Now where does communism come in??

I thought capitalism, democracy and facism has won already. Anyway, why are their still people afraid that the commies will are still the problem today??

In TODAY's world their are actually plenty online who believes that the current recession and the future shortage of a workforce is part of a communist scheme.

Err... I don't understand how and where does communism link to the problems of today's world. Communism is so weak that it is going to dissapear soon and people are still believing that communism is still a global threat.

so... does anyone here thinks that by saying the world commie or communist will wet your pants?? are you afraid?

Eh, people are stupid. Communism in and of itself isn't even a bad concept, and America itself has several programs that might be considered Communist, such as Education, Social Security, and (well, in theory) medicare. I know some rabid communists so I don't think it will die any time soon, though I doubt it will become viable for years to come, if ever. I prefer a blend of capitalism and socialism myself, and so long as I can live in a country like that, I have no objection.

Communism is a great idea, on paper. Too bad it doesnt work in real life.

my concern is that the taiwanese seems to be quite racist at times whenever communism is mentioned. one of my taiwanese classmates think that whenever I talk about communism it somehow refers to china and chinese. All he ended up doing was bashing the chinese as a race and somehow the concept of communism is never mentioned during this whole conversation. just mindless racist slurs.

does it happen often?? are taiwanese often racist? no offense meant by the way. you guys are free to correct my mistake.

Ironically, your statement right there might be considered racist.

Seriously though, some people have ingrained racial stereotypes. In this case, communism has nothing to do with it, it's all about hating the Chinese. Communism is just a way for them to try to make it appear more acceptable.

I think communism is a great idea, unfortunatly it often becomes corrupt and tends to stop a country developing. Personnaly i think China had a lot more going for it before it turned communist :choc:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mecharmor23

my concern is that the taiwanese seems to be quite racist at times whenever communism is mentioned. one of my taiwanese classmates think that whenever I talk about communism it somehow refers to china and chinese. All he ended up doing was bashing the chinese as a race and somehow the concept of communism is never mentioned during this whole conversation. just mindless racist slurs.

does it happen often?? are taiwanese often racist? no offense meant by the way. you guys are free to correct my mistake.

---

the taiwaness are chinese, how can he be racist against his own people. It's like me having a go at someone from the isle of white.

Quote:

---

I thought capitalism, democracy and facism has won already

---

Fascism...win? When? like in ww2 where we kicked mussolinis ass? or when the nazis were finished off in the soviet union? Wait............... is this one of those puzzles where one dosent belong? I got it, do i win?

P.S. Capitalism sucks. Karl Marx baby :rock:

Quote:

---

Seriously though, some people have ingrained racial stereotypes. In this case, communism has nothing to do with it, it's all about hating the Chinese. Communism is just a way for them to try to make it appear more acceptable.

---

I don't think this is true for everyone. Personally I hate the Chinese government, but I have quite a few Chinese friends so I obviously don't have racial prejudices against the people.

In highschool, I worked in a chinese restaraunt. Best chinese food on the face of the planet, by the way. too bad the place closed. :crying:
the owners were from Taiwan. But they considered themselves Chinese. Taiwanese are an ethnic group who want to maintain the independence of Taiwain. ok, more of a political group.

According to my former employers, however (nicest people in the whole world. became my second family) they thought the Taiwanese wanted a return of the days of WW2 during which Taiwan was controlled by the Japanese.

but the japanese were so ethnocentric that they were quite.... let's say they weren't too nice to Not-Japanese people. But, I've yet to hear of a single culture or ethnicity that has never in its history commited some attrocity or other. human nature I suppose.

besides. The communist ideal may yet rise since nearly 1/3 of the world's population lives in a communist system. or socialist. one or the other. Russia was one, and China was the other, but i can't remember which. Probably Mongolia.

Communism's biggest problem is that it relies on human ambition being turned aside and forgotten. Marx wanted to start a revolution, but revolutions ALWAYS, ALWAYS need leaders, and in order for Communism to work, those who have just led the revolution must then immeditately step down and no longer dominate, which to the best of my knowledge has never happened.

I think some ideas of socialism are wonderful and make life better, but I severely doubt we'll ever see the day where Communism or socialism works to any large extent.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

I think some ideas of socialism are wonderful and make life better, but I severely doubt we'll ever see the day where Communism or socialism works to any large extent.

---

Yeah, that is why I am a conservative.

I don't think the communists are the problem. They are a marginal minority today, especially in the 'free' West.

The fascists on the other hand are a big problem, globally and locally. In my own country, the fascist party is the biggest one and the most powerful nation of the world has just re-elected a fascist president. Then again, it's mostly the supporters of these fascists who still consider communism to be a problem. It never even was a problem, anti-communists created the problem in the first place.

