Successful Communism

[Karalysia]

Wait, don't you want to be a lawyer, Karalysia?

And when the revolution comes I hope that I am shot for my worthlessness. :suicide:

 

[Merkinball]

hmm lets see
Great sense of community
Local food
not starving to death
decent education
good healthcare
low crime

palatable life style

A sense of community that is so great that many flee, risking their lives to do so many times.
Local food that's totally awesome, I mean, except for the fact that it's illegal to use the sugar you grow to sweeten your food up.
Not starving is weak excuse for a brutal, totalitarian, non-Democratic system.
The education system, and you attain it is despicable. Segregating students on political grounds is incredibly deplorable.
The healthcare system is plagued with shortages, and it is not monitored by international groups. Report after report is suspicious of claims made by report after report produced by the corrupt and brutal government.
Low crime?! HA! There are more people imprisoned in Cuba than any other country, or close to it anyway.

Every single rich person today exists because they're subsidized by the labor of the people beneath them. - Jabarto

A symbiotic relationship does not equal subsidization.

The rich would not exist if we didn't live in a system designed to funnel wealth into their pockets, and since that wealth is generated by others (at best) or gained through forthright exploitation (at worst) it is unquestionably fair for that wealth to be redistributed. - Jabarto

Crazy talk. Look, I'm going through the process of looking for a job and someone to hire me. It's a willful conscious decision on my part. I have plenty of product ideas that I could probably try and sell or market on my own, but I don't think I have the expertise to effectively get it done. Nor do I feel like dealing with state and federal regulations, patent laws, and other issues associated with establishing a startup business. The last and most critical part is that I don't feel like dealing with the risk and the stress associated with owning a business. Therefore, I'm going to hedge against risk and sacrifice wage and benefits and have someone else deal with all the crap that I don't want to deal with.

I am not a wage slave.
I am not a wage serf.
I am not being exploited.
I am not funneling wealth into anyone's pockets.

I will sign on the dotted line for a wage that decide is fair and forthright. And my employer will also sign on that same contract. It will be a symbiotic relationship in which I have security and less stress, and he get's a little more money for my work.

And if I should choose to start a business some day, it will function in the same way. And all of the employees will be in the same boat as I am now. And if they don't like it, they have more than enough ability to walk out the freakin' door and go and start their own damn business.

The most pathetic, insipid, and infantile part of people who complain about capitalism is that almost none of them have the wherewithal to buck the "exploitation" and start their own damn business. Nobody forces anybody to do anything in a capitalist system. Everyone signs on the dotted line, and then they whine and moan and actually believe that:

They are a wage slave
They are a wage serf
They are being exploited
Their employer is taking money that they earn.

Fine, whatever. If you don't like it, obtain some education and be your own damn boss.

But instead they'll whine, complain, and using their voting power as a majority to simply steal wealth from those that actually have the ingenuity, balls, and intelligence to make this world turn, and to make it a better place.

The only thing the underclasses deserve from the rich is job that the rich offer them, and the products that they create through their own intellect and ingenuity.

 

[Jabarto]

The most pathetic, insipid, and infantile part of people who complain about capitalism is that almost none of them have the wherewithal to buck the "exploitation" and start their own damn business.

Because starting a business is 99.995% likely to end in failure. Funnily enough, this is directly caused by capitalism.

Nobody forces anybody to do anything in a capitalist system. Everyone signs on the dotted line, and then they whine and moan and actually believe that:

Tell me more about your fantasy world where the super-wealthy and the destitute have equal bargaining power. Hint: poor people accept unfavorable jobs because they need to eat, not because they want to.

Fine, whatever. If you don't like it, obtain some education and be your own damn boss.

Because it's JUST THAT EASY!

But instead they'll whine, complain, and using their voting power as a majority to simply steal wealth from those that actually have the ingenuity, balls, and intelligence to make this world turn, and to make it a better place.

They don't have the balls and intelligence to make the world turn. They hire the people who do to do it for them.

The only thing the underclasses deserve from the rich is job that the rich offer them, and the products that they create through their own intellect and ingenuity.

So you're saying that the working classes should fight for the wealthy's table scraps and be grateful for the opportunity? Wow, that's just...I mean, I don't even know what to say to that.

 

[1stcitizen]

(Well, coming in 11 pages into the thread, I hope I am not repeating what someone else said...)
I don't believe there has ever been a true communist state, just a few agricultural socialist dicatorships.
I do believe there have been several collective communties, such as those of the early christians (they acted as an inspiration to Marx) that could be considered some what sucessful. There are two things that must be noted about this however.
1) These wee not states, they were all minority communties within a wealth, and stable larger state.
2) These communities were made up of people who joined of their own will, with greed any idea, no matter how noble, will fail.

@Karalysia- Lawyers are not useless, they are custodians of the noble and elegant rule of law, but they have been distorted by capitialism to become a cumbersome and profit-oriented enterprise.

