communism

bloggs

Nearly every weekend, there seems to be a communist/marxist rally out side the GPO in Dublin. Every time, they use the same old reteric 'down with capitalism, support the unions' etc. First of all don't these people ever read a history book and find out what communism was like? Just talk a look at the old USSR, where there was no decomracy, where you had varity, as long as it was what the government gave, you would say what you like, as long as it agreed with the communist government, and god forbid if you didn't you would be arrested by the secret police and never seen again.

People love communist countries so much that they were willing to be shot to escape them (East Germany, Cuba, USSR, North Korea). Also, if people like the Socialist Works Party got into power and turned the place into a communist state, surely they would have to get rid of decomracy, because as soon as people got sick of the situation, the country would be in a complete mess when converting back to capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't seem perfect, but it seems to be way better than anything communism can offer.

gom

Bloggs don't start just making personal observations without even creating a discussion.

The Communism Vs Capitalism themed discussion is the most flamer attracting topic on these boards.

I call on the mods to close this thread before the usual degrading and unimproving Flame war begins...

And Bloggs.

Post this to a blogg ... Its just plain thinking out loud with no imputis to discuse...

bloggs

Whoops and there was me thinking this was a political discussion board?

bonkey

It is, but I see little in teh way of discussion material in what you've just added.

You could sum up your entire first post in 5 words :

"I think Communism is crap"

or

"Capitalism seems better than Communism",

I wouldn't close the thread just yet, but don't seriously expect anyone to get involved in a real discussion with such well-formed and well-argued opinions.

jc

bloggs

Ok then. Since the early 1900s, the world has been divided between two great forces, communism and capitalism. Communism appears to be the protectionist soceity where freedom of speech and expression are suppressed, where democracy of the one party rules, and descent often results in inprisionment or death. The great rules of modern communism (Stalin, Mao) oppressed and murdered their own people, along while existing ones (Castro and Saddam (who's Baath party is based on socialism) are well known for their suppression of other parties and descent.

Many look to America with both fondness and anger, it's extreme (in some people's mind) capitalism is hurting the world. But it only seems to have become so powerful as a counter weight to communism. Many who hate the West, have to at least agree that it provides democracy to allow change, the West also allow people to better themselves, through working hard, although some communists will regard working hard for money as wrong.

The history of communism, along with it's infamous leaders surely are it's death, as not many would like to be run like the USSR. Where to speak out against the government would end up being taken away by the secret police, and never seen again.

Why is it, that people will stand under the red banner of communism or it's akas, and wish this country to join it?

My belief is that even if we were to come a communist state, surely democracy wouldn't exist, because as soon as people voted for another pary, the entire communist framework would collapse, resulting in economic and social destruction.

Hairy Homer

OK so you don't like Loony Lefties. I was never too gone on them myself, but they're not the problem now.

Today, we have to contend with the Nutty Neocons who want to pervert every freedom they say we should be fighting for, wherever Uncle Sam wants us to do so, whenever they see fit.

Prisoners held without trial (but they're terrorists!)
Civilians attacked with rockets (but they're terrorists!)
Cities bombed to rubble (but they're terrorists!)
Journalists who are critical of their actions and ideologies villified (but they're talking about terrorists!)
Insane arbitrary rules of admission for the US now (but you might be a terrorist!)
Even the Sunday Indo got angry yesterday about the hassle involved in trying to get basic visa information out of the US embassy. It's now as difficult to get into America as it is to gain entrance to a Dublin pub wearing trainers. (see other posts)

You know what's really eerie? Many of the Loony Lefties of the 1970s (Conor Cruise O'Brien, Eoghan Harris (to name but two of the more vociferous local ones) are prominent Nutty Neocons today. I believe a similar trend is evident in the US, with many of Bush's keenest supporters having radical leftie backgrounds—by US standards.

bloggs

I fully agree with you, Bush's raping and pillaging, would make the Vikings look like pussy cats. No offence to any Danish people

We seem to be going back to the Cold war where we had the two extremes, and instead of Russia, we now have Bush and Rumsfeld the brothers grim.

But you don't need to be pro-communist to be anti-Bush. Why people can't have a decent moderate left wing/conservative party is beyond me.

gom

Backing up Hairy Homer...

Look to the US and read this post also "BACK IN THE USSR"


To be honest Blogg. If your talking about Freedoms. Then talk about them. Some Communists(Women espically) in the USSR had more freedoms than little old Ireland in the 60s.

The Old Communism Vs Capitalism Arguement is defunct...

Communism was applied to the worlds most suppressed peoples.
China wasn't a very nice place before Mao but it was worse under him I will admit... However, Russia under the Reds was (for a time - i.e. pre Stalin and post Stalin) more free than Tsarist Russia... IF Communism was applied to a modern Industrial power such as Germany(as Marx was talking about in 'Das Capital') it would have worked back in the late 19th century...

Again I'll get back to why you should be arguing Freedom under Capitalism Vs Freedom under Communism...
The Baathist PArty is not a communist or even socialist party... Baathists are National Sociatists(That would be the NAZI party)

Freedom is a scarce thing under Capitalism and Communism.

The arguments about which system is more economically desirable is a very subjective question also.
I know I am better off under a Capitalist system economically. BUt the egalitarian inside of me says that something closer to communism would be preferable given the right destribution of wealth...

Communism I think is an excellent idea for a household(communes). I have serveral friends who have grown up in communes. 2 in dublin and 1 in waterford.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bloggs
Ok then. Since the early 1900s, the world has been divided between two great forces, communism and capitalism.

TBH, communism realistically became a spent force in 1989. A handful of communist nations remain, many of which are realistically communist in name only (e.g. China).

The twenty-first century has retuned us to the politics of the nineteenth century rather than the ideologically charged twentieth century. We’re back to the politics of nation states that Bismarck, Cavour or Disraeli would have been familiar with. The ideologically motivated have once more been relegated to the fringes, as they were a century ago.

As such a discussion on ‘Capitalism versus Communism’ is academic, and fairly irrelevant to the World we live in today.

bonkey

Originally posted by bloggs
I fully agree with you, Bush's raping and pillaging, would make the Vikings look like pussy cats.

And therein is the flaw in your stance.

You look at communism and say "but the implementations were flawed, so why would anyone choose it over democracy".

Then you discuss the most powerful democracy in the world and more or less admit that, well, its full of bad stuff too.

Virtually no-one who supports communism, or communistic/socialistic principles wants a USSR, Chinese, or similar model. They want one which works, and they believe that the fundemantal concept is workable.

Similarly, those who support democracy would usually not choose to emulate a democracy such as Liberia, or even (for many) the US. Again - they want one which works, and they believe that the fundamental concept is viable.