McCarthyism had much to do with the stigma attached to communism.

Well...

Communism sounds so cool that there are probably always going to be people who think they can, maybe, pull it off.

Because, although capitalism is the secret to my success, a lot of people are afraid of work. A lot of people pray to win the lottery every night.

The big challenge for capitalists is to help out the less successful. One side of me screams, "They're the lowest end of the food chain! Cut them off before they reproduce and spoil civilization."
But there is another part of me that suggests, "It is possible, Martyr, maybe, for people to be taught to be successful..."

From what I've seen in America, we should cut them off. An all capitalist government would master export and trade, allowing for more and more money and mopre and more power and more and more freedom. All people have to do is work. Just like Communism, but the system is focused more on an individual so losers don't screw things up!

But nobody will do that. Nobody wants to kill a damn seal. There certainly isn't anybody who can ignore the pleas of stupid, violent, uneducated morons of the lower class. Our societal morals tell us that "they" should be treated equally even though they don't want to play by the rules.

America is a giant freaking nursery!

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

Anyway, that was probably a way far off topic rant.
But I hope it helps to explain why communism still lingers.

It's because of all the great governments we have developed, we still have an imperfect government. So modifications to the concept of communism still look like an option to people. That's all.

I just wish that Mr. Marx wasn't such a violent bastard.

I WILL RAPE YOUR WOMEN, EAT YOUR BABIES AND BURN YOUR HOUSES.

And no, China is not a communist or socialist country. China has the ability to combine the worse of socialism and the worse of capitalism, or at least judging from what I know of the chinese system. Fun fun fun!

By the way, I see people who refer to communism as imposible and yet, later, they refer to "communist" countries. That is a contradiction: either it is possible and happens, or communist countries don't exist. Thats why the term "socialist" is used when refering to a so called communist country. Communist countries don't exist...or else I'd move over there.

Quote:

---

An all capitalist government would master export and trade, allowing for more and more money and mopre and more power and more and more freedom.

---

Yep, you are right, capitalism in it's pure state would be like this. However, I feel I don't find the relation with...

"allowing for more and more money and mopre and more power"

and

"and more and more freedom"

More power and money lead to more freedom? I doubt it. The example of nazi Germany should be enough to go against that. If you mean such case of freedom would be created by wealth and power rising in a capitalist- not fascist- nation, then I want to know how would you defend such thing.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you sound like an anarco-capitalist, wich basically means capitalism taken to the extreme where goverment influence over corporations is non existant (in a way, the goverment dosen't even exist). Or you sound like a neo-liberal, meaning you believe that the restrictions from the state on corporations should be very, very minimmum. I always failed to understand both anarcocapitalists and neoliberals.

i would kill the damn seal in order to keep it from starving to death. that's only humane.

communism is impossible because the communist countries people refer to don't last long, or the system has been corrupted, or they simply fall apart. hence, impossible is usually operantly defined as impossible to maintain for a great length of time.

fascist = bad

why? because fascist is rule by strength, but intimidation, by violence. you don't like my way of thinking? :shoot: that's the fascist means of government. it's the kind of government my Brother in Law understands. but he's a neanderthal. and not good enough for my little sister. and hasn't a thought in the great gaping space within his head.

Shadow Nexus: Bro, I don't know what I am. I've never heard those words before. I don't think that I'd trust the business world to be perfect on it's own- I want to learn about anarcocapitalism or neoliberalism now.

Maybe pure capitalism wouldn't spread too much freedom.
But it'd be really nice to think that people would either adapt to the system or disappear. Maybe it'd be a somewhat ruthless world, but a successful one. And everybody who became successful would be about as free as possible, right?

Or do I need to take a couple political science courses?

They say the only reason Communism doesn't work is because it involves people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martyr

Maybe pure capitalism wouldn't spread too much freedom.
But it'd be really nice to think that people would either adapt to the system or disappear. Maybe it'd be a somewhat ruthless world, but a successful one. And everybody who became successful would be about as free as possible, right?

---

There is a problem there. In every system you must admit people who refuse to accept it. And some of those people may just not adapt correctly. Examples of people who didn't manage to adapt: Van Gogh, Federico García Lorca, Hölderlin, Spinoza, Marx, Nietzsche, Goethe, Gaugin, Biedma... well, they are considered geniouses, and they had a critical spirit. By making critical members of the society dissapear, you are eliminating free thought, because you are simply admiting that the ones who disagree with the system could not exist. Would it be a succesful system? Of course, it would be great in production, it would be peaceful, it would be economically splendorous and....it would be fascism. By eliminating the possibility of the critical spirit, or in other words, by forcing people to adapt into the system, you are eliminating freedom.

