Crazysheep

The Communist Manifesto wasn't just "implemented incorrectly", it has deep internal flaws that can't be glossed over. Socialism requires a huge government in order to be implemented, and there is an enormous amount of historical evidence concerning what happens when a government is given that much power. If you don't want to look at recent attempts at socialism, you could perhaps look at the example of Rome. Rome wasn't socialist, but it's an excellent example of the consequences of power. It offered men enormous power, and look at the men who were attracted by that power. For every man who served the Roman people loyally, there was one nutcase, one politically-capable-but-militarily-incompetant man, and, of course, one who took his army and marched on Rome. My point is that any system that offers people huge amounts of consolidated power is going to draw out some of the ugliest examples of humanity. In order to reach Communism (By definition an unreachable goal, as one cannot build a classless society out of aggressive, strongly tribal animals) an all-powerful socialist state must be constructed, and such power will eventually attract the vicious, the evil, and the power-mad. Edit: One of my favorite Abraham Lincoln excerpts. It's far more eloquent than I'd ever be: I remember that this place is quite strict on going off topic, and I sense a big debate so perhaps we should split this into a new topic? First the issue about it requiring a huge government-communism itself has no government at all, although socialism does, however there are many different interpretations on socialist government. The Stalinist model alone (unfortunately the most historically widespread for reasons I'm about to go into) has the government all powerful and owning everything; this is in actuality a capitalist state of affairs, as everything is privately owned albeit by the state. Socialism is where the workers run production themselves democratically, so how can it be socialist if it is as undemocratic as the Stalinist model...? It is state capitalist, no more. I'm aware saying "oh it's not REAL socialist" doesn't do much for my credibility but bear with me. The reason why it failed, the reason why it HAD to fail from the start I have already said from my example in China but i'll reiterate; socialism must be attempted with an organised and powerful working class organised into militant trade unions or workers councils. In socialism these are the institutions that form the government; the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" is very misused, as it does not mean a literal dictatorship on behalf of the proletariat it means that the workers who control production distribute wealth to people, and every different industry forms a part of the government rather than having a centralised state. There are no industry bosses and organisation at work is carried out collectively in councils, delegating different tasks; for example the jobs that the boss usually does are shared as with other tasks. People who chair council meetings would be rotated according to who is willing or experienced to do it...really, you cannot say what people will decide to do. A government is formed through each industry meeting in a council whenever some form of co-operation is required. Think of socialist government as a federation of industries. In the absence of this political apparatus, a seperate unified entity-the state-is necassary to take it's place, which inevitably creates an elitist class of burueacrats. The workers are then in charge of schools, prisons, courts, police, as a temporary government to prevent a counter-revolution. At least, that is my interpretation of socialism but I'm more libertarian than most and you can't come up with a universal blueprint on how it would be organised because it depends entirely on how the working class decide it would work. Anyway that's my counter-argument for your point that an all-powerful socialist state is needed. Your other main point is that classless society is impossible because we are tribal and aggressive; true enough, and that is why we will always be competitive-reproduction is the hidden motive behind all competition and personal property is only an extension of that when society makes it a measure of a person. If you are judged instead on your skill and contribution to society, then that's how you compete; class is not necassarily based upon private property it's based on social status-go down to a pub and you will see that the dominant characters are those most successful with the opposite sex. A boring, unintelligent, neurotic but wealthy banker or investor is definitely not naturally a higher class than a clever, talented, sexy, but poor rock star but he becomes a higher class based on a social construct stemming from property. And in case you're wondering, the classless, stateless and moneyless society of communism that comes after the aforementioned socialism would be organised in a fairly similar way-but control of industrial unions over schools, courts, police, prisons etc eventually disappears. It is again impossible to predict exactly what communism would look like, but in my mind different non-industrial professions like teaching, journalism, and other jobs that don't produce form their own independant unions whereas before industrial workers would have taken the old role of the state. All co-operation is voluntary; again think federalism. Small localities then form their own councils in which everyone is a part if they wish and deal with local issues like distribution of wealth, criminal trials etc. There is no bureaucracy because everything is done on a face to face level. People choose careers in certain industries and professions which have a co-operative relationship with relevant local councils (remember councils are not elitest but as they are on a small level every single person can be part of it; most likely government would be done on public message boards such as this) who are in charge of ensuring industries are properly staffed. As for police force, there is none and that is a shared task amongst communities. This is how it has always been done before capitalism and the true aim of the police force (only 206 years old) is to protect the property of the bourgoisie. For example banks need police if people don't pay back debt, landlords need police to defend their legal property if they are not there, and of course the poor steal from the rich, so a wider regular police force was required rather than just guards for a nobles country house. That was rather long-winded, but it's amazing how little people really understand communism. As a side-note, if your press is so free you should ask why you and most people don't really understand communism? The press is controlled dictatorially by the bourgoisie, and it is in their interest to spread propaganda helpful to the continuing existence of capitalism. EDIT: And that's a brilliant quote by Abe by the way. I agree entirely with it and this is why communism would not bring about social stagnation as some predict; if political power is impossible then you must find innovation in new areas, and the thirst for innovation in humans with high self esteems is enormous.

