite.

Ok, then describe the different modes of production that define those societies.

If you don't know what it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production

You seem to have invented new modes of production. I thought Marx had covered all possibilities. Silly me.

Quote[/b] ]Yes they are detailed sources. But I do not see capitlaism as a cause anywhere.

There's deaths by communism and deaths by non-communism. (in the 20th century). Nazism/fascism was funded by capitalists as a reaction to the growing communist support (=threat) in their country. Companies had their own concentration camps like IG Farben. A corporatist society.

The goals of the USSR and Spartacus are the same.

Yea sure I'm brainwashed about Stalin. It must be due to the newspapers, history books at school, movies etc. Same goes for Russians. They've lived with the anti-Stalin propaganda in the post-Stalin soviet times. So that must be brainwash.

Isn't it more likely that you are the one that is brainwashed? Why do 50% like Stalin in Russia while like 1% like him in your country? You've just heard a lot of liberal propaganda about the USSR and Stalin and that's what you base your "truths" and opinions on. You never realized that they all are based on lies, by the ruling class, that serve one kind of interests only?

Threat to the population? Haha.

Quote[/b] ]The famine in Russia was not caused by the supposed 'kulaks'. People were starving because communism was not working at that time. The 'kulaks' were used as a scapegoat by the Soviet government to fool the population. De-classified Soviet documents from the time admit that communism was not working. That is why they re-introduced some capitalism into the grain market.(Look at the 'Decree Of The All-Russian Soviet Executive Committee on the Substitution Of A Tax In Kind For Requisitioning' March 1921. Pay particular attention to point 8. Which allows peasnts to sell on any surplus grain that they have. It's an official Soviet document so no need for you to distrust it.)

Communism wasn't working? What communism. Scapegoats? So land owners who owned land, huge barns and machines were scapegoats when they refused to let the people use their land? And you're completely mixing up time periods here. We're talking about the 30ies. Not the time right after the civil war in the 20ies. Stalin didn't even have a significant position at that time. Yes Lenin introduced NEP just to get the economy rolling right after the war. Stalin abolished the NEP when the country was ready to move on. His reforms lead to resistance from rich peasants (the kulaks). It's just like things went in Zimbabwe or South Africa. Just that Stalin managed to turn the tide unlike Mugabe.

Quote[/b] ]What you can't seem to understand is that you (specifically you) can't claim to be 'for the people' ("wage slaves") and denounce Hitler's executuions of the people while supporting Stalin's cull of the people. They both killed huge numbers of the population (what you would call "wage slaves"). If you are truly supportive of the people you would denounce both. Whereas I don't defend the modern west and the people killed directly by them.

The politics of Hitler served the upper class and the corporations. Hitler killed socialists, social democrats, communists and innocent jews. Stalin semt nazis, royalists, reactionaries and other criminals to labour camps. There's also a huge difference between labour camps and concentration camps. Most people made it out from the labor camps. Like the last chinese tyrant emperor who later became a gardener and marxist (there's a wonderful movie about him). He had never worked before in his life, but after some 10 years of re-education he was ok again.

[baddo 0]

***snip*** I decided to make my post short as I am not eager to get into a fight over the things I was going to write. I will just give you the last sentences of my post:

I call it insanity. Just as Hitler was insane, so was Stalin.

[Spokesperson 0]

Insanity? In what way? Are you a doctor of some sort? I'm pretty sure they knew what they were doing.

I'm a big opponent of Hitler, but I wouldn't call him insane because of that.

[Thunderbird 0]

Then again, a matter of point of view.

If 'Insanity' is not the right word to define the mass-murders and genocides under Hitler's government then how would you 'personally' call it?

Regards,

TB

[Second 0]

Communism can't be implemented at once. Hunter Gatherer (primitive communism)->Slavery->Feodalism->Capitalism->Socialism->Communism

You can't just skip a stage or two. Of course this is no real explanation because it's quite complex but you get the idea.

Yup. And that mean wipe out resistance. When reaching out for communism, it means that one has to have almost complete world dominance. Other wise communism can't be reached, because central goverment is needed to repel threat from outside and possibly inside. This is if we take anarcistic approach of communism (small independent cells, which i understand you are after, ain't it?). In which case there can't be communism when there is central goverment, The Ruling Class. So to reach communism one has to break down central goverment (socialism).