As for those who would succeed, in a system such as capitalism, where production seems to be the main objective, being succesful is having a good economical position. On a simple analysis, yes, it's freedom, cause you have money, you don't have to work and can lead an hedonistic life of waste and luxury. However, in the end, thats just being enslaved to your money. It is not real freedom or real pleasure. In fact, I have never met a "succesful" person who is happy. And I have met many of them, after all, I come from an aristocrat family.

Quote:

---

They say the only reason Communism doesn't work is because it involves people.

---

Yep, that is correct. :D The early Christian Church was the only sucessful communist group that we have had so far.

Quote:

---

From what I've seen in America, we should cut them off. An all capitalist government would master export and trade, allowing for more and more money and mopre and more power and more and more freedom.

---

That's absurd. Freedom and capitalism will only mix for a short while. You see it happening right here in America. Once people are rich enough, the few will dominate every business industry. Let's just see YOU try to start you're own business building you're own name brand computers. You WILL fail, because the industry has already been taken over by the rich. After a while, all industries will be controlled by small amounts of people, who will then have all the money. Money is power, and they will then dominate everything. In other words, a large percentage of the population will have no freedoms, while the top 1% will control everything.

Quote:

---

But nobody will do that. Nobody wants to kill a damn seal. There certainly isn't anybody who can ignore the pleas of stupid, violent, uneducated morons of the lower class.

---

And why is it that the lower class are uneducated you ask? Oh yes, because it is YOU conservative capitalists who refuse to fully fund education. I blame their problems on YOU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

And why is it that the lower class are uneducated you ask? Oh yes, because it is YOU conservative capitalists who refuse to fully fund education. I blame their problems on YOU.

---

We did an experiment where I live. All the schools were equally funded for a while. 5 good years or something.
After that time, the schools in the lower class neighborhoods were approximately no different at all than if they'd been given less money.
I don't know why poor people don't learn. I don't know why they destroy things so much more and more often. Especially when their education should be the same!

But anyway, it's okay if you blame the problems on me. Nobody wants to take responsibolity for themselves. And I understand that. It's hard to admit it when you realize that you're a hopelessly stupid loser.

I am the radical for Capitalism. I want to abolish all socialistic thought in our country, which I blame for all downfall. I loathe communism and socialism more than you can know, and I see it not as "good in theory", even, but the denial and chokehold of the human individual.

I believe that anyone who holds that the creed "from each his own ability, to each his own need" is claiming that an individual works solely for the benefit of others and gives nothing to himself. Every bite of food he takes is morally not allowed, since there is another, hungrier indivdual out there.

I want laissez-faire capitalism to be the norm in today's world. Today, we have a mixture of socialism and capitalism ("mixed economy"). Any and all problems with our system can be blamed on these socialistic ideals (Social Security, the inability to enter the "free" market, etc) .

And, anyone who claims that "Communism is a good system that doesn't work becuase people are evil!" or "Capitalism is a sinful idea that was created to promote greed!" or "I am my brother's keeper!" or "Communism isn't a bad concept!" or "We must set aside our personal interests for the public!"... is either ignorant, as I hope, or evil in the fullest sense.

And, true enough, "communism" isn't the problem exactly, at least, not nowadays. Socialism is the problem. That and a bunch of spoiled brat rich kids, wealthy off of a capitalistic society, whom (in order to sound intellectual) claim that Marx was a genius. Marx was, as far as I see it, the enemy of indivdualism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martyr

We did an experiment where I live. All the schools were equally funded for a while. 5 good years or something.
After that time, the schools in the lower class neighborhoods were approximately no different at all than if they'd been given less money.

---

One question though. Do you mean all schools as in within the same grade levels like all high schools or all middle schools, etc.? Or do you mean all levels of education got equal funding? I ask this because if we're basing this on the middle school or high school level only for funding, it may already be too late. If students don't grow up with equal education opportunities as other schools, how can they experience and learn to appreciate what they are learning?

As far as education goes, I don't believe it all to be funding though. We need teachers that care again. It seems like it's all about collecting a paycheck these days rather than brightening students futures.

As for communism, the original intention of communism was good. Unfortunately, power no matter where derived become something that can easily corrupt a leader with the best of intentions for his/her people. Of course, I believe that to be typical of any government including our current democracy. All forms of government start out with good intention but all become corrupted in time by the overwhelming amount of power that comes with leadership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowdust

One question though. Do you mean all schools as in within the same grade levels like all high schools or all middle schools, etc.? Or do you mean all levels of education got equal funding? I ask this because if we're basing this on the middle school or high school level only for funding, it may already be too late. If students don't grow up with equal education opportunities as other schools, how can they experience and learn to appreciate what they are learning?