This is always the problem...advocates of democracy point at the USSR or China and say "but look how bad communism was/is - why would anyone want communism". Of course, thats like pointing at the devestation caused by a flood and saying "look how bad rain is - why would anyone want rain?".

The communist/socialist supporters are no better, pointing at the US and saying pretty much exactly the same thing : "but look how coirrupt that is".

Either compare like with like (implementation against implementation or theory against theory), but holding the ideal of one against the implementation of the other (as both sides are wont to do) is a pointless exercise in nothing but spin.

jc

shotamoose

Every time this debate comes around it's asserted that, for example,

Since the early 1900s, the world has been divided between two great forces, communism and capitalism

and the argument is then illustrated using the few extreme examples of both. In fact, the 20th century was most notable for the emergence of social democracy as a common and generally successful type of society that managed to avoid killing people in their millions.

I think it's likely that people would have had better experiences under both communism and capitalism if the two 20th century superpowers hadn't made the destruction of the other their number one priority. Not that it makes much difference now.

The ideologically motivated have once more been relegated to the fringes, as they were a century ago.

If the fringes include the White House.

bonkey

Originally posted by shotamoose
if the two 20th century superpowers hadn't made the destruction of the other their number one priority.

Is there any evidence that The Great Communist Conspiracy ever existed - that the communists really were out to destroy the west?

I'm undecided either way....but there seems to be a lot of evidence pointing that all they ever did was accept the willing into their fold....whereas the west were the ones on a crusade to destroy the great threatening evil Communism.

So was it actually true, or was it another piece of western-power spin?

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey
Is there any evidence that The Great Communist Conspiracy ever existed - that the communists really were out to destroy the west?

Well, the USSR, Eastern Bloc and other communist countries certainly spent a very large proportion of very scarce resources on military accumulation. Arguably this was purely in response to a threat from the West, though, but still it all worked out the same in the end. I may well be wrong in saying that they were 'just as bad' as the West in this respect.

Éomer of Rohan

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GIVE ME BACK BIFFA BACON OVER THIS TWADDLE.

Moriarty

Originally posted by bonkey
Is there any evidence that The Great Communist Conspiracy ever existed - that the communists really were out to destroy the west?

I'm undecided either way....but there seems to be a lot of evidence pointing that all they ever did was accept the willing into their fold....whereas the west were the ones on a crusade to destroy the great threatening evil Communism.

So was it actually true, or was it another piece of western-power spin?

jc

My understanding of it is that Stalins policies set the two superpowers on a slippery slope which had to eventually lead to one collapsing. After stalins period in power where he isolated the USSR from the west, the soviets were mainly intrested in keeping pace with percieved technological developments by nato. NATO was in turn intrested in trying to catch up with a percieved gap in numbers and technology that never infact existed.

This was most evident in Kennedys election campaign when he argued heavily for the US to increase nuclear research, development and production to close the percieved 'missile gap' between the US and the USSR. At the time, the US had something like 5,000 deployable nuclear weapons, with a few hundred ICBMs. Only when the cold war ended did the west realise that the 'missile gap' was a complete fantasy, the soviets at the time had 10-15 deployable long range missiles and another 10 or so devices that could be delivered by long-range bombers in their entire inventory.

The soviets were peppering by the time kennedy was elected, by which time the americans were starting to deploy MRBMs in turkey. NATO could strike with nuclear weapons to any point in the soviet union, but the soviets had almost nothing to respond with. This was the main reason behind the soviets deploying missiles in cuba and its worth noting that for backing down, the soviets got the americans to remove the missile sites from turkey.

The vast majority of arms expenditure during the cold war can be brought back to a warped 'keeping up with the Jones'', neither side wanting to appear weaker or less prepared for war than the other.

Éomer of Rohan

Ok, my despair has passed, so Bloggs, just you and me, let's have this discussion; people, this a public board feel free to jump in but I am going to be dealing almost exclusively with what Bloogs has posted and I ask him to do the same with me.

On the Russian Revolution

People criticise Lenin's war communism and Stalin and generally put both down to the flaws of communism - I would like to clear this up.

The mass revolution in Russia was a revolution in a politically and economically backward nation where the serfs had been tied to the land since the edict of Peter the Great lending them little of the autonomy that saw middle classes created in western Europe and saw the first capitalist revolution in France in 1792.

Marx's dictum predicted that socialist revolution would fail unless it took place in one of the more developed countries of the world; at that time, Britain or Bismarck's Germany. The reason for this was that the 'petit bourgeois' would begin by demanding further autonomy from the autocratic classes; then it would be the turn of the working class, which to steer the revolution away from 'social democracy' which was just a new cage with gilt bars, would make use of it's trade unions and the 'communist vanguard.'

In Russia, the country was not industrialised enough to have proper trade unions; these began to properly take shape barely two or three years before the revolutions of February 1917 began to shake the foundations of the autocratic state. Due to the lack of a solid working class trade union foundation, the Communist Party found itself alone in trying to change the course of the revolution - something which has led to criticism as 'elitist' from some of my historian colleagues. In reality, it was predicted by Marx himself and of course the cry of 'All Power to the Soviets' which was the Bolshevik motto was really meaningless since these Soviets had a large proportion of the middle class - the only properly industrially integrated class - controlling them. Thus the decision was taken by many good communists, in good faith, to transfer the state power to the party rather than to the original soviets, and basically new soviets were constituted on the spot. From this all sorts of problems arose such as nepotism, appointment to posts and so forth - which are fundamentally against the nature of a socialist revolution - which is precisely how JVS manipulated his way into power following Lenin's death. None of this was meant to happen in the revolution and these generally explain why they did - and why they would not be repeated in the revolution of a more developed nation.

On the USSR and the Eastern Bloc

The Soviet Union was socialist in some respects but absolutely totalitarian in others - and I say this because some believe that socialism and totalitarianism are synonymous, which they are not.

In so far as personal liberties went, the USSR was not great, and as a communist, even I can see this. The Cheka, later NKVD, later OGPU, later KGB made damn sure that the Party remained in power; hell it was the motto of the KGB, the Sword and Shield of the Party. That this came about was wrong BUT at the same time, in terms of a socialist economy, regardless of the ignonminious nature of it's collapse, the early post stalinist socialist era was better than anyone could have foreseen; within a few years, Russia had reconstructed itself, rebuilding cities which had once held over a million people, Stalingrad, Kharkov, Rostov, Kiev, Leningrad, Riga, Vilnius, Tallinn and of course healing the scars on itself throughout European Russia. Everyone had a job. Everyone had access to free education and free health care - the state provided everything that was necessary.