Chavez's success is very important to the future of the world and it depends not on his building socialism but on him succeeding in building a Latin American trade block independant from NAFTA precisely so he won't need to worry about millionaire investors in USA and Europe. There is something very wrong with the world when the countries that produce everything are the poorest while the countries where everyone is employed in pointless service jobs where nothing is actually produced are the richest based entirely on their having lots of pieces of paper that entitle them to own production in places like South America. If South America can make itself not socialist but independant of foreign investors (why should something so abstract as capital allow western capitalists to control the globe when they don't actually have anything physical to give?) then it would be the start of a more equitable and developed world. Also, as a western communist an end to exploitation of the third world is very good for me as it means industry will return to my country, which gives my class some leverage and power again. I am an ardent anti-state anarchist but people like Chavez are needed to create revolutionary potential in the west, however much I don't care for the man.

Do you anything about what happened in Cambodia and China? This cute little idea is probably responsible for more deaths than any other in modern human history. And yeah, using human labour for something that can be done more efficiently with technology is a pretty shitty idea too, it was one of those things that ensured that Soviet Union fell behind in technology compared to the west. Sorry but I get really annoyed when people criticise communism by talking about China and Cambodia. I've read a lot of communist and anarchist theory recently, and I'm also moving to China in febuary and I'm doing a degree in Chinese studies so, I can talk about this in some detail and I really mean no offense but reading your post my reaction was.... (although you are right about it's bad to use human labour instead of technology; but the trouble is technology cannot be used properly under capitalism, we should use GM foods and hydroponics to create an enormous surplus but as long as production is privately owned by an elite who need profit we would never really get the benefits as we'd still pay high prices due to capitalist need for profit, but this is tangential...) I've just recently been talking about this in another forum actually, and I'm lazy so I'm going to copy/paste what I said in a topic on a leftist forum asking communists "Why will the next revolution be different?"

no, no and no. Â You absolutly have to make a key distingtion here. Â China isnt moving from a communist to a capitalist state. Â Its opening its markets, whilst maitaining a strong closed government with total rule. Â It is not switching at all, that just wouldnt work, and the economy would dramaticly fail. Â A good example of that happening is with the collapse of the USSR. Â Which wasnt to do anything with the USA, but was collapsed single handidly by Gorbochov. Â He opened the markets and opened political freedom at the same time. Â BIG mistake, and it made people say "why should i work for low pay, for a government i dont like? If i quit my job in protest then condition will get better, and my standard of living will increase", which lead to collapse of industry. Â China however have been smart. Â By letting in foreign investiors money is streaming in, whilst the workers are still thinking , "i work in this low paying job becuase i have to support my family, and if i object to the goverment i will end up in trouble, i better jut keep my head down and work hard, maybe i can increase my standard of living by working harder". You are confusing capitalism with democracy. Capitalism is nothing more or less than free market economy. There's no problem maintaining capitalism in a dictatorship and as the Chinese have demonstrated you can do it within the realms of Marxism-Leninism as well. Actually capitalism isn't even free market; fascism is a heavily regulated market but it's still capitalism. Capitalism is merely the private ownership of the means of production, no more no less. It's interesting that many communists of the anarchist or libertarian variety (like myself) believe that all the socialist states (these never even claimed to be communist btw cos communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society; socialism is supposedly the transitionary state, but...) would actually be better defined as state-capitalist as being state owned is still private ownership.