---

Hmm... That's an interesting point. It may have been for curriculums across the board, but I can't be positive.
I only know of it being done for high schools.

Quote:

---

But anyway, it's okay if you blame the problems on me. Nobody wants to take responsibolity for themselves. And I understand that. It's hard to admit it when you realize that you're a hopelessly stupid loser.

---

Careful who you call stupid. I may be a hopeless loser, but you will have a hard time proving my stupidity. I'd flame you right now but im in no mood to get banned.

Quote:

---

We did an experiment where I live. All the schools were equally funded for a while. 5 good years or something.
After that time, the schools in the lower class neighborhoods were approximately no different at all than if they'd been given less money.
I don't know why poor people don't learn. I don't know why they destroy things so much more and more often. Especially when their education should be the same!

---

It has to do with the fact that they are forced into piss poor neighborhoods. You'd be violent too, if you had to watch you're back on the streets every night, or if you grew up in a violent neighborhood, where drugs infest every street corner because that is the only way for any of them to make a decent amount of money. You'd be selling the drugs, too. I would, anyone would. I can speak for you in this instance because it is simply human nature to do what makes sense. The environment a person grows up in can play a major factor in how they grow up. Because poor people are often ignored, scorned, and hated (especially non whites) by people like you, it is no wonder that they are so violent.

Quote:

---

It's hard to admit it when you realize that you're a hopelessly stupid loser.

---

Martyr, that was the worse form of debating skills that i have ever seen in my entire lifee. you absolutly proved no points there. If you plan on writing something, write something decent

The poor get poorer when the rich get richer. It is something with the education system. I wouldnt know if it had to do with funding, but i seriously doubt that a man living in poverty has the knowledge on areas as market economics, politics, and the justice system, then a person of wealth

The idea of the communism is to live in peace with people and get everything with your work.There would be no big companies just stuff handed to you.Immensely boring if you ask me and the global resources wouldnt hold out with that anyway.

This might be news to you all, but penguins are actually communists. You see, what they do is, they all go out fishing and then they get all the fish on one big pile and they divide it equally. So, animals without a sense for ethics, can pull off a system based on solidarity, and people can't. Hmm.

I, for one, think people are perfectly capable of making it work. Most people just aren't. To put it bluntly: Lenin did a great job, Stalin destroyed the Revolution Lenin fought for and succeeded in. Not only Stalin; nearly all the communist leaders in history after Lenin. Is it not strange that the only communist state that ever worked out was the first one? 'Cause don't tell me Lenin was a totalitarian; he was everything but.

I believe in the concept of communism. If penguins were capitalists, half of them would be fishing, and the other half would collect the fish and eat it. Solidarity is something we desperately need, I think. Without it, man will always be unhappy.

I foresee terrible consequences for the world if Communism and Fascism were ever to collide ...

Quote:

---

Marx was, as far as I see it, the enemy of indivdualism.

---

Have you read the manuscripts?

And another question...

...are you somehow related to Ann Coulter?

Quote:

---

Stalin destroyed the Revolution Lenin fought for and succeeded in

---

Nope, I believe Lenin screwed up too, because he didn't radically change the production system as he should.

However, 1917 Russia is not the place to start a communist revolution.

I dunno lets see. commie. *wets pants*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Careful who you call stupid. I may be a hopeless loser, but you will have a hard time proving my stupidity. I'd flame you right now but im in no mood to get banned.



It has to do with the fact that they are forced into piss poor neighborhoods. You'd be violent too, if you had to watch you're back on the streets every night, or if you grew up in a violent neighborhood, where drugs infest every street corner because that is the only way for any of them to make a decent amount of money. You'd be selling the drugs, too. I would, anyone would. I can speak for you in this instance because it is simply human nature to do what makes sense. The environment a person grows up in can play a major factor in how they grow up. Because poor people are often ignored, scorned, and hated (especially non whites) by people like you, it is no wonder that they are so violent.

---

I live in a wellfare town. 65% of the population live off wellfare. Most live in the amory square housing projects and the rest live in the ghetto down by the river. I know what it's like to live in a community where peple make livley hoods off selling crack and heroin. But, they do it to themselves. They have a giant chip on their shoulder. The high school I graduated from is one of the lowest funded in my state. The other towns pick on us and talk about how poor windsor is and how stupid our people are. My school is a hole. Yet kids still bring themselves out of the and go on to college and such. Many of my friends from school are now in jail or selling drugs down on the corner. I know people who have been to jail 3 or 4 times for stabbing people or shooting at people. People get shot and stabbed here in this little vermont town of 5,000 people. We have drug raids and such. It's a ty place to live but there are still people whoi make it out and make somthing of themselves. Bassically what I'm trying to say is if you haev enough motivation you can do anything. It doesn't matter how poor you are or your town is, if you want something bad enough you will get it.