Understanding Historical Imperatives

On it's treatment of Eastern Europe, one must consider that Russia had just lost 30 million people in war; the most casualties ever sustained by a nation in two centuries previously never mind in four years. It was frightened - and to add to this, the United States possessed the atomic bomb and was growing less friendly as hostilities between themselves and Japan and Germany drew to a close. That Hungary, Romania, East Germany, the Baltic States and Bulgaria had partaken in the 'crusade' to free Europe from the 'Judeo-Bolshevik' menace probably had something to do with it as well.

Collectivisation and it's failure so too lend themselves to social analysis. They failed because the major agricultural regions were controlled by a culture alien to that of the industrial centres - ie, the Cossacks of the Russian Steppe, the Ukraine and Kazachstan. Trotsky himself wrote in his 'History of the Russian Revolution' that the Cossacks should have been allied to the workers instead of opposing them since the Communists should have ensured that their program was flexible; in reality, what failed here was that Marx and Engels banked on a western european revolution where the farmers were more productive in co-ops already rather than a revolution of an asiatic people.

I do not condone the actions of Soviet Russia and her dictatorship but some aspects of that society are enviable and admirable compared to ours; it is generally obscured to those who see only the choking bureaucracy and collapse of the USSR as opposed to the fact that even after maintaining the second largest standing army on Earth, after winning the space race, after rebuilding a country shattered beyond even my imagination and after donating billions of roubles in third world aid (some in good faith, some as realpolitik admittedly), the Soviet Union still provided her people with a better standard of living than many across the capitalist world. That they were not free in the way that the propaganda was state based rather than corporate based and that the economy was not democratic as Engels had envisioned was the downfall - but that took nearly forty years from the end of WWII and the introduction of the world wide rape that was free market capitalism to accomplish - and even now, after capitalist plutocracy has failed in Russia, people there hark back to the Communists who 'failed' and see light.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Bloggs
Nearly every weekend, there seems to be a communist/marxist rally out side the GPO in Dublin. Every time, they use the same old reteric 'down with capitalism, support the unions' etc. First of all don't these people ever read a history book and find out what communism was like? Just talk a look at the old USSR, where there was no decomracy, where you had varity, as long as it was what the government gave, you would say what you like, as long as it agreed with the communist government, and god forbid if you didn't you would be arrested by the secret police and never seen again.

Bloggs, I do not mean offence when I say that we socialists (I am a member of the Socialist Party and a representative of the Committee that is elected to run our activities in Northern Ireland) read a lot more history than the average person - myself more so since I am a historian.

But more importantly, open your ears and listen to what these people say (well maybe not the socialist workers party, but the SP) - Marx' Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are all about true democracy, which the western capitalist nations do not have - in fact, what they have is called a plutocracy in my opinion, a government of wealth. Someone once satirised this by saying 'European elections are rigged; the government always wins' - that is to say that partisan politics coupled with a dependence on corporate support remove the freedom of any government and that the government generally consists of the Debsian ruling class doesn't help matters.

Quoted from Bloggs
People love communist countries so much that they were willing to be shot to escape them (East Germany, Cuba, USSR, North Korea). Also, if people like the Socialist Works Party got into power and turned the place into a communist state, surely they would have to get rid of decomracy, because as soon as people got sick of the situation, the country would be in a complete mess when converting back to capitalism

None of these countries had a successful revolution - I have oft been accused of simply using this as an excuse but above I have given a fair amount of depth on the unavoidable failure of the Russian Revolution - and given that subsequent revolutions were based not on the will of the working class but on the desire of an elite autocracy to themselves take power, we have the reason for the failure of the Chinese, Cuban, North Korean and various third world 'revolutions' - in fact if you read history, and Manach will back me up here if he reads this - there is an excellent analogy between the attitude of the city states of Greece caught between the two superpowers of Sparta and Athens to the present day, a host of nation states caught between the two superpowers of the USSR and the USA; and so we see that historical narrative shows what happens when there are such polarisations. Opportunism happens. That this opportunism had a window (ie the already partially corrupted organs of the state of the USSR) allowed it to grow and so the failure of Russia meant the failure of every nation relying on Russia.

For the record, Cuba was never a communist revolution; it only adopted communism after the Americans supported the descendents of the United Fruit Company and Batista over the need for genuine social reform in Cuba; ie it was a way of sucking up to a nation from whence Cuba could recieve vital aid.

Victor

Originally posted by bloggs
Ok then. Since the early 1900s, the world has been divided between two great forces, communism and capitalism.

Shouldn't you read up on your history? What about Imperialism and the rise of Nationalism (which was largely sponsored by communism)? The rise and fall of Facism? The rise of Democracy? The perpetuation of opporession, authoritarianism and warlords? And what of those "wonderful" Capitalist countries like South Vietnam (1954-1975), The Phillipines(19??-198?), South Africa (1948-1994) and all those other places where democracy hasn't quite caught on. At least communism changed it self.

And remember no established democracy has fallen to communism (exception Czechoslovakia c.1948 which was a democracy for 3 years).

Originally posted by The Corinthian
The twenty-first century has retuned us to the politics of the nineteenth century rather than the ideologically charged twentieth century. We’re back to the politics of nation states that Bismarck, Cavour or Disraeli would have been familiar with.

In many ways yes, however it is on a fundamentally different basis. Germany became a single state out of aggression. Likewise imperialism was on the rise - it is now largely gone. Today's power blocks have largely developed out of a spirit of cooperation, not force.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Victor
What about Imperialism and the rise of Nationalism (which was largely sponsored by communism)?

Sorry must have missed that part of history - since when was the Rise of Nationalism a communist induced or sponsored idea?

Quoted from Victor
And remember no established democracy has fallen to communism (exception Czechoslovakia c.1948 which was a democracy for 3 years)

Neither has any supposed communism fallen to communism. See my monologue on the Russian Revolution please.

Quoted from Corinthian
The twenty-first century has retuned us to the politics of the nineteenth century rather than the ideologically charged twentieth century. We’re back to the politics of nation states that Bismarck, Cavour or Disraeli would have been familiar with.

I think, to address Victor that Corinthian is right, though I know his view of C19th politics and mine differ slightly. There is once again the onslaught of the capitalist ruling class on the free health, education and social services of the working class, which were provided more to pacify said class into social democracy, a bribe to prevent them falling into the ways of socialism (eg 1944-1948 Welfare Acts of the Labour government in the UK). The C19th was just as ideologically fraught as C20th but in the C19th, the politics were at ground level and meant life or death for the working class; now that free market laissez faire economics is removing the gilt edges on the cage of the working class, we may see that the battle to save public services and so on turns into a fight to save ourselves - turns into class struggle in fact just as it did at the turn on the century - the debates and protests are removed from the domain of parliament and are set back on the streets.