 

[Merkinball]

Because starting a business is 99.995% likely to end in failure. Funnily enough, this is directly caused by capitalism. - Jabarto

This is due primarily to people not having the ability to produce superior goods. Or for the reasons that I listed above. If anything the thing that impedes people MOST from starting businesses is the red tape and regulations that government entities impose on individuals.

Hint: poor people accept unfavorable jobs because they need to eat, not because they want to. - Jabarto

Nobody requires another rich man to provide him a job to sustain himself. All I need is a gun, water, and rabbits. I can go live and subside off a plot of land and so can anyone else. Oh, and those pesky Amish people really throw a wrench in your gears.

Because it's JUST THAT EASY! - Jabarto

Yeah, I know, it's a lot easier to whine, complain, hold your hand out, expect other people to provide you with a job, and then use your voting power to extort money from the hand that feeds you while you take the easy way out.

They don't have the balls and intelligence to make the world turn. They hire the people who do to do it for them.- Jabarto

I hate to tell you this, but low end workers exist purely out of convenience. Nothing more, nothing less. They certainly do not make the world turn.

So you're saying that the working classes should fight for the wealthy's table scraps and be grateful for the opportunity? Wow, that's just...I mean, I don't even know what to say to that. - Jabarto

In a country like America? Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. If you cannot take what's been given to you in a country like this under any circumstance and turn it into a comfortable living then you are a waste of a human being. Such a person is dead.

 

[GamezRule]

"The poor man never gave me a job"

You people need to YouTube some Milton Friedman, I have a link to him in my sig.

Also, explain the story of people like Robert Kiyosaki, a man who started out poor and without taking any aid is now a millionaire. By the way, he started out working for XEROX, and learned the secrets of business, and now is very wealthy from starting his own business. He also rents people homes so they can live someplace decent, and is a teacher.

 

[Jabarto]

"The poor man never gave me a job"

You people need to YouTube some Milton Friedman, I have a link to him in my sig.

Also, explain the story of people like Robert Kiyosaki, a man who started out poor and without taking any aid is now a millionaire. By the way, he started out working for XEROX, and learned the secrets of business, and now is very wealthy from starting his own business. He also rents people homes so they can live someplace decent, and is a teacher.

First of all, Friedman is a complete hack whose economic ideas have never taken off in any country in the histroy of the world, and even the cases where it was tried ended in countless deaths and suffering, so I wouldn't put much stock in what he says. If you want to talk economics, try talking Marx, Galbraith, or Stiglits instead.

Second, the fellow in question got plenty of aid. He benefitted from society as much as you or I did, if not much, much more. The self-made man is a myth, and the sooner people like you realize the incredible helping hand you got from society, the better off all of us will be.

 

[Cutlass]

Keynes and Schumpeter. Ultimately the others are filling in the details or leading astray from those.

 

[Jabarto]

Keynes and Schumpeter. Ultimately the others are filling in the details or leading astray from those.

Yeah, I though about listing Keynes in there, but he ultimately did more to further capitalism than any other man in the 20th century, so...

I'm a little shocked you disagree with Marx being on that list though. Whether you agree with him or not, his theories are the basis of our modern understanding of capitalism, and he's probably the most influential economist in history.

 

[Whomp]

I think Marx belongs on the list but not for his long since discredited labor theory of value. As Schumpeter said "the labor theory does not account for values in exchange except on special and unrealistic assumptions; if those assumptions are made, then the propositions of the labor theory follow from the modern theory (marginalist), which can thus explain all the labor theory can explain; and the modern theory can explain things the labor theory cannot explain".

However, I do think he was a great economic historian, philosopher and Prophet for his devout followers. Schumpeter agreed that socialism would succeed but instead because of its success rather than failure.

Galbraith's "The New Industrial State" was discredited seven years after he wrote it when Microsoft was founded and his purported dominant corporations US Steel, GM and AT&T ultimately become a shell of their once mighty empires.

 

[civ_king]

A sense of community that is so great that many flee, risking their lives to do so many times.
Local food that's totally awesome, I mean, except for the fact that it's illegal to use the sugar you grow to sweeten your food up.
Not starving is weak excuse for a brutal, totalitarian, non-Democratic system.
The education system, and you attain it is despicable. Segregating students on political grounds is incredibly deplorable.
The healthcare system is plagued with shortages, and it is not monitored by international groups. Report after report is suspicious of claims made by report after report produced by the corrupt and brutal government.
Low crime?! HA! There are more people imprisoned in Cuba than any other country, or close to it anyway.
*snip*

20% of Cuba is in prison?

 

[Karalysia]

Here is a quote by someone far greater and more brilliant than me:

"I was mowing my lawn today when I suddenly realized something. I am putting each blade of grass on my lawn through terrible strain just to make it look appealing to the outside world - it doesn't help the grass to force it to be how I want it to be, it just makes it look pretty all together. I cut down any piece of grass that sticks out - I don't want it to grow above the others. That would make my lawn uneven. I don't want any particular piece of grass to be better than the rest! And then, after I clip all of my grass, I then spread the mulch over the more weak looking parts of my lawn. This can be paralleled to the USSR's propaganda slogan, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - From each blade of grass according to his height, to each blade of grass according to how close it is to dead. I stopped my lawn work, and turned off my lawnmower. I looked around. I had an Iron Curtain of concrete sidewalk preventing the grass from escaping and the weeds from entering. I had a pair of clippers that I used to cut down the grass that dared evade my lawnmower in the crevices near the fence. My lawn is Communist - I am Lenin, and this lawn is my suburban USSR."