Personally i believe that that kind society can't be reached, because power corrupts and because there are endless conflicts and crisis in whole world's scale. Socialistic ruling class remains and it even has to remain or someone else will seize the power and starts to rule. Then there is outer space aswell, full of blood thirsty aliens...

[Eda Mrcoch 0]

Quote[/b] ]No, it is this way:

Monkey->Anarchosyndicalistic monkey commune->Atlantis->Antiquity->Feudalism->Capitalism->Cyborgs enslave humanity->Chemocracy->Ur-Quan Masters->Cthulhu eats all

You can optionally skip the cyborgs if we break enuf computers.

That is the historical nu-determinism which is The Science! Prove the opposite.

Ok, then describe the different modes of production that define those societies.

Monkey - monkey see, moneky gets

Anarchosyndicalistic monkey - monkey see, monkey gets, other monkeys get pissed that they didn't saw first and they call up a meeting

Antiquity - Roman see, Roman gets

Feudalism - peasant produces, king gets

Capitalism - man produces and sells, other guy buys - as a byproduct Spokesperson gets the internet although he is dying of hunger like other 99,8 % of population

Cyborg enslavement - human produces, cyborg gets. BSOD.

Chemocracy - You take a pill. There is no pill.

Ur-Quan Masters - can't see through slave shied, sorry

Cthulhu eats all - self explanatory

All as scientific as it can get.

(of Atlantis I cannot speak, they're watching)

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yup. And that mean wipe out resistance. When reaching out for communism, it means that one has to have almost complete world dominance. Other wise communism can't be reached, because central goverment is needed to repel threat from outside and possibly inside. This is if we take anarcistic approach of communism (small independent cells, which i understand you are after, ain't it?). In which case there can't be communism when there is central goverment, The Ruling Class. So to reach communism one has to break down central goverment (socialism).

Personally i believe that that kind society can't be reached, because power corrupts and because there are endless conflicts and crisis in whole world's scale. Socialistic ruling class remains and it even has to remain or someone else will seize the power and starts to rule. Then there is outer space aswell, full of blood thirsty aliens...  

Well, resistance by who? When we are at that position one requirement is that most people support it (as we're talking about a revolution). If the upper class, like always, wants to keep their power and privileges and defend them through media and ultimately by violence, a wipe out of that resistance is absolutely necessary in order to create socialism. Most revolutions have been peaceful, like the russian revolution (less people died than the amount of deaths caused by traffic accidents in a normal New York weekday). The violence always comes after when the ruling class tries everything to stay in power. Their last option is to start a counter-revolution. Like the russian civil war, the coup in venezuela, bay of pigs, the separatism in bolivia and so on. There are no exceptions to that rule. Every action has a reaction.

The first goal has to be to create socialism, which is easy to imagine (if you disregard the liberal stereotypes etc). Communism has to be designed by future generations and conditions.

Quote[/b] ]Then again, a matter of point of view.

If 'Insanity' is not the right word to define the mass-murders and genocides under Hitler's government then how would you 'personally' call it?

I wouldn't call Hitler a madman. He and his millions of supporters did what they thought was right. I would call what they did as completely rational seen to their self interests. By eliminating opposition and gaining support by bashing minorities they could secure power and a cheap workforce. Hitler played a natural role in the class struggle. He developed nazism into a paradise police state for private enterprise. Workers were stripped of their rights and if they complained, striked or protested like the social democrats and communists did they were sent to concentration camps. I think there were marginally more left wingers killed in concentration camps than jews even.

Quote[/b] ]Capitalism - man produces and sells, other guy buys - as a byproduct Spokesperson gets the internet although he is dying of hunger like other 99,8 % of population

No, A works for B. A produces X. A gets Y in wage. B gets X-Y without working himself, and from other peoples work, just by owning. A is a wage-slave. B is a parasite. That's capitalism. In the socialist mode of production B and the exploitation is removed.

[Second 0]

Well, resistance by who? When we are at that position one requirement is that most people support it (as we're talking about a revolution).

Those who doesn't submit. World has to become much more bad place to be (from "western" point of view) before most of the people will support revolution. This far people have fought against socialism and communism in various wars and most of them were not upper class citizens, but from working class. This because they believe that they can gain more from it than from socialism and communism (ofcourse it ain't simple as this, both sides forced men to their ranks and fighting and dying for their cause).