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Sorry must have missed that part of history - since when was the Rise of Nationalism a communist induced or sponsored idea?

Insofar as the USSR took the side of financially and militarily sponsoring indepedence movements, especially in Africa, as an anti-imperialist / anti-capitalist measure, with the added benefit of adding those countries to their "camp".

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Everyone had a job.

Having a job and having a meaningful job with prospects are two different things.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Victor
Insofar as the USSR took the side of financially sponsoring indepedence movements, especially in Africa, as an anti-imperialist / anti-capitalist measure,w ith teh added benefit of adding those countries to their "camp".

Well, both sides are guilty of that crime but I misunderstood you; the Rise of Nationalism is officially the years from the unification of Germany and her first victory in 1871 (Franco-Prussian War) until the end of the First World War and I thought that it was that you referred to.

As for the reference to having a meaningful job with prospects; the point in a communist society was to differ the centre of ones life from work to extra-curricular activities but in the USSR I can't see why most people wouldn't have had such a job with good prospects given that they were promoted in the same way as their capitalist counterparts and generally just had different titles, more socialist sounding ones.

The only different was that there were few insurance outfits and so on as in a developed capitalist state, the agriculture industry was bigger and the civil service was much bigger (technically everyone was civil service since they were employed by the state but I'm sure you know what I mean).

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
As for the reference to having a meaningful job with prospects; the point in a communist society was to differ the centre of ones life from work to extra-curricular activities but in the USSR I can't see why most people wouldn't have had such a job with good prospects given that they were promoted in the same way as their capitalist counterparts and generally just had different titles, more socialist sounding ones.

However, because of the corruption in the system, not everyone got the promotions (or firing) they deserved.

Quality control was fundamentally flawed (in part due to the high average education, but low higher education). In 1990 the USSR was 11 years ahead of the USA in military R&D - they just couldn't produce it at any reasonable quantity.

The quota system also loaned itself towards corruption. In the nuclear industry, material was keep off the books if it was in excess of quota and kept for when there was a shortfall. Having enriched uranium off the books is not a good idea.

Also most peop[le were employed by state entreprises, not the state itself.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Victor
However, because of the corruption in the system, not everyone got the promotions (or firing) they deserved.

Quality control was fundamentally flawed (in part due to the high average education, but low higher education). In 1990 the USSR was 11 years ahead of the USA in military R&D - they just couldn't produce it at any reasonable quantity.

The quota system also loaned itself towards corruption. In the nuclear industry, material was keep off the books if it was in excess of quota and kept for when there was a shortfall. Having enriched uranium off the books is not a good idea.

I absolutely agree with everything there - but at the same time, this system, fundamentally flawed as you call it, held it's own against a power with a hundred and twenty million more people.
Nepotism and it's related diseases were an endemic problem in the USSR and this stemmed from the bias in the way the state was constructed, with the Party at the centre - and I have explained this and how it led to the fall of the USSR. This problem is not inherent in a communist system; the same with the quota system - in the USSR, it was to please Party Apparatchiks that things like depleted uranium was kept to one side - for a rainy day. Those Party Apparatchiks were like god to the average worker and this again was a problem exclusive to Russia and her dependents, not to communism. Which, at it's base, is what this argument is all about.

And yes I know that most people were employed by the state enterprises, but since everthing was answerable to the Supreme Praesidium, it was basically the state, no?

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I absolutely agree with everything there - but at the same time, this system, fundamentally flawed as you call it, held it's own against a power with a hundred and twenty million more people.

If you are comparing USSR -v- USA, the USSR had a bigger population.

mike65

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Mike.

Éomer of Rohan

If you are comparing USSR -v- USA, the USSR had a bigger population

I'm not sure that it was and I would like some stats to back that up BUT I have no figures from say, 1961 when the USSR was at the height of it's power.

Russia's current population is 144 million and that of the US is pushing 290 million - to be fair, if one was contrasting the USSR and the USA, it should more likely be the USSR and the USA PLUS Western Europe since the USSR was 15 seperate countries - but backtracking to say 1965 and using rough figures, say add half a million for each year since Russia has been in a downward spiral, so that is 40 years times 500,000 - which is 20 million so say Russia had a population of 164 million. The US has been in an up spiral, though that has just leveled off this year according to www.infoplease.com so take away, at a reasonable estimate, 90 million people - and still the USA has a population of 200 million - over 40 million more than Russia.

Éomer of Rohan

Oh and Mike, can we please leave out the useless sarcastic comments?

PS, Bloggs, if you read this, why aren't you continuing your argument?

Liquorice

I believe in the ideals of communism(equal rights for all, everyone works for the state etc.), and therefore consider myself a commusnist. But I accept that history has proven to us that communism will never work, as long as people have human flaws such as selfishness and greediness. Also, I would like to point out the obvious in saying that so-called 'communist' countries that are also dictatorships, are not communist countries because dictatorships go against the ideals of communism. On the capitalism-communism debate, I don't approve of capitalism, I believe it ridiculous that all the power and wealth of the country should go to a select few, but it looks like we're stuck with this system for now.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Scarlett
But I accept that history has proven to us that communism will never work, as long as people have human flaws such as selfishness and greediness

It's a pity that you 'accept' the percieved lesson of history. Communism in Russia would have worked had the same thing happened in Germany or Britain; the dictatorships COULDN'T have arisen in such areas where there were undeniably great swathes of the population who were fully class aware.

The greatest pity is that people see Russia rather than Marxism whenever it was Marxism that first predicted a Russian Soviet revolution would ultimately fail. People now have closed minds - so Scarlett, I recommend that you read what I wrote on page one; some might be of interest if you believe yourself to be a communist.

Turnip

Originally posted by Victor
Having a job and having a meaningful job with prospects are two different things.

I suppose that now Russia is a capitalist democracy, everyone has a meaningful job with prospects? Like working in McDonalds or a call centre?

Eomer, how can you be a member of a political party and be an objective historian?

What do you think of the suppression of the Ukrainian anarchist Makhnovist movement and the rebellion at Kronstadt? And I read somewhere that the soviets didn't actually want the republican side to win the Spanish civil war because if Spain had gone communist, the capitalist democracies would have felt threatened enough to go to war and the soviets weren't ready for it. Is that right?

mike65

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Oh and Mike, can we please leave out the useless sarcastic comments?

At least it was a short sarcastic comment.... this rather sad thread has the dusty, dimmly-lit feel of a upper sixth late night "debate".