 

[Jabarto]

Here is a quote by someone far greater and more brilliant than me:

I knew it! I knew you were a goon!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think its quite a vapid quote, actually.

 

[Traitorfish]

This is idealistic and simplistic.

Yes, of course it is, it wasn't meant to be taken literally. It was a deliberately hyperbolic example, intended to illustrate a point, not describe an existent economic model. I would have thought that was somewhat obvious, but, apparently, some people need it strewn in tinsel.

 

[Hakim]

To be frank, I don't understand why you equate communism with collectivism.

Well, I do. I thought it was the very point of communism/socialism: fighting concentration of power and wealth.

Knowledge is power, and if someone is given key positions in a society he will make it his backyard sooner or later. This have to be fought by a organizational setup that doesn't put individuals in such positions - for too long at least. The role/task is either rotated or carried out by a council or committee of sorts, a group of people.

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah, I though about listing Keynes in there, but he ultimately did more to further capitalism than any other man in the 20th century, so...

I'm a little shocked you disagree with Marx being on that list though. Whether you agree with him or not, his theories are the basis of our modern understanding of capitalism, and he's probably the most influential economist in history.

Keynes said that Das Kapital gave nothing to the understanding of economics. And I agree that Marx as a whole has not contributed to the understanding of economics is any way that shows. Marx was a social and political philosopher. Not an economist. He helped give understanding to how certain people, governments, and organizations behave, not how markets behave. As Whomp said, the Labor Theory of Value simply does not stand up as a piece of economics. Though much economic thought and literature went into debunking the LToV, so Marx had an impact there, if only inspirationally.

So whatever you ultimately wish to learn from Marx, what you get that holds up is a criticism of how some people in economic power behave. Not an economic understanding of how or why they do so. And, ultimately, not really even the foundation of what to do about it. Marxism, as a reaction to capitalism, tells you what to oppose; not what to support.

 

[amadeus]

An economy that is free-market and capitalist in nature does not prohibit people from voluntarily collectivizing their resources. The only people that can be productive in a collective are people committed to its, rather than their own personal, development. I don't understand why the nanny-staters can't understand this rather simple concept; if communal living was fashionable or preferred by the vast majority of Americans, it would have happened by now.

As I have related before, I lived in a non-profit housing cooperative for three years, and it worked well because we were all working towards the same goal -- to balance low rent and good service. But to strip the rights (for example) of others to own for-profit housing because some misguided do-gooder thinks he or she can make things better for people, that is wrong, and the only way to enforce such a policy is to imprison its dissenters.

 

[Merkinball]

Yes, of course it is, it wasn't meant to be taken literally. It was a deliberately hyperbolic example, intended to illustrate a point, not describe an existent economic model. I would have thought that was somewhat obvious, but, apparently, some people need it strewn in tinsel.

I've seen you post a lot. What do you want from me?

And Keynes has done little for capitalism, as Keynesian economics has been thrown into the trash can.

 

[aelf]

I think Marx belongs on the list but not for his long since discredited labor theory of value. As Schumpeter said "the labor theory does not account for values in exchange except on special and unrealistic assumptions; if those assumptions are made, then the propositions of the labor theory follow from the modern theory (marginalist), which can thus explain all the labor theory can explain; and the modern theory can explain things the labor theory cannot explain".

I don't think the labour theory of value was invented by Marx.

Well, I do. I thought it was the very point of communism/socialism: fighting concentration of power and wealth.

Knowledge is power, and if someone is given key positions in a society he will make it his backyard sooner or later. This have to be fought by a organizational setup that doesn't put individuals in such positions - for too long at least. The role/task is either rotated or carried out by a council or committee of sorts, a group of people.

I still don't see how this implies collectivism. The EU leadership is rotated between countries, but you're not suggesting that the EU is collectivised, do you? Ditto for having a committee in charge. I'd think that that's even more common today without so much as the shadow of collectivism entering the picture.

As for fighting the concentration of power and wealth, is redistribution the same as collectivism? Most modern states are redistributive to some extent but are liberal states. I don't believe collectivism would be a meaningful label for them just because they are redistributive.

To me collectivism suggests the obliteration of individuals in favour of the collective, and I don't think that's what Communism aims for. If the individual is not significant, what's the point of fighting for a better society? Who would that fight be for? The collective is a comprised of individuals, and to deny individuality for the collective would be to fall into the same pitfall of abstraction that capitalism/Utilitarianism is stuck in. Hence, I'd say that Communism is in fact aiming for the good of distinct individuals at the price of the unlimited accumulation of capital, the latter which isn't necessarily a loss to individuality.