Alot of people don't succeed because they have been told their entire lives that they are doomed to fail. I agree to an extent in personal responsibility, but it is not enough to say "oh, theese people are just lazy, stupid, unmotivated, ect" without looking at the core issues.

Such great amount of thoughts to analyse and reply to, so little time. Considering how I love debating politics and social issues, I think I'll LIKE it here :)

Anyways, just two quick ones for now:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carnage

Fascism...win? When? like in ww2 where we kicked mussolinis ass? or when the nazis were finished off in the soviet union? Wait............... is this one of those puzzles where one dosent belong? I got it, do i win?

---

Sadly, that is not the case. You might not be acquainted with post-war fascist regimes, but they're a dime a dozen. Some examples include Chile under Augusto Pinochet (1973-1990) which was pretty much a textbook example of a fascist state: a government that sells out the population to big business, violently suppresses and murders thousands of its own citizens to destroy all opposition and rule by fear, and inculcates a totalitarian culture that is based upon the exaltation of the individual over the needs of others. Similar examples could be found throughout South America in the 1970s, quite notoriously in Argentina from 1976 to 1983 under the so-called "Process of National Reorganisation", which, granted, was not as brutal as Pinochet. Another example would be the military takeover of Uruguay in 1973, which lasted until 1984 although it focused more on ideological repression (torture and kidnapping, performed by members of the armed forces, were still taking place, though).

All of this not to mention General Franco in Spain, who ruled from 1939 until 1975. So, even as recently as 30 years ago you still have fascism in Europe. I would mention other examples, but these are the ones I know the most about. Needless to say fascism was far from over after the second world war, and although it's fading from visibility, a lot of the manners and ways of thinking have remained, and still underlie modern societies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Itsunari 2000

I foresee terrible consequences for the world if Communism and Fascism were ever to collide ...

---

Communism and Fascism are, for all intents and purposes, gone. As such they can't really collide, unless you're saying that western capitalist societies are fascist (which could be the case, depending on one's definition of the term), and that they could clash with an opponent as large as China (which is more focused in trading with the west these days anyway). Moreover, in a small scale, Communism and Fascism have already collided: in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), and during the 60s and 70s throughout South America in small skirmishes between fascist government forces and communist guerillas. the world managed to survive.

I don't think fascism or socialism have dissapeared. I would not say modern western societies are fascist, I don't even believe Bush is technically a fascist, although I don't think he's really far away from that either. What I mean is that fascism as a form of goverment does not exist, but it still exists as an attitude. But then again, maybe fascism dosen't seem like the correct word to use, maybe "absolutist" or something along those lines works better, because fascists are absolutists, but not all absolutists are fascists. Blah, blah, blah.

As for socialism, well, I think it's hard to say. It exists, socialism, communism, anarchism, romanticism, etc, they exist as attitudes, not as political systems (Cuba can be considered the closest thing to socialism, but sadly I tend to associate socialism with social liberalism, and Cuba has some nasty repressive laws). Personally, I take what I like from all of them, although I don't claim to be in any of those to avoid being imagined as some damn social stereotype. But yes, I do believe every social liberal movement has an attitude of those, even if the people in it are not always communists, socialists, anarchists or romantics.

I was referring more specifically to Communist or Fascist states. The ideology is still around. There is not a Nazi state, but there is a nazi ideology among a certain people.

However, it could reasonably be argued that fascism is the ultimate logical conclusion of capitalist ideology. As such, we're living in latently fascist societies, which have socialist elements in order to keep people appeased.

Yes, it could be argued. I understand what you mean, but I don't agree completly. Fascism has a super-powerful state controlling everything, a state lead by a charismatic leader that is meant to know what is to come in history and how to take care of the nation. There is a repression, a censhorip, because a fascist state thinks the ones in the lower sectors, this is the great majority of the people, is not the one who must be in charge of political decisions or even have political consciousness (as far as I understand). Absolut capitalism would have similar consequences, but the main difference here is that there would be no important part for the goverment, and the power would be lead by multinationals. If I have to choose, I choose fascism: I don't like neither, but I prefer a total control of the state- that is meant to somehow take care of the citizens- than a total control of the multinationals, which are only meant to find economical profit. A city under extreme capitalism would be similar to Midgar in Final Fantasy VII.

