Urederra
Mostly harmless
Tank_Guy#3 said:
China is not communist any more, that's why it is a growing economic power. It is kinda dictatorship, but they allow people to have private property, and some of them are getting quite wealthy.
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days (this includes any time you see the message "account suspended"). For more updates please see here.
Is Communism dead?
- Thread starter Civlord
- Start date
China is not communist any more, that's why it is a growing economic power. It is kinda dictatorship, but they allow people to have private property, and some of them are getting quite wealthy.
Aphex_Twin
Evergreen
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,474
@Newfangle
Pragmatism in the service of whom?
Pragmatism in the service of whom?
I suppose the next logical step in this discussion would be the inverse of it - an example of capitalism working FLAWLESSLY. My own opinion is that capitalism is just as flawed in theory - a fair society driven by individual needs and compulsions. Perhaps the logical conclusion of this would be anarchy. (I would be interested in reading any materials relating to the Anarchist movement. I enjoy reading the alternatives)
Anyone can tell you the downfalls of capitalism. The promises of Communism are... quite possibly not quite obtainable, true, and the midground was meant to be Socialism, but even that's been tainted by both the USSR era and the American capitalist 'hammer' smashing all alternatives to pure unrestrained greed. If anything, capitalism restricts social progress to a degree, it doesn't consider other people, it is purely focused around the self.
Example? Take artwork. Some particulars I could count as an expression of 'art' would be games, music... even books. All are individual works, the product of someone's imagination, just as a painting would be. Now, technically, this would be looking at the social aspects of capitalism, but an economic system does affect both sides - social and economic. Anyway, you would consider these to be easily distributable in the modern world. However, we now run into the problem of profits. If it won't make someone money, it won't exist. For a fair society, that is entirely unfair, and to a degree, the internet has lessened this pressure of distribution, but still we see other side effects.
I'm not a communist, I don't believe the communist ideology works, but socialism is quite different. There's a middleground somewhere, an alternative to capitalism, I reckon, and that is the next step in the world economy.
Anyone can tell you the downfalls of capitalism. The promises of Communism are... quite possibly not quite obtainable, true, and the midground was meant to be Socialism, but even that's been tainted by both the USSR era and the American capitalist 'hammer' smashing all alternatives to pure unrestrained greed. If anything, capitalism restricts social progress to a degree, it doesn't consider other people, it is purely focused around the self.
Example? Take artwork. Some particulars I could count as an expression of 'art' would be games, music... even books. All are individual works, the product of someone's imagination, just as a painting would be. Now, technically, this would be looking at the social aspects of capitalism, but an economic system does affect both sides - social and economic. Anyway, you would consider these to be easily distributable in the modern world. However, we now run into the problem of profits. If it won't make someone money, it won't exist. For a fair society, that is entirely unfair, and to a degree, the internet has lessened this pressure of distribution, but still we see other side effects.
I'm not a communist, I don't believe the communist ideology works, but socialism is quite different. There's a middleground somewhere, an alternative to capitalism, I reckon, and that is the next step in the world economy.
Aphex_Twin
Evergreen
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,474
@AxiomUK (nice name, btw)
Do you think that people should:
- own themselves
- own the product of their labour
I think this is the common ideological ground between Communism and Capitalism.
Do you think that people should:
- own themselves
- own the product of their labour
I think this is the common ideological ground between Communism and Capitalism.
Urederra
Mostly harmless
I am the Future said:
I think that that was part of the problem, but not the main part. Greedy people managed to be in top positions in inside the communist party so they could be greedy, even in a communist country.
PEOPLE ARE LAZY, that's the other main problem. How many civfanatics would go to work if the government provides us with shelter and food? Most of us would skip work and play Civ III all day long.
What happened in Eastern Europe is that workers went to work and realized that their colleages worked less than them but they were paid the same, so they work even less than their partners, so their partners also realized of that and work even less, an so on. At the end the workers used to go to the factory to pretend that they work and the government prentended that they pay them. Lazyness was another reason why communism fell.
