Communists.

Lady Luck

Are there any Marxists here? I myself am a commy and proud. Although it has been shown to be "flawed" in practice, I believe it "wasn't given a good chance" so to speak. Anyway, I am a Communist. Are there any other people who share my views here?

x x x

sink

There are a few, checkout the political theory subforum for many threads on socialism/communism.

prinz

Flawed in practice? It is flawed in practice because it is inherently flawed and will never work like Marx hoped. The -ism that has brought more death and suffering to the world than any other.

turgon

Ah good 'aul communism. Conveniently putting power into the hands of a small elite who are given the task of "reform". Of course the capitalist things they claim to loathe - the limos, the cigars etc - always become a bit too much of a temptation when, how should I put it, they have coerced by military force every single person in the state. Communism is so good you have to bring it in through the barrel of a gun.

And you say it "wasnt given a good chance". What would you change?

I would certainly change stuff like the Ukraine famine. Heaven forbid, under your regime, my kind comrades in County Cork would refuse to subscribe to your single world view and you would impose a famine on us. Whereas you would only kill 1 or 2 hundred thousand, the Russian communists managed to starve 5 million to death. Thats real equality right there!

But forgive me for ignoring everyone else. I mean, Norman Davies estimate for citizens killed under Leninist and Stalinist communism is a cool 54 million, not including the War. Thats one every 20 seconds. Real equality in action.

And hey lets not forget all the others! China Cuba, ahh nothing gets me going more about equality other than the blatant constriction of free speech. I mean, we all know communism is just so perfect, so why should we be allowed talk about it, right? Its so good people shouldn't even be able to read about the alternatives, right?

Communism never worked, even you admitted that. And how will it work? Once you and you corrupt socialist comrades have put everyones lives and the whole country at your own command, your going to what - just give it away??? Oh please, dont treat me so stupidly. As if ye would. As we have seen with all the "heroes" in history - Mao Castro Lenin - all ye are thinking about yeer own back pockets.

But I wouldnt mind too much. Should communism ever be forced upon the country I will have most definitely been killed in the civil war ye started. But at least ye will be rich, right?

P. Breathnach

prinz wrote: »

... The -ism that has brought more death and suffering to the world than any other.

Nationalism probably beats it by a country mile.

sink

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Nationalism probably beats it by a country mile.

How about National Socialism - now there's a winning combination.;)

anonymous_joe

The idea seemed great at 15. Then you realise it's silly.

There's next to no motivation for people to do anything under communism. It suits lazy people. It's corrupt and inefficient.

futurehope

Socialism - the attempt by man to re-create the garden of Eden without God. But man is not God and God is not deceived.

Dance into the fire...

Iwasfrozen

Ah good 'aul communism. Conveniently putting power into the hands of a small elite who are given the task of "reform". Of course the capitalist things they claim to loathe - the limos, the cigars etc - always become a bit too much of a temptation when, how should I put it, they have coerced by military force every single person in the state. Communism is so good you have to bring it in through the barrel of a gun.

And you say it "wasnt given a good chance". What would you change?

I would certainly change stuff like the Ukraine famine. Heaven forbid, under your regime, my kind comrades in County Cork would refuse to subscribe to your single world view and you would impose a famine on us. Whereas you would only kill 1 or 2 hundred thousand, the Russian communists managed to starve 5 million to death. Thats real equality right there!

But forgive me for ignoring everyone else. I mean, Norman Davies estimate for citizens killed under Leninist and Stalinist communism is a cool 54 million, not including the War. Thats one every 20 seconds. Real equality in action.

And hey lets not forget all the others! China Cuba, ahh nothing gets me going more about equality other than the blatant constriction of free speech. I mean, we all know communism is just so perfect, so why should we be allowed talk about it, right? Its so good people shouldn't even be able to read about the alternatives, right?

Communism never worked, even you admitted that. And how will it work? Once you and you corrupt socialist comrades have put everyones lives and the whole country at your own command, your going to what - just give it away??? Oh please, dont treat me so stupidly. As if ye would. As we have seen with all the "heroes" in history - Mao Castro Lenin - all ye are thinking about yeer own back pockets.

But I wouldnt mind too much. Should communism ever be forced upon the country I will have most definitely been killed in the civil war ye started. But at least ye will be rich, right?