I haven't heard of Afghan Whigs, but I'm liking your taste in music so I'll check them out. Ditto about Arcade Fire.

I know a lot of people think Radiohead disappeared up their own arses after OK Computer, but I would strongly reccommend getting into Amnesiac, Kid A, and Hail to the Thief as well they're incredible albums. Songs to start with are Morning Bell, Idioteque, How to Disappear Completely (from Kid A) Pyramid Song, Packt Like Sardines in a Crushd Tin Box, I Might Be Wrong (from Amnesiac) and There There, Sit Down Stand Up, Where I End And You Begin (Hail To The Thief) After you get into those albums you can't go back to the Pablo Honey and Bends period! Has anyone hear heard of a band called The Cooper Temple Clause? Their album "Kick Up The Fire And Let The Flames Break Loose" is absolutely incredible, think of Pink Floyd crossed over with Muse. I think it's been deleted now, cos I saw it going for Å1.97 in Music Zone and I can't find it anywhere now, so if you can get a hold of a copy I advise you take it because this album will become a rarity!

Best albums I've heard in the last year that were released in the last year are: Arcade Fire-Funeral Nine Inch Nails-With Teeth Bright Eyes-I'm Wide Awake It's Morning Bloc Party-Silent Alarm The Go! Team-Thunder Lightening Flash Franz Ferdinand-You Could Have It So Much Better White Stripes-Get Behind Me Satan

We really should start some riots over that, I mean millions protested over Iraq but what the oil companies are doing is far more damaging; it could destroy everything for our children's children.

one of the main problems of refuge center down there is organization. people don't know what thier supposed to do. You obviously don't get the point. Yes, natural disasters will always be a problem, but all research show that the greenhouse effect causes more natural disasters, and that it causes more extreme weather. Which means you will have more hurricanes and the hurricanes will be stronger than before (no, it doesn't mean that every hurricane is c-5, but more will be). If you have a very dry forest somewhere in Spain, it will be a very big chance for it to start to burn. If you add some live fire, that chance increases... Well, I bet they'll get a lot of help from a crashed chopper To say such a thing as that is absolutly absurd and dispicable. Blaming the USA for its emissions of greenhouse gasses, saying that thats the reason why we have a number of hurricanes is completely absurd and poposterous. If I were you my friend, I would stop trying to exploit what has happened to the Gulf coast for political and ideological gain. Instead of saying that local and federal gov. is to blame becasue of untimely reatction to such an inimagineable even. You slash the USA policy of not signing some stupid treaty. Saying that becasue the USA does not beleive in Kyoto treaty, they brought this on themselves. I tell you one thing my friend, you better do a deep soul search right now inside you and see who has their priorities messed up. If anything, I would blame the geography of the area and the lack of preparation, but certainly not a treaty not being signed. Just take your treaty and walk down to New Orleans and tell the people there at the superdome and convention center about how the country had forsaken them all becasue they didn't sign the kyoto treay. Gee I wonder what kind of response you would receive from them... I have never heard anything so ingnorant and poposterous in my entire life. I suggest you look at the TV a little more so you can see for yourself if the Kyoto treaty would have made a damn difference in New Orleans. Do you think the storm would have been less powerful if the treaty was signed? Do you think if the treaty was signed the levees wouldn't break? I suggest you ask yourself those questions, and see for yourself if the treaty has anything to do with what has happened. Baz, while I have no doubt it is upsetting to have your country go through such a tragedy and then be told it's your own fault......you have to consider the possibility that the people saying that might be right. The issue is not to do with Kyoto per se, but the complete lack of anything being done to reduce carbon dioxide emmissions and the deliberate misinformation via bogus scientific research sponsored by oil companies. And if Bush is to blame, do you think it's right that no-one takes him to task over it for the sake of being politically correct? And would you agree, if what people are saying about greenhouse gases is correct, that people should start calling for something to be done about now?