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Turnip
Eomer, how can you be a member of a political party and be an objective historian?

It comes naturally; I was a historian before I was a proper communist - but think about it, I read revanchist reactionary authors like Paul Kennedy (Rise and Fall of the Great Powers) and can assess their work from two points of view; that of the conventional historian and that of the class historian.

Besides, no historian is completely objective; everyone has a favourite. If you ask an historian which they like better between Athens and Sparta, few say Sparta even though they were the good guys (see? a biased and objective thought in one sentence lol).

Quoted from Turnip
What do you think of the suppression of the Ukrainian anarchist Makhnovist movement and the rebellion at Kronstadt?

Hell even the Cossacks were right to revolt from the Soviet government; as I have said, in many ways the Soviets were admirable but the revolution was a failure from the day power passed to the party, as was inevitable in such a backward country.

Quoted from Turnip
And I read somewhere that the soviets didn't actually want the republican side to win the Spanish civil war because if Spain had gone communist, the capitalist democracies would have felt threatened enough to go to war and the soviets weren't ready for it. Is that right?

I remember Anthony Beevor postulating to that effect in his book on the Spanish Civil War but I am not sure if there was any evidence despite the paranoia of Stalin and what was revealed in Khruschev's memoirs which were themselves biased after the XX Party Congress. If you ever need a cure for insomnia, those memoirs are it, believe me. It really is irrelevent though since the Russian generals who turned up to the Spanish Civil War had outdated and preconcieved notions on how the war would be run so their advice led to disastrous defeats. If you put these together, it says something about the confidence of STAVKA in their own generals .

Turnip

Originally posted by mike65
At least it was a short sarcastic comment.... this rather sad thread has the dusty, dimmly-lit feel of a upper sixth late night "debate".

Mike.

I don't recall ever reading any posts of yours that contained any point of interest whatsoever. At least some people here have reached the upper sixth form level of debate.

Turnip

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Hell even the Cossacks were right to revolt from the Soviet government; as I have said, in many ways the Soviets were admirable but the revolution was a failure from the day power passed to the party, as was inevitable in such a backward country.

But if failure was inevitable then was the revolution a good idea at all? or would Russia have been better off if the whites had won the civil war and established a western european style liberal democracy?

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Turnip
But if failure was inevitable then was the revolution a good idea at all? or would Russia have been better off if the whites had won the civil war and established a western european style liberal democracy?

As the saying goes, hindsight is a wonderful thing; if this, if that - but ultimately asked for my opinion, I think that Russia was better off under the reds; the whites were self proclaimed autocrats and the autocratic nature of the Soviet politburo did not manifest itself in any economically damaging way until later - moreover, Stalin did achieve some frighteningly effective things though at a high human price which a liberal capitalist democracy would have been unable to pay.

So, Russia achieved super power status and a FAR better standard of living under a totalitarian dictatorship than it COULD have under capitalism BUT it sacrificed millions of people to do so - so really it is a personal question.

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Russia's current population is 144 million and that of the US is pushing 290 million - to be fair, if one was contrasting the USSR and the USA, it should more likely be the USSR and the USA PLUS Western Europe since the USSR was 15 seperate countries

No it wasn't - you are re-writing history now. So how about adding

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

Current populations:
[color=red]United States	290,342,554[/color] (which you agree has risen in the last ten years).


Armenia		  3,326,448
Azerbaijan	  7,830,764
Belarus		 10,322,151
Estonia		  1,408,556
Georgia		  4,934,413
Kazakhstan	 16,763,795
Kyrgyzstan	  4,892,808
Latvia		  2,348,784
Lithuania	  3,592,561
Moldova		  4,439,502
Russia		144,526,278 (which you agree has fallen in the last ten years)
Tajikistan	  6,863,752
Turkmenistan	  4,775,544
Ukraine		 48,055,439
Uzbekistan	 25,981,647
[color=red]Former USSR	290,062,442[/color] (which has varied in the last ten years).

And if you want to be liberal with your numbers, why not add:

Afghanistan	 28,717,213
Bulgaria	  7,537,929
Cuba		 11,263,429
Czech Republic	 10,249,216
Finland		  5,190,785
East Germany	 19,000,000 (say)
Hungary		 10,045,407
Mongolia	  2,712,315
Poland		 38,622,660
Romania		 22,271,839
Rwanda		  7,810,056
Slovakia	  5,430,033
Yugoslavia	 17,000,000 (say)
Total		185,850,882	

Or even add China and Vietnam and .... :P

mr_angry

Can I just point out the HUGE irony that at the very core of the idiologies, both Democracy and Communism are exactly the same thing? The people of the land come together to vote for an elected government who divide up the country's resources for the good of the people.

The fact is that countries previously labelled as "Communist" are a hell of a lot closer to "Dictatorships". Unfortunately, we have yet to see a "Communist" country with more than one party competing fairly in open elections, and where the government doesn't divide up the resources for the good of a select few.

A perfect example was Iraq's 1998 Presedential election, where Saddam won 98% of the vote. The system was entirely democratic (as supervised by the UN), but we all know that most of the people voted out of fear. Did democracy succeed in this case? Nope.

Capitalism, on the other hand, can be equally as dangerous, if taken to extremes. We all saw what happened in the UK's House of Parliment when it emerged that Mohammed Al Fayed had been paying ministers to ask particular questions (i.e. Niel Hamilton) - the power of a particular tycoon can have implications on the proper running of a country. This was a particularly mild example, but nevertheless a warning.

The people protesting on the streets of Dublin (the original point of this article) seem to be protesting on the hold that particular organisations have on their lives, and their personal freedoms. I don't think there's anything really wrong with the way Ireland is run at the moment, but it's not too hard to imagine some of Ireland's biggest employers doing a runner were the Government to stop giving them massive tax incentives. This would leave "Joe Soap" factory worker with nothing.

In any case, I wont be voting for the Socialist Workers Party any time soon (Or the new Monster Raving Looney Party, as I prefer to call them), but I can't bring myself to support capitalism unquestioningly.

Incidentally, my Dad used to be a manager with Dunnes Stores. As a manager, he wasn't allowed to join a union, or he would be sacked (Still the case, I believe). He was forced to work obscenely long hours for his usual salary. Don't say large corporations can't exert a force on our lives.

Victor

Originally posted by mr_angry4
Incidentally, my Dad used to be a manager with Dunnes Stores. As a manager, he wasn't allowed to join a union, or he would be sacked (Still the case, I believe). He was forced to work obscenely long hours for his usual salary. Don't say large corporations can't exert a force on our lives.