You haver been misguided on so many points, first of Communism has never actually existed, according to Karl Marx the father of Marxism, Communism can only be acheived when all nations in the world are Socialist. Thus according to Marx Socialism is a transitionary stage on the development of Communism and the decentrilisation that Communism requires.
I think what you are reffering to is Stalinism, which is basically a bastardized version of Marxism. All the suffering mentioned in your post was brought on by Stalin and his "Single State Communism" introduced by his followers and he.
Many followers of true Marxism such as Leon Trotsky where forced to flee Russia when they complained of Stalins handeling/Warping of Marxist ideals. Karl Marx himself said Nations must go through certain stages in development these are:

1. Primitive Communism: as seen in cooperative tribal societies.
2. Slave Society: which develops when the tribe becomes a city-state. Aristocracy is born.
3. Feudalism: aristocracy is the ruling class. Merchants develop into capitalists.
4. Capitalism: capitalists are the ruling class, who create and employ the true working class.
5. Dictatorship of the proletariat: workers gain class consciousness, overthrow the capitalists and take control over the state.
6. Communism: a classless and stateless society.

The problem here as you can see is that Stalin and his merry band of Bolsheviks went from a Feudalist system to a Communist one under the "Single State Comunism" plan, thus Capitalism and Socialism where never gained in Russia and thus the necessary resources for Communism/Socialism where not present.
Whats more China is a Capitalist country, not Communist/Socialist. It is a prime example of how Capitalism will develope in the future when the worlds population reaches citical level. This can be advoided by the decentilised plans developed by Marx which are as relevent today as they where back in 1848.
Socialist models can and do work such as the Norweigan model where the state owns much of the countries Capital [see Statoil].
The idea that Communism/Socialism/Marxism/Stalinism/Trotskyism is the same is nonsense spread by Libertarians to people to bloody stupid to do their own research on Marxism.
[Sorry for the rant]

Pride Fighter

I agree with a Socialist health and education policies. The regualted free market does work. I have a mate in the People Before Profit alliance, thinks everything should be nationalised. I always use this argument with him. If the state was to provide everything as it did in Soviet Russia, lack of competition would mean they would (and indeed they did) produce crap. Would you prefer a Lada over a Mercedes or a BMW.

turgon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Many followers of true Marxism such as Leon Trotsky where forced to flee Russia when they clomplained of Stalins handeling/Warping of Marxist ideals.

The same Trotsky that was under Lenin, right?? And we all know Lenin was a champion of "true" communism.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Dictatorship of the proletariat[/URL]:[/I] workers gain class consciousness, overthrow

Dictatorship by whom?? Control of the state by whom??? Dont give me that nonsense about the "proletarian dictatorship". You want millions of people to share a dictatorship? Theres always going to be a leader simple as.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Socialist models can and do work such as the Norweigan model where the state owns much of the countries Capital [see Statoil].

Like our merry version of socialism has worked here? With the unions constricting government and the spongers getting the welfare.

No one is motivated to work under communism in the same way some on the dole arent motivated to find work.

Iwasfrozen

The same Trotsky that was under Lenin, right?? And we all know Lenin was a champion of "true" communism.

Yes that would be the same Trotsky, but just because he was under Lenin does not mean he shared his ideals.
Also Vladamir Lenin was in charge of the Bolshevik, the same guys I have spent my entire last post denouncing, why would you use Lenin against me ?

Dictatorship by whom?? Control of the state by whom??? Dont give me that nonsense about the "proletarian dictatorship". You want millions of people to share a dictatorship? Theres always going to be a leader simple as.

Dictatorship by the people, that is to say the working class rule through a system of direct democracy, how this would work would depend on the state and climate of the time but generally a system such as Switzerlands seems to work well.
I would like you to tell me how an elite would be formed when the people have more say in Goverment matters then we do now ?

Like our merry version of socialism has worked here? With the unions constricting government and the spongers getting the welfare.

No one is motivated to work under communism in the same way some on the dole arent motivated to find work.

Are you saying the state owned Norweigan model is worse then say the American privatized model ?

asdasd

Are you saying the state owned Norweigan model is worse then say the American privatized model ?

Probably, but under communism the State is going to wither away in some unexplained fashion, because Prophet Marx said it would.

And yet we will all be equal. And to each according to his need ( which is not the same as being equal) in some mysterious Stateless society - which has to be worldwide or it just won't work ( one third of the population of the Earth was not good enough to test the thing).

Who owns the hospitals when the revolution comes? Well there is no State, and no private industry so my guess is the smurfs own the hospitals.

I know they dont exist, but hey. Thats as scientific an explanation as anything that Marx provided.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Chanandler Bong

Communism would inevitably lead to lack of efficiency and over-comfort from workers unless enforced with the threat of military and police reprisal, and the fact that it is inherrantly against the interests of big business means it would have to be initiated first of all through military upheaval. Ask any worker who ever lived under a communist regime about their quality of life, working out of fear and paranoia?