Umm... you people haven't paid much attention to Marx, have you? He, himself, has been quoted as saying "it's a great idea, but it would never work without..." and then he suggested a variety of things. Amongst others, slaves. If we had a race of subservients to do all the stuff needed to provide our materials, we could make socialism/communism work. Given a couple decades from now, robots should be a viable option.
We'd also have to eliminate selfishness. And THAT, my dear friends and colleagues, is quite unlikely. It's also the difference in all things. The capitalism that martyr is so fond of assumes that helping others is a weakness. That all people really are given equal opportunity. That Jesus (the man- not the religious icon) was a complete moron. Any of these points, your average human would consider absolutely horrible. And in the first-world nations, at least, if we could find a way to convince those that have too much to loosen their grips until everyone had enough, then you might even have truth to that saying.

What people are failing to do, however, is to seperate communism (a purely economic *not political*) system from socialism (a seriously messed up theoretical "stepping stone"). True democracy would be impossible without true communism, and vice-versa.

But, martyr, watch what you say about the poor and downtrodden. They BUILT america, they ARE america. Millions of them from every nationality under the sun fleeing to the one place where all you needed was hard work and the desire to succeed. Because they couldn't make it in their homelands. But here, they turned us into the greatest empire to have ever existed on this world. Nowadays, that opportunity is almost gone. It takes luck to achieve anything here anymore. And soon, even that will be lost.

Can you please tell me where has Marx said the whole slavery thing? Because I haven't read it, but of course, I haven't read the whole Capital, although he did sound too authoritarian on some parts, I prefer the young Marx, much more romantic.

Quote:

---

(a purely economic *not political*)

---

Well, it involves the end of the State.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

Can you please tell me where has Marx said the whole slavery thing?

---

Ok, to be fair, he never advocated the use of slaves. Plato/Socratese/Aristotle, however, did in their theories on how government should be structured. And he quoted them a lot.
I was bringing it up to illustrate the point that Marx himself never believed his system would work. If we had slaves for the hard labor, it could, but since he was for complete human equality, moot point.
I also mentioned the idea of eliminating human greed and selfishness. Yeah, like that will happen. I've been a member of this species my entire life, I know us pretty well, and that's doubtful at best.

P.S. I do, however, want a robot slave :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

Ok, to be fair, he never advocated the use of slaves. Plato/Socratese/Aristotle, however, did in their theories on how government should be structured. And he quoted them a lot.
I was bringing it up to illustrate the point that Marx himself never believed his system would work.

---

Wow, that's amazing. Seeing into the the mind and every single personal reflection of a man who has been dead since 1883 must be quite something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mecharmor23

my concern is that the taiwanese seems to be quite racist at times whenever communism is mentioned. one of my taiwanese classmates think that whenever I talk about communism it somehow refers to china and chinese. All he ended up doing was bashing the chinese as a race and somehow the concept of communism is never mentioned during this whole conversation. just mindless racist slurs.

does it happen often?? are taiwanese often racist? no offense meant by the way. you guys are free to correct my mistake.

---

tell him not to come to oklahoma lol they'll call him chineese.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bernhard

Wow, that's amazing. Seeing into the the mind and every single personal reflection of a man who has been dead since 1883 must be quite something.

---

Did you even actually pay attention to what I wrote. Both prior posts. I can't see how you did and would still write that comment.

lol Sorry to say dude but I didn't even read completely what you wrote.

Neither Plato or Socrates advocated slavery, I am sure of that, I have read a lot through Plato since he is one of my favourite thinkers, in fact I believe him to be the greatest thinker ever. Aristotle did though. Plus, it's preety normal to quote them, though it dosen't mean you agree with them. Hell, Marx was a philosopher, no great philosopher has ever died without writing anything in reference to the classic Greek philosophers. Hell, I am a philosophy student, and there is not a single day where any of those names dosen't come up (I am not exagerating, unless I am far away from the university, there is no single day where any of those three comes up, and I do bring up Plato in most conversations too, mainly because I believe he has many brilliant ideas). But I don't think Marx really liked Plato that much, although frankly I don't believe Marx read Plato correctly, or he would have not said so many things against him, then again, I believe Plato hasn't been read correctly until Fichte, Hölderlin or Hegel, who- in my opinion- unveiled the light in his best book, Fedro (I guess it's written something like "Phedroe" in English).

Oh, and even if I mention Plato a lot, I don't agree with him on many things either.