That time might come when current western way of economic can't fullfill people's dreams or even desires (=it has failed). I'm more prone to be pessimistic about our direction, maybe we are heading to somesort darkage again. Maybe not in my life time, i don't know. But still when part of world might turn into communism, rest of world (Asia&Russia forexample) keeps it own way of life (maybe socialism maybe capitalism or something else) and becomes superpower with central goverment. Communism in it's purest form is too stable but yet too fragmented, it won't grow and refine very well. Soviet union could advance well forexample in sience and technology, that is because of central goverment giving quidelines, focus and reason. Communism when facing rival way of life is forced to either to go back to socialism to compete with other way of life. This has it's own risks (who will submit back to socialism?). Or, in long run, become obsolent as individuals are rushing for better life which can be gained from other way of life.

Yes, Marx has to have thought about this too.

[baddo 0]

No, A works for B. A produces X. A gets Y in wage. B gets X-Y without working himself, and from other peoples work, just by owning. A is a wage-slave. B is a parasite. That's capitalism. In the socialist mode of production B and the exploitation is removed.

I told earlier that this is not right. And I gave 100 % true real-life examples how it isn't right. You just keep repeating it over and over again though.

You sound like you have never worked, and you sound even more that you have never known any business owners and their working history. How they got where they are now. What did they go through to become a boss. You really do sound like it. It is a serious insult towards all the business owners when you claim that they are parasites. It pretty much proves that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

If I'm wrong and you actually are working, and if you know business owners and know how they are like and how they ended where they are, then let me suggest something: walk out of your job if you don't like it. Do something else. Why? Because you can! And don't come here whining how capitalists are ripping us all off. It is so far away from my personal experiences which I have gathered during my working career that I have started to think that you completely lack the same experiences of actually working somewhere and getting paid.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]This far people have fought against socialism and communism in various wars and most of them were not upper class citizens, but from working class. This because they believe that they can gain more from it than from socialism and communism (ofcourse it ain't simple as this, both sides forced men to their ranks and fighting and dying for their cause).

It doesn't matter who's doing the fight. Someone will always accept the money to shoot his own kind. In the french revolution the royalist soliders weren't upper class either, but they fought for it. That time the force of the people was a lot stronger than that of the reactionaries.

Quote[/b] ]Communism when facing rival way of life is forced to either to go back to socialism to compete with other way of life. This has it's own risks (who will submit back to socialism?). Or, in long run, become obsolent as individuals are rushing for better life which can be gained from other way of life.

Communism doesn't exclude the possibility of centralisation or coordination. The state as a tool for one class vanishes at the same time as many of its everyday practical services may be intact. Hospitals etc won't disappear.

I don't see how communism can be reverted. It would surprise me if we suddenly reverted to feodalism or slavery now. In a communist society if someone wants to be a king, he won't get any support because people generally don't want to be slaves or masters. Why would anybody work and collect money for a few while only getting a little share of it oneself, voluntarily.

Quote[/b] ]If I'm wrong and you actually are working, and if you know business owners and know how they are like and how they ended where they are, then let me suggest something: walk out of your job if you don't like it. Do something else. Why? Because you can! And don't come here whining how capitalists are ripping us all off. It is so far away from my personal experiences which I have gathered during my working career that I have started to think that you completely lack the same experiences of actually working somewhere and getting paid.

Walk out if I don't like it? Haha, you're kidding. What about the unemployment? How will I get another job? And won't I find myself in the same situation then? And you know, you got to work to survive. There are no options.

Ok, so if it doesn't work like I described it, then where's the company's profit coming from? Santa? Who pays the share owners? But hey, you maybe like charity. You seem to have no objections against giving them a large part of the value you produce yourself. If that's what you like to do, then you're right. If not, they are parasites.

[martinovic 0]

This thread is filled to the brim with Flame Warriors!

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ideologue.htm

[baddo 0]

Ok, so if it doesn't work like I described it, then where's the company's profit coming from? Santa? Who pays the share owners? But hey, you maybe like charity. You seem to have no objections against giving them a large part of the value you produce yourself. If that's what you like to do, then you're right. If not, they are parasites.

You call people who create new jobs parasites? You are totally missing something... I suggest you educate yourself with how one becomes a business owner. How one gathers the required knowledge and skills to run a succesful business. It's a long and expensive process and doesn't come for free unlike you seem to believe. You think the business owners got what they have for free? You have definitely proved now that you seriously lack information about what it is to build up a company and to run it. You are totally ignoring the fact that someone had to create your job. You didn't create it by yourself that is now very clear. It didn't just pop out of nowhere, someone had to work very hard to give you the opportunity to have a job. You got a chance to benefit from it by getting money. Not enough? You sound like you want all, also the share of the profit which is meant to cover the costs of founding the business in the first place! As I said it is not free to gather the knowledge to run a business and then start it and keep it running.