O'Coonassa

Jesus and his mates were dirty commies. So was everybody else before we got agriculture and private posessions.

asdasd

Jesus and his mates were dirty commies. So was everybody else before we got agriculture and private posessions.

no he wasnt. being poor is not the same as wanting a "scientific" worlwide revolution. And he said nothing abou private property and state ownership of the means of production.

And hunter gatherers were not communists either - they had hierarchies, and frankly - even if they were- that doesn't mean that complex modern societies are going to be able to copy the hunter gatherer route to "communism". There just isnt enough game.

johnnyskeleton

prinz wrote: »

Flawed in practice? It is flawed in practice because it is inherently flawed and will never work like Marx hoped.

The only flaw I see in it (and it's the same flaw I see in all economic ideologies including capitalism) is that it is trying to impose theory on practice. Any system will fail if it is implemented by the corrupt and/or incompetent (as we have seen with the current crisis) and equally any system will work well if implemented by someone who is competent and who has the best interests of the system at heart.

prinz wrote: »

The -ism that has brought more death and suffering to the world than any other.

Militarism?

asdasd

---End Quote---
The only flaw I see in it (and it's the same flaw I see in all economic ideologies including capitalism) is that it is trying to impose theory on practice

really, the "only" flaw. I see it as being flawed in analysis, prophecy, implemtation, practice and everything else. Will post exactly what is wrong with Marxism - the theory not the practice - tomorrow. must sleep.

johnnyskeleton

asdasd wrote: »

really, the "only" flaw. I see it as being flawed in analysis, prophecy, implemtation, practice and everything else. Will post exactly what is wrong with Marxism - the theory not the practice - tomorrow. must sleep.

There is no reason why mankind could not flourish in a classless equal society, or at least there is nothing to suggest that it would be worse than a capitalist one.

What is worse than any economic ideology is the corruption and abuse of such systems.

O'Coonassa

asdasd wrote: »

no he wasnt.

Oh yes he was, he told everybody to sell all their gear and share it out. And they did. Dirty commies.

Chanandler Bong

fundamentalism has probably killed a fair few aswell,

communism needs totalitarian autocracy to work, simple as, this is a pointless argument

asdasd

Oh yes he was, he told everybody to sell all their gear and share it out. And they did. Dirty commies.

oh no he wasnt. we are talking about a worldwide revolution where the dictatorship of the proletariat takes over the means of production. Jesus said nothing about that. There have been countless religions who demanded poverty from their followers but that is not "scientific" Marxism - the utterly ridiculous system which is flawed intellectually and pratically. If you are not cognisant of that system, stay out of the debate.

There is no reason why mankind could not flourish in a classless equal society, or at least there is nothing to suggest that it would be worse than a capitalist one.

There is everything to suggest that it would be, and is. I suggest you look, for instance at the two Koreas as they are good controls having the same ethic groups, area and resources. One is rich. One is utterly poor ( if it ever collapses we will hear of horror stories which may make Pol Pot seems like a choir boy).


There is little point in saying it would be fine were it not for "corruption". Sure it would be. And other aspects of human nature. Like the desire for power - the will-to-power. The will-to-status. The desire to be your own boss, only achievable in capitalism.

It would be workable were we were not Human. But we are humans.

silverharp

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I agree with a Socialist health and education policies. The regualted free market does work. I have a mate in the People Before Profit alliance, thinks everything should be nationalised. I always use this argument with him. If the state was to provide everything as it did in Soviet Russia, lack of competition would mean they would (and indeed they did) produce crap. Would you prefer a Lada over a Mercedes or a BMW.

Isnt our health and education system the Ladas of the economy. There something called the rule of 2 which is if the state provides a service it generally costs twice as much as the private sector. Look how the state restricts entry to the medical profession and shock horror junior doctors can coin it by making well over €100K when they are still training.

johnnyskeleton

asdasd wrote: »

There is everything to suggest that it would be, and is. I suggest you look, for instance at the two Koreas as they are good controls having the same ethic groups, area and resources. One is rich. One is utterly poor ( if it ever collapses we will hear of horror stories which may make Pol Pot seems like a choir boy).

Ok, well what about capitalist countries such as Zimbabwae?

asdasd wrote: »

There is little point in saying it would be fine were it not for "corruption". Sure it would be. And other aspects of human nature. Like the desire for power - the will-to-power. The will-to-status. The desire to be your own boss, only achievable in capitalism.

You could say the exact same thing about capitalism. It's fine in theory, but in practice (as we've seen) money doesn't always flow to the most productive sectors of the economy.