Eh, management are management. Salaried workers are not normally entitled to overtime. If he felt he was not getting enough, why not go elsewhere.

bloggs

From the comments it appears that some people support communism in theory, but not in it's practice throughout the world. Some people say that a shift from communist to capitalist will lead to destruction (like Russia), but China is moving to a capitalist state (with communist leadership), and it seems to be going well. It is expected that China will be the next great superpower (if not already) and will be a counter balance to the USA.

People here have made decent arguments for communism, unlike those who march ever week in dublin city centre.

Éomer of Rohan

Regarding population

Well, ok, let's do it your way; go and work out for me the populations of NATO then; you already seem to have worked out the population of the Warsaw Pact (obviously plus a few nations, like I think you added Algeria. Yugoslavia and Mongolia which are a little unfair to add since Yugoslavia was decidedly anti-Moscow, Algeria was not communist, it was a military junta I believe and Mongolia was probably one of the most neutral countries in the world, which is understandable since the only two countries with which it shares about 7000 miles of land border are China and Russia!

Regarding Bloggs Post

Some people say that a shift from communist to capitalist will lead to destruction (like Russia)

Sorry, I have yet to see that argument properly - I have already dealt with why the events of the Russia revolution were exclusive to Russia and her dependencies.

but China is moving to a capitalist state (with communist leadership), and it seems to be going well

Does it? I mean, currently, China have to slash their funding to public health services which are some of the most comprehensive in the world. They are to break up and privatise the biggest state run mass transit system in the world (ie trains and buses and trams) and people will have to start paying private enterprise for that privilege. Moreover, the only layer of Chinese society that is benefitting from the market reforms are the middle business class, who owe their position to the state - and therefore the state is strengthened rather than weakened. And we have already established that China was not communist, can we please stop using that misnomer?

People here have made decent arguments for communism, unlike those who march ever week in dublin city centre

I find that quite offensive since the people who do the stalls in Dublin are some close friends of mine and they know every bit as much as I do (if they are in the Socialist Party or Socialist Youth, there is a reading list bigger than every book I have ever read). I suggest that some time you stop and ask them a few questions rather than hurrying by, eyes to the pavement or sneering at them.

Regarding Mr Angry

In any case, I wont be voting for the Socialist Workers Party any time soon (Or the new Monster Raving Looney Party, as I prefer to call them), but I can't bring myself to support capitalism unquestioningly

What is this obsession with the Socialist Workers Party? They are a bunch of Stalinist-allied fools who just lost all their council seats. Take a look at the Marxist forum which they run; it's a sham including the republican Workers Party, the Communist Party (current membership 5 old men) and the IRSP.

If you actually looked at the sensible party of the left, some of you might change your minds. This is not being sectarian towards all non-Socialist Party leftist groups - I just say what I see.

Can I just point out the HUGE irony that at the very core of the idiologies, both Democracy and Communism are exactly the same thing? The people of the land come together to vote for an elected government who divide up the country's resources for the good of the people

Er, no. The end result of communism is the complete decentralisation of power and the running of regions by people themselves rather than through elected representatives, which is an end in itself under the current form of the word. The ideologies are capitalism and communism, not democracy and communism because democracy is in reality a transition phase towards communism whence it becomes direct democracy. As I have said before, capitalism cannot exist with democracy since the result is a plutocratic form of government where to actually get anything done you need the support of a source of money; which in the end means the compromising of ideals to get the support of business, which stops reform in certain vital areas.

bloggs

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Regarding populationWhat is this obsession with the Socialist Workers Party? They are a bunch of Stalinist-allied fools who just lost all their council seats. Take a look at the Marxist forum which they run; it's a sham including the republican Workers Party, the Communist Party (current membership 5 old men) and the IRSP.

Sorry please explain to me the differences betwen the SWP and SP/SY?

smiles

Originally posted by gom:
IF Communism was applied to a modern Industrial power such as Germany(as Marx was talking about in 'Das Capital') it would have worked back in the late 19th century...

That's rubbish, 'Das Kapital' is primarily devoted to pointing out how capitalism was destined for disaster, how it had a "vampire thirst for the living blood of labour", in it he tries to document how the best possible case of capitalism is bound for failure. The Marxist prediction of decay was based on the idea that capitalism is politically incapable of setting its system's wrongs to rights, totally impossible. However, he fails to make allowance for the roles of social/political culture. As well as that 'Das Kapital' is a Doomsday book, and it barely looks beyond the "Day of Judgement" to see what the future would be like.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Marx's dictum predicted that socialist revolution would fail unless it took place in one of the more developed countries of the world; at that time, Britain or Bismarck's Germany. The reason for this was that the 'petit bourgeois' would begin by demanding further autonomy from the autocratic classes; then it would be the turn of the working class, which to steer the revolution away from 'social democracy' which was just a new cage with gilt bars, would make use of it's trade unions and the 'communist vanguard.'

His fundamental idea was Dialectical Materialism, wherein the world is in a constant state of flux and the ideas from one period help to shape the ideas of the next, hence communism is the natural follow on from capitalism, the system would not only destroy itself, but in doing so it would give birth to it's successor. He said: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please' they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given, and transmitted from the past." His idea was that capitalism is fatalistic, and yes, some of it is, but over all communism has not come out as the "natural" way. Not in the 19th century and not now.

Originally posted by gom:
Freedom is a scarce thing under Capitalism and Communism.

I think the quote in my signature sums that up perfectly.
"Under capitalism, man exploits man.
Under communism, it's just the opposite."
J.K.Galbraith

Originally posted by gom:
The arguments about which system is more economically desirable is a very subjective question also.
I know I am better off under a Capitalist system economically. BUt the egalitarian inside of me says that something closer to communism would be preferable given the right destribution of wealth...

Capitalism isn't "better" than communism, and communism isn't better than capitalism, for several reasons. Initially we first accept that pure capitalism and pure communism can never exist, they're purely theoretical, our moral side objects to the pure form of one and our selfish side objects to the pure form of another.

But for arguments sake let's say that they did, Marx suggested that communism society is a "classless" society, "society" owned all the means of producing goods, "society" owned all the factories, but how would the managers and the managed be decided? How could someone agree to produce something when someone had to press a button and someone else had to clean the toilets, how is that classless? How is that fair?

In my eyes the theoretical problem with communism is that it is determined to bring everyone down to the same level. Always downwards, always abolishing the riches of the world so everyone can be poor together. And of course the practical problem is the sheer selfishness of man, and the way the system was exploited every time it was started, brother against brother, man against man, woman against woman, it was good to report your neighbours, it was good that no one could regulate the system...