You sound like you have absolutely no idea what kind of knowledge and skills the business owners have to develop for themselves before they even can start their business! I'm not talking about small one-man businesses (require lots of studying and hard work too to get one started) but about bigger businesses, like factories. Go start a factory and we'll see how well you do with your, as it sounds, non-existant education and experience.

Yes I accept that the business owner gets more money than I do, as I understand (unlike you) that they have done a lot more studying and working than I have to get where they are. And it definitely isn't charity from my part. They deserve to get more. You definitely sound like you don't deserve to get more. You try to justify deserving all by whining about evil capitalists on an Internet forum... think about it, seriously. What did you do to deserve more?

Discussing with you is a total waste of time. End of discussion from my part.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]You call people who create new jobs parasites?

No. But I call them parasites when they earn money on other people's work. They earn money and live in luxury because they own, not because they work.

Just because someone has the money to decide jobs in a country it doesn't mean he's no parasite. The money he got was earned by someone else, his wage-slaves, not him.

Is it an opportunity to be a slave if you get food for it?

I'm no proponent of eliminating the owning class and then removing capitalism. Capitalism has to be removed first. That's because capitalism won't work without the parasites. In a different society, the one we call socialism, the workers decide what's to be produced and by whom. In socialism there are no capitalists, but "strangely" enough there's full employment and growth rates that surpass the capitalist ones.

And don't talk about education. I've probably got higher education than most people on here.

Business ends to be business when work has to be done by oneself, it's about exploiting other peoples ideas or work and finding ways to make money of it while following or even re-writing the law.

[baddo 0]

So a person who creates new jobs is okay on the moment the person created the new jobs, but if the company starts to get a positive cash flow and the owner starts to benefit from it, then the person who created the jobs is not okay anymore? Yeah that is what you are actually saying!  

And what the hell do you mean with the "they don't work" You have to be completely detached from what happens in business life to state things like that.

It sounds very much like you think that business owners are parasites until proven otherwise.   Actually it sounds like it can't be proven to you that business owners are not parasites.

How much have you familiarized yourself with taxation? Have it gone completely unnoticed by you that there are progressive taxation systems, for example in my country (it's what I can talk about reliably, I'm sure many other countries have similar taxation models too). A person who gets more income (succesful business owner for example) pays more taxes! A parasite is someone who contributes more to the society than others?!  

Creates lots of new jobs, then pays all the various taxes and other mandatory costs a business must pay, then pays a bigger percentage personal taxes than the workers do, and that kind of person is a parasite?!

You have a high education? Well as I have noticed, you have kept as a secret where do you come from, and also questions which attempt to find out what kind of work experience you have are going completely ignored by you. You refuse to give information on what kind of experiences you base your opinions.

I base my opinions on my personal experiences and on observations of what has happened close to me. That is only natural and logical to me, as what I have been through in life is what I know well and can talk about without making things up or relying on purely academical, theoretical sources. It is still a mystery what experiences you use as a basis for your opinions. As you constantly avoid giving information about your experiences, and what I have seen you write here, I must make a conclusion that you have no work experiences which you could mention here and you also seem to totally lack understanding of what the business owners, the "evil" capitalists have to go through to become succesful business owners.

Your opinions are so big WTF's to me that it is probably better that I really stop discussing this with you now.

[Spokesperson 0]

A "person" who creates new jobs is completely ok until he starts exploiting others. If you earn money on other people's work then you're a parasite. That's my proof.

You might claim that slave owners, kings etc work too. Owners usually don't work at all. That's the whole idea. You don't get rich if you work on your own, but if you make 1000 people work for you it's a different story. Many contributions of cash make you wealthy. If an owner does work, he should get money for it, naturally, but this in proportion to what worth he produces.

And you're stuck in a special case. Owners are seldom those who founded the company. Share owners don't have to do any work at all to make money out of other peoples work. Or what did you think? Money came from nothing?

Progressive tax isn't very strange. Why should poor people pay as much of their income as rich people do? 50% of one hundred thousand USD still leaves you with enough money for a car or whatever. 50% of 2000$ doesn't leave much money at all. 50% for the poor is much more than 50% for the rich. However, I'm for flat taxes, in a socialist system. Creating justice, redistributing wealth and welfare before the slavery is abolished is useless. First the slavery has to be abolsished, then talk about redistribution and justice can be relevant.