Besides, what we have now in Ireland is a mix of capitalist and socialist policies. Our government is particularly inefficient, so the socialist policies don't work as well as, for example, the Scandinavian states. Equally though, our private sector is not free and consumer demand is fairly inelastic, so there are problems with that part of the economy too. But the worst parts of the economy are where we privatise gains and socialise losses such as happened with the banks.

asdasd wrote: »

It would be workable were we were not Human. But we are humans.

If you re-read my posts, that's exactly what my point was. Every ideology has the capacity to work well in the right hands, and the capacity to lead to disaster in the wrong hands.

SeanW

silverharp wrote: »

Isnt our health and education system the Ladas of the economy. There something called the rule of 2 which is if the state provides a service it generally costs twice as much as the private sector. Look how the state restricts entry to the medical profession and shock horror junior doctors can coin it by making well over €100K when they are still training.

Precisely.

One thing about Communism, is that it's defenders like the OP all complain that it wasn't a perfect implementation. But that is irrelevant since any implementation of any ideology that was perfect would indeed have no problems regardless of what the ideology was, be it communism, fascism, corporatism, authoritarianism, liberalism, libertarianism etc.

Much like the way our state tries to do Social Democracy - we have a highly funded education system, but I think 1 in 4 of our people are barely literate, a well funded health system where most of the money goes on administration and management, while people die on trolleys.

I would guess that a lot of our Public Service is like something out of "Yes, Minister." Something has to (hopefully) give.

The only question therefore is, assuming given imperfections in approach, what kind of government do you want? The logical answer IMO is a constitutionally limited small government, with few powers other than the defence of the State and the creation of sound currency. Has the advantage of having less to screw up, for a start.

turgon

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ok, well what about capitalist countries such as Zimbabwae?

Zimbabwe claims to be a socialist state, the give away is in the red start in its flag. And what sort of "capitalist" country would take farms off of the whites and redistribute them to the blacks?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You could say the exact same thing about capitalism.

Well considering that the US and the EU are two of the most affluent places in the world I would have to disagree. It might not be perfect but its a lot better than communism.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Our government is particularly inefficient, so the socialist policies don't work as well as, for example, the Scandinavian states. Equally though, our private sector is not free and consumer demand is fairly inelastic, so there are problems with that part of the economy too.

So the only solution is to liberalize the market? Because you have admitted the government is inefficient so theres no point giving them more power. In fact they should have less.

Serenity Now!

Lady Luck wrote: »

Are there any Marxists here? I myself am a commy and proud. Although it has been shown to be "flawed" in practice, I believe it "wasn't given a good chance" so to speak. Anyway, I am a Communist. Are there any other people who share my views here?

x x x

In what way are you a communist then? Socialist even?

Any Polish, Baltic or East German posters here who would care to shed light as to how Communism 'wasn't given a fair go'?

Ricky Gervais was right.

irish_bob

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Jesus and his mates were dirty commies. So was everybody else before we got agriculture and private posessions.

while ive no truck with either communism or socilism
jesus was undoubtabley a socilist whatever about being a communist ,those republicans in america whos 1st love is jesus and second is unbridled capitalism are pure hypocrites but then again god was made in the immage of man

turgon

irish_bob wrote: »

god was made in the immage of man

Thats news to me

Serenity Now!

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Socialist models can and do work such as the Norweigan model where the state owns much of the countries Capital [see Statoil].
The idea that Communism/Socialism/Marxism/Stalinism/Trotskyism is the same is nonsense spread by Libertarians to people to bloody stupid to do their own research on Marxism.
[Sorry for the rant]

The idea that Norway is a "socialist state" is also nonsense. It is in fact a blend of socialist and capitalist structuring. The state does not own as much of the country's capital as you make out. While it does keep its infrastructural sectors afloat (health, social), a major chunk of its economy promoting major private industrial investment, especially outside (the EU and the States mainly). There are two reasons it can carry out this methodology: first is high taxation and the second is its economy is balanced on a huge oil reserve that it rarely touches. It allows cartels in sectors such as supermarkets (RIMI, Rema1000, Kiwi etc are barely different to each other). It hosts the most 7-Eleven stores outside the US and the largest market for Audi & Mercedes cars per capita despite being outside the EU.

irish_bob

turgon wrote: »

Thats news to me

man decides what god thinks and wants and it usually coincides with his own views , be it political or otherwise

p.s , i myself am agnositc

turgon

Oh right what you said went right over my head, I thought you had just misquoted the bible.

Good point.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Serenity Now!