As for Marx saying it would not work, I never heard that either: I heard he was skeptical about it in his latest years. However, I haven't read him say that directly, I've just heard from unreliable references, but I would not be surprised, I mean, it makes sense, he had a very good theory, but not a dogmatic one, and as any rational person would, Marx also believes the possibility of failure is there. I don't think Marx's thought is definite and irrefutable- mainly because I don't believe such thing exists- but I do believe his theory is preety good, and sadly it has never been taken seriously into practice, mainly because of the corruption of leaders...wich may be very well impossible to avoid, as the anarchist philosopher Bakunin pointed out. Is it impossible to avoid? I couln't know, I really don't have that much faith in humanity, but hey, I may be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

Did you even actually pay attention to what I wrote. Both prior posts. I can't see how you did and would still write that comment.

---

I did read them, yes. What I was referring to was this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

I was bringing it up to illustrate the point that Marx himself never believed his system would work.

---

To claim that Marx at one point or another lost faith in the practical application of his system is one thing, but to state that he never believed in it, full stop, is folly. No one can know that but himself.

Ok, I'll bite that one. But he never stated that he believed his system would work, and he did state he didn't believe it would. It was his "utopia". He did want it to be workable, maybe he once did believe it would, but he never publicly acknowleged that he believed it could. You can thank a couple of psychotic russians for not paying attention to that detail.

Yup, communism is a great concept. Its not that it doesnt work, it just doesnt work for humans- emotions get in the way etc... laziness and corruption are just too tempting. But then, pure versions of any governing framework don't seem to function very well. Nowadays the way countries are run seem to be mixture of philosophies and theories- which is nice cos it makes for interesting viewing. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

He did want it to be workable, maybe he once did believe it would, but he never publicly acknowleged that he believed it could.

---

Urm...actually, he did, in the First International, where he had quite a hard discussion with Bakunin around that, and such thing lead to the International to be divided into two: Anarchist and Communist International.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

Urm...actually, he did, in the First International, where he had quite a hard discussion with Bakunin around that, and such thing lead to the International to be divided into two: Anarchist and Communist International.

---

Hmm.... I'll have to check up on that, I always got the impression that it was more him disliking their ideas than the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

Yes, it could be argued. I understand what you mean, but I don't agree completly. Fascism has a super-powerful state controlling everything, a state lead by a charismatic leader that is meant to know what is to come in history and how to take care of the nation. There is a repression, a censhorip, because a fascist state thinks the ones in the lower sectors, this is the great majority of the people, is not the one who must be in charge of political decisions or even have political consciousness (as far as I understand). Absolut capitalism would have similar consequences, but the main difference here is that there would be no important part for the goverment, and the power would be lead by multinationals. If I have to choose, I choose fascism: I don't like neither, but I prefer a total control of the state- that is meant to somehow take care of the citizens- than a total control of the multinationals, which are only meant to find economical profit. A city under extreme capitalism would be similar to Midgar in Final Fantasy VII.

---

Modern capitalist democracies work in the same lines as fascism, as I've explained before. The only different is that the ideological and repressive state apparatuses are more balanced, in order to maintain the social situation for a prolonged period of time. The only real difference between fascist and modern capitalist systems is the fact that fascism relies too much on the repressive state apparatuses: a police state, a media controlled by the government, tight control of the unions by the government, etc. Modern laissez-faire capitalism relies on the private sector much more, as those in power have realised that consumerism as an ideology is just as powerful as anything a politician can come up with. As such, instead of state-controlled media, you have a media that is for the most part controlled by the very powerful.

Don't be deceived by the overly controlling nature of a fascist state. You're taking it as if it was a socialist state, and it isn't. The point of a fascist state is to stress the differences between people, differences of race, nationality and social class, to keep them divided and controlled. A fascist state only cares for its citizens as long as those citizens are willing to support it and never object. A socialist democracy advocates, granted, a semi-paternalist state that tells people what to do sometimes, but it is a state where opposition is allowed. In fascism, no opposition is allowed, and it's met with persecution and violence. In capitalism, opposition is met with false argumentations, forged evidence and different forms of non-physical violence against the opposition, because beating someone up just because he opposes the multinationals is not accepted in a place like America (whereas the multinationals support governments that do it in the rest of the world).

Believe me, people have everything to lose under fascism. At least under capitalism you have the chance to express your view and hope you can at least change the system slightly. Fascism would drop you in a prison and send you away.

Communism has some good points to it that look good on paper but are hard to put into actual practice. In theory, it would provide complete equality and democracy. Any government system can work in theory with good leaders. The Soviet Union, communism's poster-boy was cursed with a dictator who put Hitler to shame. In the Soviet Union the Communist party was the dictator. All in all Humans aren't cut out for Communism. Some species like Ants use it to great effect, but Humans are too individually centered.