I know a normal guy who got blacklisted because of his opinions. As a result he hasn't been able to get a job in 20 years. That's one of the reasons I won't talk about myself.

In a liberal society freedom of speech is less worth than the laws that support private property. If voting rights and freedom of speech collide with the laws that support private property the latter gets prioritized. That's why countries that have elected socialists or communists always get bashed by capitalists and their liberals. That's why Cuba is affected by an embargo and not Saudi Arabia or Thailand.

I think Fidel said that anyone who hasn't read Lenin is ignorant. That's true, but what's even more fundamental is Marx. So I say anyone who hasn't read Marx is ignorant. I think you should read Marx if you want an in-depth and stringent analysis of what we talk about.

[baddo 0]

I do not agree with you on the way you use the words "slavery" and "slave".

You can walk out of your job (if you have one, that is). No-one is holding you back. No-one was holding me back to walk out of a job on the exact moment I wanted to. Slaves are held back, they can't walk out. I can. You can.

Stop using those words and maybe this discussion could have more sense then. It actually makes no sense for me to continue having this discussion with you if you continue to use the words "slavery" and "slave". It is one of the big WTF's I mentioned in my previous post.

I have considered what Lenin and Marx have offered to me, and I said no thanks! It has been an easy decision to say no. Comments like the ones you have been saying here further strengthen the feeling that my decision to reject their ideologies has been right.

[Second 0]

Communism doesn't exclude the possibility of centralisation or coordination. The state as a tool for one class vanishes at the same time as many of its everyday practical services may be intact. Hospitals etc won't disappear.

I don't see how communism can be reverted. It would surprise me if we suddenly reverted to feodalism or slavery now. In a communist society if someone wants to be a king, he won't get any support because people generally don't want to be slaves or masters. Why would anybody work and collect money for a few while only getting a little share of it oneself, voluntarily.

How about military and who takes care of major lines of society? Who makes people to pull same rope when internal or external threat or rival emerges? Who takes care that nation/society moves to right and healthy direction? Socialism and communism has been said to be too stiff, too un-progressive to be able to compete. It's what it is, uneffective and unstimulating. It will lose the race with effective and stimulating rival, like forexample capitalism is.

[MehMan 0]

Quote[/b] ]No, A works for B. A produces X. A gets Y in wage. B gets X-Y without working himself, and from other peoples work, just by owning. A is a wage-slave. B is a parasite. That's capitalism. In the socialist mode of production B and the exploitation is removed.

Without working? And who arranges the sale? Who makes sure that A has work? Who makes sure that the company is not dying? B.

Also what is the company supposed to run on? Air? You know that companies have big bills to pay?

And also, B usually has the education, ingeunity and has put himself in danger of losing everything to get that extra. You see, if B didn't risk something and started a company and actually became successful then A wouldn't have work and would be eating dirt.

Also, most Bs started as As, I know plenty of examples. They don't just get the titles. They go through the chain that can make them or break them. There are ofcourse exceptions that happen to find a nieche in a buisness and make a company that fills that hole and they get successful sooner.

You claim to have a higher education than most of us, but you show none. One would expect broader horizons, acceptance that the idea of communism is OK on paper but in practice it hasn't really showed itself good because every country that tried to employ communism via a socialist state usually turned the state into a totalitarian one, which removed the individual for a collective mind and all who did not want to submit were forcefully removed. But yet, so far nearly every socialist country, which according to your diagram is just below communism, has failed and brought nothing more but misery. Some still continue to do so. You turn a blind eye to the fact that people do not want communism, as has the dissolvement of the Soviet Union and various rebelions of eastern block people during the iron rule of the Soviet Union proved. Even the people running from East to West Germany proved that. And east germany was better than most countries under the iron curtain.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]You can walk out of your job (if you have one, that is). No-one is holding you back. No-one was holding me back to walk out of a job on the exact moment I wanted to. Slaves are held back, they can't walk out. I can. You can.

Yes you can walk out of your job, and get another if you're lucky. You can choose between different slave owners or starve. That's wage-slavery. Slavery hasn't been abolished just taken new more profitable forms. Slavery->Serfdom->Wage-Slavery

I'm not talking about reading about ideologies. What Marx wrote isn't about ideology.