Perhaps communism is best compared to a public works scheme, you are guaranteed an income, regardless of how much or how little you do.... I'm sure everyone has seen how long it takes for council work to be done, there's no competition, no incentive, and hence it fails.

It's a wonderful idea, but economically and growth wise it's idiotic. At least in it's present form.

Yes, capitalism works, it's self-propelling, and with a good social system in the background I think that it is the best possibility for the most amount of people.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
[...] some aspects of that society are enviable and admirable compared to ours; [...] the Soviet Union still provided her people with a better standard of living than many across the capitalist world. That they were not free in the way that the propaganda was state based rather than corporate based and that the economy was not democratic as Engels had envisioned was the downfall - but that took nearly forty years from the end of WWII and the introduction of the world wide rape that was free market capitalism to accomplish - and even now, after capitalist plutocracy has failed in Russia, people there hark back to the Communists who 'failed' and see light.

This is what I cannot accept, the people were not free in far more ways than propaganda wars! Sheer oppression was the downfall, not the lack of democracy!

As for "the world wide rape" that you speak of... that's pure propaganda on your part. Yes, there are issues relating to capitalism, but no where near the way you suggest, in fact almost three-quarters of the flow of American (who is often singled out the main capitalist/imperialist exploiter of the world) international investment goes to Europe and Canada and other developed capitalist countries. Capitalism is easily adaptable into many countries, and while it may not be enriching them, it is, in the most part, most definitely not "raping" them. Keep your propaganda and nice phrases for your election speeches. Fact is preferable to fiction.

I'm sure there are people who hark back to Communism, but you know what? My granny before she died harked back to the days when there was no electricity. Does that make her correct? It's just opinion, just like your russians who hark back to communism, simply opinion. I'm sure there's people in the world who hark back to the Nazi regime. Are they correct?

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
But more importantly, open your ears and listen to what these people say (well maybe not the socialist workers party, but the SP) - Marx' Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are all about true democracy, which the western capitalist nations do not have - in fact, what they have is called a plutocracy in my opinion, a government of wealth. Someone once satirised this by saying 'European elections are rigged; the government always wins' - that is to say that partisan politics coupled with a dependence on corporate support remove the freedom of any government and that the government generally consists of the Debsian ruling class doesn't help matters.

Right, well I think the fact that the Irish government is not disassociated from (or in the process of it) corporate donations, but I don't think you'll put them apart from the rest of Europe.

Perhaps the Communist Manifesto is about true democracy, but it's also an ideal which is almost impossible to establish without the destruction of civilisation and the idea of honest work for honest pay. What you put in is irrelevant, you will just be another sheep in the flock, treated the same by the same shepherds who claim to be helping you.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
As for the reference to having a meaningful job with prospects; the point in a communist society was to differ the centre of ones life from work to extra-curricular activities but in the USSR I can't see why most people wouldn't have had such a job with good prospects given that they were promoted in the same way as their capitalist counterparts and generally just had different titles, more socialist sounding ones.

See, I agree somewhat with Veblen, where he says that the ways of the little-noticed people, the American Indians, the bushmen of Australia, the Todas of the Nilgiri hills, etc. had a far "happier" life, they had their own simple economics wherein extra-curricular activities were not the be-all and end-all of everything, in fact everyone worked, it was not considered demeaning to toil hard and to work, there was satisfaction and natural-pride of workmanship and the parental feeling for the coming generations which caused them to strive, to live and to enjoy themselves doing what they do.

It is this pride in work which I believe is the best possible motive, not to out-do someone as in capitalism competition, and not to just merely produce for society as in communism but to enjoy oneself and to have your work appreciated, which communism totally loses out on, and which capitalism sees and rewards.

Communism, to me, seems to be a frozen process, with no rewards for innovation, radical ideas were frown upon because the 'norm' was trying to be imposed upon everyone.

<< Fio >>

Éomer of Rohan

I'll get right back on that when I return from work Smiles.

Bloggs, as to the difference between SP/SY and SWP, look up the Socialist Party(Northern Ireland or Ireland) - there should be a letter from the SP to the SWP in there explaining in painstaking detail what the differences are in the positioning of the parties.

If you can't find it, I will post the link after I come home, when I have time to dig it up.

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Well, ok, let's do it your way; go and work out for me the populations of NATO then;

No, it was you suggested it, you go off and do it.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
you already seem to have worked out the population of the Warsaw Pact (obviously plus a few nations, like I think you added Algeria. .... Algeria was not communist, it was a military junta I believe

Where do I include Algeria? I was going to ....

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Mongolia was probably one of the most neutral countries in the world, which is understandable since the only two countries with which it shares about 7000 miles of land border are China and Russia!

Mongolia was aligned with the USSR and had elements of the Red Army on it's soil.

Turnip

Doesn't Mongolia have a democratically elected communist government?

bloggs

Just say for example Ireland was to come a communist state tomorrow (some would love that i know), through an election. Over the next four years, the country would be completly changed, nationalisation of major coporations and newspapers would take place. Then after 4 yours if people didn't like the current regime people decided to vote in a non-communist party, wouldn't the country collapse, as the state would start to privatise again? Sorta like the way Russia has become? So those who are communist would require a communist dictorship, as this would keep the country in the way they wish, so decomracy and communism can't really function?

Just my 2cent

Éomer of Rohan

Bloggs, your two cent fails to take into account that the point of the communism movement is internationalism; the idea that the nation state is the capitalist equivalent of a feudal baronetcy and that it will become outmoded along with the idea of capitalism itself, giving sway to movements of workers from across the world; in accordance with this therefore, no revolution would occur in one country as it did in Russia - the point at which a Socialist revolution would occur would be one of global turmoil for the capitalist system when millions of working peoples across the world, in different countries (remember the dictum of Trotsky!), would overthrow their capitalist system.

smiles

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I'll get right back on that when I return from work Smiles.

Or not as the case may be.

<< Fio >>

Éomer of Rohan

Give me half an hour - I was kicked off the computer last night cos my mother is having hormonal problems lol - Bloody women.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Smiles
That's rubbish, 'Das Kapital' is primarily devoted to pointing out how capitalism was destined for disaster, how it had a "vampire thirst for the living blood of labour", in it he tries to document how the best possible case of capitalism is bound for failure. The Marxist prediction of decay was based on the idea that capitalism is politically incapable of setting its system's wrongs to rights, totally impossible. However, he fails to make allowance for the roles of social/political culture. As well as that 'Das Kapital' is a Doomsday book, and it barely looks beyond the "Day of Judgement" to see what the future would be like.