Hmm, I have a really bad feeling this war in Iraq is going to be an even greater humanitarian catastrophe than Vietnam. It may not be quite as tough for American soldiers getting killed because it's a completely different environment that makes guerilla war more difficult, but I have the feeling more civilians are going to get killed; it's more of a racial war than ideological that means civilians are going to get targetted; very understandably the Shias aren't going to be able to take this shit from Sunni militants much longer, and I have the feeling Sunnis living in Baghdad or Shia-majority areas are going to find themselves getting targetted and killed fairly soon if these bastards don't stop targetting civilians.

Oh my God, that's terrible.....I saw this on the news when I was in the library and it made me feel so sick. Imagine being in that crowd? Apparently the iron railings collapsed and hundreds fell into the river and drowned.....shit, that's horrible....poor bloody Shias.

It's pretty good, but a minor criticism; it's very hard to tell the difference between "good" and "strong." Perhaps strong should be a slightly different colour, because the shades are too similar.

What's he talking about? Chavez was democratically elected, he's not a dictator.

Probably because Communism had a strong middle/upper class intellectual support base, and fascism was mainly lower class skinheads; therefore it would have been harder to ban Communism, plus most western communists have very different views to soviet, maoist.

Two words my friend :Vladimir Putin. Imagine what if OBL was smarter and had an entire, non-democratic, country at his disposal. I don't think Putin is a communist. He is just a totalitarian, and has no communist political views. I think Russia is destined to become totalitarian again, simply because, culturally, it likes to have strong leaders; liberal leaders are scorned and I don't know of any that have been accepted by Russians. If you're looking for communism as still a threat, however, you've got Chavez in Venezuela who is slowly reforming Venezuela to look like Cuba. If there was a communist threat it would come from Latin America.

Ooooh something a bit controversial:

I thought the same.

An article on links between Iraq and AQ. I have never believed there was a link, but there's some points brought up here I didn't know about: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content....qnr.asp *Saddam agreed to broadcast anti-Saudi messages at the request of AQ * In 1998 there was a series of payments to Bin Laden's second in command (Ayman al Zawahri) of hundreds of thousands of dollars. * Other documents recovered from Iraqi intelligence show that there were meetings between a high-level Al Qaeda operative and Iraqi intelligence officials in Baghdad. *Evidence a former Iraqi soldier worked with AQ and Iraqi intelligence to blow up an American embassy in Pakistan with a chemical bomb. What do you all think?

Haiti-The Arcade Fire

The Soldiering Life-The Decemberists

The Partisan-Leonard Cohen

Actually, that evolution happens IS a fact. It's been observed in many species, butterflies for example, so it's proven. The reason it's referred to as a theory is that it's a theory that evolution is where humans came from.

Oh...

Has anyone heard of audioscrobbler? It's this thing that chronicles peoples listening habits and you can look at different countries. It's interesting to look at Iraqs listening habits, which seem to show dissapointment as well as anger; popular song titles include "we looked like giants," "born to kill," "fuck america," "swansong," "things aren't so beautiful now," "brand new colony." I think it's interesting anyway. http://www.audioscrobbler.com/place/Iraq

Guess I was wrong about it not spreading! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4549873.stm Looks like Uzbekistan might become an Islamic state! I certainly do not envy Washington right now.