Communism is scientifically flawed. Its primary hypothesis - that people are shaped by experience; and, hence fall into either the bourgeois or proletariat mindset is false. If it were true then a member of the bourgeois could never understand a member of the proletariat. Secondly, the litmus test for 'class' has never been established, that is to say, how do you differentiate the bourgeois and proletariat? The definitive answer is ... You cannot! Wealth is relative, and from this measure the bourgeois from North Dakota would be considered a mere proletariat in California. In the same light, the Lords Proletariat would be deemed quite affluent when compared to his counter-part in Coventry (would this make him bourgeois? Well only the tyrannical mob of the revolution could determine that). Neo-Marxism attempts to deny some aspects of this psychological tenet ... but how many times does 'Das Kapital' - the commie’s handbook - need to be revised? ;)


P.S. Capitalism has never translated into freedom; and, on that note, neither does globalization ... but that's another story. The diffusion of wealth - or lack there of - and the marginal productivity of labour, dictate that capitalist societies cannot achieve egality. ;) The degree of freedom merely depends on the mobility of capital ... this is at least preferable over communism - in which freedom (and life or death as a matter of fact) are determined by the mob. :eek:

Ascot, you make interesting points, but I believe you are confusing terms. Capitalism is basically an economical system, and it is partly compatible with fascism. Take, for example, Spain after the 1936 war, under the dictatorship of Franco. Well, it was a fascist country, I mean, just ask anyone who had lived such situation and you'll see how they will reply. However, the economical system started with fascism, yet slowly adapted into capitalism.

Democracy works in the same way. A democracy could never turn into a fascism, because in the moment it did, it would not be a democracy. Oh, but modern democracy is not what I could call democracy: bewcause democracy under capitalism is something that looks contradictory. Democracy is meant to be a goverment of the people, not "vote a pig every four years". Yet, capitalism is a system where economical benefit and individualist egocentrism (I'm not against individualism, I am against this type of self-centered narcissistic individualism) are natural consequences, and well, what can I say? In an economical system where large differences of wealth appear, it is natural for some, the high classes, to try to keep their wealth and attempt their domination over the majority, leading to an aristocracy of wealth. It is hard- or should I say impossible- for an economical system not to influence the political system, and of course, considering the goverment and the multinationals are very related because of the whole structure of the market, the ones in power end up being the multinational CEOs, not the dumbasses elected by the people, who are only asked for opinion once every four years, bombed with idiotic propaganda.

Quote:

---

Secondly, the litmus test for 'class' has never been established, that is to say, how do you differentiate the bourgeois and proletariat? The definitive answer is ... You cannot! Wealth is relative, and from this measure the bourgeois from North Dakota would be considered a mere proletariat in California.

---

Um...the difference between burgeois and proletariat is more a question of domination or dominated. Wealth is a medium. And it should be applied to the place with speak of, of course wealth is relative, but jerarquization is obvious: the king of medieval Spain is in the same position of the king in medieval England: the top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

But he never stated that he believed his system would work, and he did state he didn't believe it would.

---

Are you sure about that? We learned in history classes, that he considered the whole thing as some kind of historical determination. So he thought, it couldn't work in a different way, after the capital/money was in the hands of only a few and the great masses of workers were on the breadline.

It is strange, how the word 'Nazi' turned. Nazi comes from national socialism and in the beginning there were really some members in that party who meant, what they were called: they wanted a socialism on a national basis. So, in its origins the national socialism is more similar to communism than many communists would like to...
Well, but what Hitler got out of it wasn't much socialism... okay, I guess, he didn't want to do so...

"And it should be applied to the place with speak of, of course wealth is relative, but jerarquization is obvious: the king of medieval Spain is in the same position of the king in medieval England: the top."

But I was speaking of the difficulties on has in the face of revolution. The kings of various nations are indeed bourgeois (which I might add, I have no problem with as statecraft should be learnt for childhood and should never have been given to career politicians or even worse ... the common man - the latter being the expectation of communism)! Anyhow, what about the varied degrees of wealth? Is the marginally better-off neighbour bourgeois? Or what about the guy down the road, who owns two houses rather than one? Is he more bourgeois than say another?

This is the core dilemma of communism ab initio. Marx reduces the complexities of economic predisposition into two distinct classes, in which nobody - except the extremities of wealth and poverty - can be classified. ;)
Hence, the true value of Marx is not found in his alternative to capitalism, but his critique thereof.


Fascism only went sour when it took on a racist connotation. Initially, the doctrine regulated corporate structures and inconvertible capital supply via increased government ownership. Potentially, this system overcomes many out-of-control market mechanisms that cause volatile growth areas that outpace the rest of the nation; these forces create situations of economic prosperity and deprivation - disproportionately.