Two things. First of all, since you seem to try and score a point over me by reminding those reading this that the method of reasoning by socialists is dialectical materialism, you neglect to apply some of it yourself; there are two ways one can read every book - yes Das Kapital is based on the wrongs of the capitalist system but the point of it is to make one consider the alternatives; thesis and anti-thesis, in the manner of dialectic.

Second, please clarify HOW you think Marx fails to take into account social and political culture.

Quoted from Smiles
His fundamental idea was Dialectical Materialism, wherein the world is in a constant state of flux and the ideas from one period help to shape the ideas of the next, hence communism is the natural follow on from capitalism, the system would not only destroy itself, but in doing so it would give birth to it's successor. He said: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please' they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given, and transmitted from the past." His idea was that capitalism is fatalistic, and yes, some of it is, but over all communism has not come out as the "natural" way. Not in the 19th century and not now.

I find your perspective here interesting; but I am aware of what Marx said and capitalism WILL destroy itself, quite simply; the circumstances just have to arise yet, just as they came to a head in 1792, revolutionary France, in the change that led from feudalism to capitalism, but history records that there were other such rebellions which failed to bring about this change from capitalism to feudalism - Trotsky for example considers the Pugachev Rebellion as one of those. Thus, as Corinthian and certain others discussed earlier in other threads, politics is circling itself; changing back to the type of politics that dominated the C19th (though not necessarily in terms of foreign policy), so the chance at revolution may come around again and this time, the rebellion may go all the way.

Quoted from Smiles
As for "the world wide rape" that you speak of... that's pure propaganda on your part. Yes, there are issues relating to capitalism, but no where near the way you suggest, in fact almost three-quarters of the flow of American (who is often singled out the main capitalist/imperialist exploiter of the world) international investment goes to Europe and Canada and other developed capitalist countries

I was quite appalled with the reasoning on your part here. It is nothing to do with propaganda. I don't know whether you often post on politics but I remember discussing in minute detail with Mike 65 aspects of the crimes that go on across the world in capitalist nations and those exploited by such nations. One of these issues was the TRIPS - which has basically allowed major US conglomerates to patent the indigenous products of a host of the world's peoples.

Another was the destruction of democracy across the world due to MNE's. One of the best examples is South Africa where a people are actually mourning the Apartheid regime (yes, they're black!) because of the neo-liberal reforms which the ANC have embraced - reforms which have cut power and water to the poorest people in South Africa due to privatisation - and yes, those are the blacks. If you need my references, I will provide them tomorrow evening since it is a quarter to midnight.

Bottom line, so what if America invests in Europe and Canada? It is only to see what it can get out of it - not some altruistic donation to save jobs.

Quoted from Smiles
This is what I cannot accept, the people were not free in far more ways than propaganda wars! Sheer oppression was the downfall, not the lack of democracy!

How were the Russian oppressed? Apart from the political sense (which is the lack of democracy you dismissed), how were the Russians not our equals? The only thing that was denied them was access to the politically related instruments of media - free press (which really encompasses free speech since there were plenty of like minded thought groups which were not pro-Moscow and yet were tolerated so long as they didn't advertise the fact) and the whole aspect of democracy which encompasses trade unions and political demonstrations - but it wasn't just lack of democracy apparently, so explain what was it? The KGB and the state militia only got involved when people started becoming political and public about it.

Quoted from Smiles
I'm sure there are people who hark back to Communism, but you know what? My granny before she died harked back to the days when there was no electricity. Does that make her correct? It's just opinion, just like your russians who hark back to communism, simply opinion. I'm sure there's people in the world who hark back to the Nazi regime. Are they correct?

I think this is a waste of space; the difference between these is that I really doubt for one that your Granny does hark back to the days of no electricity since there is no sense in it whereas with harking back to communism, people are actually craving for the real benefits it brought; there was no uncertainty as there is in the Free Market - and more to the point, at least the politicians were open about their nepotism rather than promising the earth and prostituting themselves and their constituents' rights to a fair wage in order to position a large American factory in that district.

Quoted from Smiles
Right, well I think the fact that the Irish government is not disassociated from (or in the process of it) corporate donations, but I don't think you'll put them apart from the rest of Europe.

Perhaps the Communist Manifesto is about true democracy, but it's also an ideal which is almost impossible to establish without the destruction of civilisation and the idea of honest work for honest pay. What you put in is irrelevant, you will just be another sheep in the flock, treated the same by the same shepherds who claim to be helping you.

In a seperate post (sorry, this could get awkward) please include this part of what I quoted from you, include the paragraph you quoted from me which this was relevent to and then please tell me how they are related in any way.

Quoted from Smiles
and not to just merely produce for society as in communism but to enjoy oneself and to have your work appreciated, which communism totally loses out on, and which capitalism sees and rewards.

Communism, to me, seems to be a frozen process, with no rewards for innovation, radical ideas were frown upon because the 'norm' was trying to be imposed upon everyone.

Then you are not seeing communism, you are seeing the undemocratic economic and work ethic of the Stakhanovitic Russians and the two do not equate.

smiles

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
In a seperate post (sorry, this could get awkward) please include this part of what I quoted from you, include the paragraph you quoted from me which this was relevent to and then please tell me how they are related in any way.

:rolleyes:
Here you go:

Originally posted by smiles

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
But more importantly, open your ears and listen to what these people say (well maybe not the socialist workers party, but the SP) - Marx' Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are all about true democracy, which the western capitalist nations do not have - in fact, what they have is called a plutocracy in my opinion, a government of wealth. Someone once satirised this by saying 'European elections are rigged; the government always wins' - that is to say that partisan politics coupled with a dependence on corporate support remove the freedom of any government and that the government generally consists of the Debsian ruling class doesn't help matters.

Right, well I think the fact that the Irish government is not disassociated from (or in the process of it) corporate donations, but I don't think you'll put them apart from the rest of Europe.

Perhaps the Communist Manifesto is about true democracy, but it's also an ideal which is almost impossible to establish without the destruction of civilisation and the idea of honest work for honest pay. What you put in is irrelevant, you will just be another sheep in the flock, treated the same by the same shepherds who claim to be helping you.

You said: "that is to say that partisan politics coupled with a dependence on corporate support remove the freedom of any government "

I said: "Right, well I think the fact that the Irish government is not disassociated from (or in the process of it) corporate donations, but I don't think you'll put them apart from the rest of Europe."

Meaning that you seem to make the general statement and not apply it to Ireland, you just talk about general Europe being corrupt, and I point out that you don't want to seperate Ireland from Europe because your argument and eloquent quotes wouldn't fit.

My follow paragraph is in response to "Marx' Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are all about true democracy, which the western capitalist nations do not have" and my views on it.

Clear enough yet?

<< Fio >>