Quote[/b] ]How about military and who takes care of major lines of society? Who makes people to pull same rope when internal or external threat or rival emerges? Who takes care that nation/society moves to right and healthy direction? Socialism and communism has been said to be too stiff, too un-progressive to be able to compete. It's what it is, uneffective and unstimulating. It will lose the race with effective and stimulating rival, like forexample capitalism is.

It's meaningless to discuss how a communism would look like in detail as it's a future matter that depends very much on the different conditions. But according to me there will be no military. The people would rule through real democracy. That effecitivity talk depends on technology, natural resources, education and other conditions. The highest growth rate record in history is still being held by the USSR. If done right, planned economy is more effective than market anarchy. Factories wouldn't stand still in times of recession and there would be no waste due to unemployment etc. If you're interested in the rational aspects of a planned economy you should read Marx.

Quote[/b] ]Without working? And who arranges the sale? Who makes sure that A has work? Who makes sure that the company is not dying? B.

That's seldom the case. CEOs who don't own any substantial parts of companies can be counted as worker class (but with a higher wage due to supply/demand).

So what if the company has bills. Bills can be paid and there's still a surplus. A profit, that's why the company is around and running still. If not it wouldn't exist (much longer).

Quote[/b] ]And also, B usually has the education, ingeunity and has put himself in danger of losing everything to get that extra. You see, if B didn't risk something and started a company and actually became successful then A wouldn't have work and would be eating dirt.

That's also bullshit, the usual case is that B has the money and that B employs educated people to do the thinking for him. Risks don't produce value, only work does. Even if he risked a lot of money it doesn't mean that he earns money on other peoples work.

Quote[/b] ]You claim to have a higher education than most of us, but you show none. One would expect broader horizons, acceptance that the idea of communism is OK on paper but in practice it hasn't really showed itself good because every country that tried to employ communism via a socialist state usually turned the state into a totalitarian one, which removed the individual for a collective mind and all who did not want to submit were forcefully removed. But yet, so far nearly every socialist country, which according to your diagram is just below communism, has failed and brought nothing more but misery. Some still continue to do so. You turn a blind eye to the fact that people do not want communism, as has the dissolvement of the Soviet Union and various rebelions of eastern block people during the iron rule of the Soviet Union proved. Even the people running from East to West Germany proved that. And east germany was better than most countries under the iron curtain.

Broader horizons? Don't you think I know the way you think and reason. I mean that's the basic thing to know before you can critize something. I think you're the one to broaden your horizons next.

Communism is nothing you get in 20 years. Socialism has barely existed for one hundred years in one country. Capitalism is a little more than 200 years old. Feodalism existed around 600 years. Slavery a few thousand years. Why would you expect that communism can be implemented that soon? The world is not ready for fulfilling the basic requirements of communism.

The idea that socialism has brought misery is part of the capitalist propaganda. One only has to look at Cuba to see how well they have progressed and their standards and compare it to some nearby free market countries. The development of the standards in the USSR was amazing. From having the feet in the mud, they fought off multiple invasions by capitalist countries and just decades later ended up with their feet in space. The development of Soviet industry and standard of living was enormous. Until the 1970ies it was clear that the USSR would get past the US some day in the future.

And if you look at Russia today, most people (70%) think the USSR was better. In east germany the former ruling party is one of the largest parties. In the czech republic the communists is one of the biggest parties. In Moldova they have a majority. People have had enough of capitalism. In 1991 the soviet union was dissolved peacefully. In 1993 the greatest riots since the revolution 1917 were seen on the streets of Moscow. The liberals sent out their tanks and killed hundreds of civilians. Compare that to 1991.

Sure, people went from East Germany to the much richer West Germany. West Germany, especially Ruhr, has always had the industrial, popular and commercial base of Germany while the east traditionally has relied on agriculture since the days of Prussia. People go from all over the world to the US. I don't know but probably tens of thousands go to the US every year from Mexico. The reason is that the US is richer. It isn't strange and it has nothing to do with the economic system as it's based on the same principles in both countries.

And you shouldn't forget that thousands of people went East as well. Not only west germans but americans, french and so on.

We don't live in the early 90ies anymore. You do. I think it's safer to ask what the Russians think than what you learnt at school in a liberal biased society.

A collection of polls for you:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTra....878

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....reforms

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....stroika

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls...._russia

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls...._russia

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....yeltsin

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....ourably

http://www.angus-reid.com/analysi....stroika

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....c_event

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....rezhnev

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....rbachev

Now I hope you have broadened your horizons.