(And that is apart from the lack of freedom and thought repression, concentration camps for the dissidents (people who the government does not like) and completely lack of criticism (If you disagree with any politic action you end up in a cheka, gulag, concentration camp of whatever you want to call it))
Evil Tyrant
Eccentric Dictator
Communism is dead, but socialism is still alive and kicking.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
Had I my wish, Karl Marx would have been dead.
newfangle
hates you.
Aphex_Twin said:
The 51% that vote for the ruling party.
Evil Tyrant
Eccentric Dictator
cgannon64 said:
Unfortunately, we haven't developed a time machine yet.
newfangle
hates you.
AxiomUk said:
As best I can tell, many welfare states are starting to face the music about the stability of their systems. Mixing capitalism and marxism is not a solution to capitalism. Capitalism needs no solution. Its results speak for itself.
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
Ignore this post.
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
So check out the Anarchist FAQ in my sig. I would be happy to provide you with more material as well.AxiomUk said:
Yes, and perhaps I for one have neglected to point that out frequently enough, but there is always time for improvement.
This topic has been discussed ad nauseam on this board, and most people here should know my thoughts about it, so it should be sufficient to say here that "communism" might be dead, but communism is certainly not.
I would also like to add that it wouldn't hurt certain people to reflect a bit more over human nature, it might be a more complex issue than some of you seem to think.
antonio
Warlord
Communism has never truly been alive its only been a dream chased by so many. One of the min problems with Marx and Engels theory IMHO was that they left no theory for what a Marxist society should be like so when the soviet union was born it had no plan to follow and this in part lead to the evil dictatorships. That and several major flaws in humanity.
Communisto
Condottiere
I am the Future said:
I appologise, I didn't mean to preach but it got tied in and then I was trying to explain it to people. Sorry.
Aphex_Twin
Evergreen
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,474
It would be in my interest to lose a leg rather than an arm and a leg. Most of the time the choice is between the better of two evils.newfangle said:
Civlord
King
Boy, I think you need your medication
.
Meleager
Stoned as a Statue
I haven't read this thread....
but if the marxist posters which plaster the streets of brisbane are any indication, communism is long from dead
but then marxism does not nessesaily = communism
but if the marxist posters which plaster the streets of brisbane are any indication, communism is long from dead
but then marxism does not nessesaily = communism
Communisto
Condottiere
Meleager said:
Australia has always had a very strong Communist ideal. It's just never given a chance to flourish. It would be interesting to see how that would have turned out.
Meleager
Stoned as a Statue
I dont know if "interesting" is the word I would use. Its definately hystorically been alot more left then america but i dont know about communist...Communisto said:
Headline
The King of Fighters
I can't believe that someone actually oppose socialist progressive tax system.
If you make a lot of money, you should be paying more tax because you benefit the most from those taxes. The people who benefit the most from the government spending are not the poor people. US government, for example, spent majority of the tax to protect foreign interest (through military), capital investment, infrastructure, corporation interest. It is almost a unwritten law that the US government is "required" to make investment and business favorable. Who the hell benefit the most from those favorable business environment? You, the rich people. The government can claim "a hundred million jobs were created", but at the end, the owners earned way way more than anyone. It is believed that by making you, the rich guy, rich, you would produce enough jobs to help the people. Is that true?? Hell NO, companies lay off people all the time to cut the cost. The poor people are at the mercy of rich people.
The rich people should pay more for government to boost the economy, not the poor people. It's not communism but it is capitalism. You, the rich guy, is paying for the service the government provides.
There is no communism in the USA.
If you make a lot of money, you should be paying more tax because you benefit the most from those taxes. The people who benefit the most from the government spending are not the poor people. US government, for example, spent majority of the tax to protect foreign interest (through military), capital investment, infrastructure, corporation interest. It is almost a unwritten law that the US government is "required" to make investment and business favorable. Who the hell benefit the most from those favorable business environment? You, the rich people. The government can claim "a hundred million jobs were created", but at the end, the owners earned way way more than anyone. It is believed that by making you, the rich guy, rich, you would produce enough jobs to help the people. Is that true?? Hell NO, companies lay off people all the time to cut the cost. The poor people are at the mercy of rich people.
The rich people should pay more for government to boost the economy, not the poor people. It's not communism but it is capitalism. You, the rich guy, is paying for the service the government provides.
There is no communism in the USA.
