False. Not only are you bullshitting with people here; you are also lying. I am not interested wether work is required to start a company (that is not very important if you want to analyze the structure and relations in a society, in this case, capitalism), because listen to this, dipshit, I have started a company by myself. I also have been living with people in the third world. In fact, I have family in Asia. I have been living with the lower layers of the working class, and I have been living with the upper class. I have even helped getting a cafe and a bar running, I have had a key positions in a company (holding the position as designer). You should think twice before you open your mouth.
The Ten Planks of Communism. Come on, this is your freakin' name here, you should know this. Maybe they translate it differently over there in Europe. 1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
oops, fuck me, 6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
That is not "ten planks of communism", but measures during the dictatorship of the proletariat. They belong to the socialist period, not the communist. You should be aware that the Communist Manifesto was written when the ideas of Marx and Engels were not fully developed. We do not swallow anything without questioning. For example, if a heavy progressive income tax is not in the interest of the proletariat, it will not happen. We are not dogmatists.
That's good, but it still sounds like you're looking for a dictatorship of the proletariat, and I think that's a reason communism in this form anyway won't make a comeback, because it still has to do with somebody overthrowing someone and leading. The next evolution in society will deal with individuals dicating themselves and no one else.
Always the convenient excuse that it's not "real communism". So what if they have a lot of money? Of what relevance is that? Communism would change none of that. Racism, sexism, and homophobia are not the result of an economic system. I suspect all the communist jobs will be fun and exciting and fulfilling? The per capita gdp of the world is some $8,000, now subtract what is needed for all that government and various other expenses, and what is left to fairly split among the people? Poverty. Besides, if someone is willing to work harder or in some other way figure out how to make more for themeselves, good for them. That makes it unsustainable how? The poor are more than welcome to become rich if they like. 'm sure no one will starve, nor has ever starved under communism. Why does anything need justification? To whom shall it be justified? No thank you.
False. It is not "convenient", nor an excuse. It is a fact. ""Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." - Karl Marx ""The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away." - Engels You think there is no problem that millions of humans, just like you and me, die each die, while a tiny elite of a few hundred people, own and control the planet and live in immense luxury, while a little portion of that would be enough to feed billions of people who are now starving? Yes, they are. Racism was used in order to subordinate black people in the West. That meant de facto free labor power. The working class and the poor peasantry will always be poor. People can't just "become" rich all of the sudden. If you believe that, you are living in a fantasy world. To the billions of people who starve because of this class, because of these people. Does it make you feel bad, when you hear about the world situation? How most people in this world, live? They are simply statistics and facts. Go ahead, don't be afraid. The only think holding you back is your guilt. How would you define "work"? Those societies the West claim to be "communist", have by and large been socialist. Hence, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Hence why the Soviet constitution is built up on socialist, not communist principles. Article 1. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of workers and peasants. Article 2. The Soviets of Working People's Deputies, which grew and attained strength as a result of the overthrow of the landlords and capitalists and the achievement of the dictatorship of the proletariat, constitute the political foundation of the U.S.S.R. Article 4. The socialist system of economy and the socialist ownership of the means and instruments of production firmly established as a result of the abolition of the capitalist system of economy, the abrogation of private ownership of the means and instruments of production and the abolition of the exploitation of man by man, constitute' the economic foundation of the U.S.S.R. Article 12. In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honour for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."
Of course. It isn't a form of communism. There are much more than 10 things that must be done in order to progress from the dictatorship of the proletariat, to communism. In a communist society, the people will control the state. What's the problem? The state is not a neutral entity. It protect and serve certain class interests. The people will control the state. There will be political power outside the state. The state must not, cannot, and should not control every aspect of society.
just for the record, capitilist corporations that have public stock offerings are in theory at least run like a perfect communist nation the only difference is people don't usually buy 1 share but it's funny that capitilism almost depends upon microcosms of communism...... irony rocks *note* this is the most basic interpretation of the thing possible, I know it is much more complex than this, but you don't really want to read through a post 5 times this long that says the same thing, do you?
In that case, there is also no truly capitalist nation as others have said, and so this discussion is entirely pointless as neither actually exists. They found a way to take such control, good for them, I can't say I'd do drastically different in their situation. So that's what it was used for.. What's your point? You've still done nothing to refute what I said of those things not being the product of an economic system. Sure they can, it can go either way, and I've seen both quite commonly. The town I grew up in was a rather nice place, high standard of living and all that, but the guy who originally created it (it was a corporate owned city) was the son of poor Greek immigrants.. Had effectively nothing to his name, and yet eventually he is able to create a rather profitable company, even founded his own city, and is now quite wealthy. But oh wait, that must be some alternate fantasy world, because of course that could never happen in reality. They lack the ability to hold them accountable, and so therefore no justification is necessary. Honestly, no, not really. What guilt would I have to hold back? I am not responsible for any of their problems. And you're right, they are mere statistics so far as I'm concerned, but it's not my place to worry about the rest of the world's people. Okay, so to go back, would you then say that whether or not people are greedy is a product of their economic system? Because the way I'd look at it, people created these economic systems, they did not just independently exist, and so why are the ones which you say foster greed more prevelant? Perhaps because people are generally greedy. If they were not naturally like this, then why is there no "truly communist" nation (regardless of whether it is supposed to be stateless, blah, blah, bullshit, etc. ) If humans were naturally so kind hearted and fair, and devoid of ambition, then why do our nations not reflect such? Having been created by people, they are of course reflections of the way such people veiw things.
Uh, come again? How? I would, if it would give a reasonable explanation. False. You fail to understand that we have never claimed, for example, that Cuba is communist. Only the West has. Only the Wet. Cuba has always said "we are socialist". Of course Cuba is not communist. The state exist, classes exist, money exist, the motivation for production is still partly profit, people receive wages, the nation and the people are still under threat from US imperialism etc. BTW, would you give us a definition of communism? So you think it is perfectly fine that millions die so that a few duzin people can live rich? I believe a certain person here claimed that racism is "not the result of an economic system." Okay, fine. I want to be rich. Now where the hell is my money? Scenario: I can't get a job, I'm undernurished, I have no education, I am illitereate, I am starving. But wow, I want to be rich! Although that is never going to happen, I can Soulless||Chaos says so. You support the system that is killing them. Thus, you are just as guilty as those who run the show. They are not just "mere statistics". People living in Africa, Asia and Latin America are just as human as you and I. But you don't care. If there is any person in this world that deserve to to die, it should be you. Capitalism (that is, the capitalist class), as far as I understand, was born due to the increasing modernization of means of production. The capitalist society was created by the capitalist class. Likewise will a socialist society be created by the working class. What the hell are you talking about? I do not understand your english.
This thread is not ‘for the communists’ but to talk about ‘communism’ and related ideas. Apollo seems to be falling into the same old trap of absolutism, they can only think in absolutes BLACK or WHITE, GOOD or EVIL, CAPITALISM or COMMUNISM. What most people find in the real world is that things are not so clear cut, when it comes to economics, politics in fact anything to do with human interaction there are very few absolutes. Think about it what is absolute capitalism (come to that how does a certain individual define what capitalism is)? Has it existed since the first ‘owner’ of a ‘head’ of cattle, from the ‘invention’ of money or did it spring into existence with Adam Smith or Karl Marx? Who owned the land before the first settler came along and called it theirs? They may invest time and energy into improving that land but is it ‘theirs’? If someone comes along and by force takes that land away from them, is that land now ‘owned’ by the usurper? Who says that I ‘own’ a cow, a plot of land, a pile of gold or a hundred shares in Microsoft? These questions raise another, can ‘capitalism’ exist on it’s own? You see in the end ‘ownership’ is based on authority centred in power, someone only owns something because others accept that they own it, it is only through the acceptance of that authority that they own anything. An absolute ruler can give and take what they wish, but in history there have been very few really absolute rulers, there is usually some check on their power, be that powerful nobles, parliaments and assemblies, military leaders or revolutions. What such checks and balances bring about is regulation, lists of rules, does and don’ts, that most people call laws. They are the authority on which ‘ownership’ is based. People are given proof of ownership and in any dispute, the authority decides which claimant has the rightful claim. If an owner’s property is taken without the owners permission this authority can also force the return by the ‘thief’ or punish the person or people involved. Most people call such an authority a government. But in a system where the governments authority is based on the will of the people, is it not the people that can decide who owns what. So if a majority of people decide that everything should be own communally…?
Communism says we're all equal, everyone should be paid the same amount, and in a perfect cummunist society, money shouldn't even exist. Correct? Okay, then. Let's say you and me work for the fire department in a communist society. Allright, I'll take the Monday to Friday 9am -5pm shift. You can take the Sunday to Thursday midnight to 8 am shift. And we'll both be paid equally for our shifts because we're all communist brothers and in this together. Yeah, right.
The basic idea is not everyone be paid the same (though that is a possiblity), the basic idea is that there is no owning/ruling class. Thus it could be possible in a communist society for harder workers to be rewarded for their hardwork, what is missing is the bosses leaching off the hard work of others.