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Someone has to be accountable and regulate however. This is where the failure has been with so-called 'free market economies' (an oxymoron given the amount of cartels and 'mini'-opolies that are prevalent). The thing is that some people mix up this government regulation (failed or not) and even part-ownership with 'socialist' economies and 'socialist' infrastructure.

Serenity Now!

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Highly debatable and unproven figure given the amount of 'sykemeldt' in the job market, for example amongst other silly additions such as housewives or people in transit between employment.
I know the list you're referring to about the disposable income drop by the way. It refers to one city (Stockholm). Not the entire country.

silverharp

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Someone has to be accountable and regulate however. This is where the failure has been with so-called 'free market economies' (an oxymoron given the amount of cartels and 'mini'-opolies that are prevalent). The thing is that some people mix up this government regulation (failed or not) and even part-ownership with 'socialist' economies and 'socialist' infrastructure.

The regulation tends to lead to the opolies you are talking about. Companies like Tesco and wallmart love regulation because they strangle small business.
In the US the Big banks and firms like Goldman Sachs have far too much influence with the Fed and the US gov.
Now you have the US and the Auto workers running GM . lol

asdasd

The problem with these threads is they become shouting matches between libertarians and communists. And a plague on both houses. Modern capitalism needs government regulation, and society needs government. In fact we can achieve "from each according to his needs" within the capitalist social democratic framework - whether libertarians like it or not.

That still makes Marxism an incredibly stupid theory since it gives no room for markets whatsoever. Marxists cant reform economically, or they become non-Marxist. Marxists have added to the theory since the 19th century - they would have had to given the intellectual paucity of Marx himself - but their additions are always mechanisms for explaining why the proletariat has not yet revolted, generally revolving around "hegemonic theories" of bourgeois control of "mass media" ( self-discredited since the hegemonic theorists published their books in the bourgeois system - along with all the other ideologies that free societies produce).

Increasingly complex theories were needed, and the obvious one - Marxist societies suck ( in theory or practice) could never be allowed.

I will post on the absurdities of Marxist Theory later in this thread ( I intended to do that sometime anyway). I have read quite a bit of Marx. In fact when I first read Marx I was prepared to be sympathetic.

It is all incredible pap.

Serenity Now!

silverharp wrote: »

The regulation tends to lead to the opolies you are talking about. Companies like Tesco and wallmart love regulation because they strangle small business.
In the US the Big banks and firms like Goldman Sachs have far too much influence with the Fed and the US gov.
Now you have the US and the Auto workers running GM . lol

On the contrary, the regulatory bodies turn a blind eye and are bent around what the corporations require. This is where govts fail in regulation for the reason of protectionism of industry and infrastructure, a trait that alleged Socialists want. A double hypocrisy. No such thing as a truly Free Market economy as well as there being no such thing as a truly Socialist state especially given the examples people in this thread are giving.

asdasd

A double hypocrisy. No such thing as a truly Free Market economy as well as there being no such thing as a truly Socialist state especially given the examples people in this thread are giving.

True. But Marxists call any Free Market economy capitalist no matter how regulated and is something that needs to be overthrown, but to the contrary a Marxist economy cannot have free enterprise or whats the point of the theory.

No one realistically sees China as communist anymore. It isn't.

In debating with Marxists then we dont have to be libertarians, any social democratic leanings will do.

luckat

Chanandler Bong wrote: »

Communism would inevitably lead to lack of efficiency and over-comfort from workers unless enforced with the threat of military and police reprisal, and the fact that it is inherrantly against the interests of big business means it would have to be initiated first of all through military upheaval. Ask any worker who ever lived under a communist regime about their quality of life, working out of fear and paranoia?

Depends on what you mean by a communist regime, really.

I'd have to disagree with the idea that the only reasons for people to work hard are (a) profit and (b) threats of being shot or jailed!

Serenity Now!

asdasd wrote: »

Marxists call any Free Market economy capitalist no matter how regulated and is something that needs to be overthrown

This says more about these self-perceived Marxists, communists, socialists or whatever they call themselves. If they can't spot a capitalist economy, they most certainly show themselves as someone who cannot spot a socialist state. As with the original poster of this thread and others like them. They give ill-informed examples such as Norway being a model socialist economy when it clearly isn't.

Like I said earlier, the 'communist' who started the thread should speak to people from the former Eastern Bloc countries that were of adult age during the repressive communist regimes that ran them.

anonymous_joe

luckat wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by a communist regime, really.

I'd have to disagree with the idea that the only reasons for people to work hard are (a) profit and (b) threats of being shot or jailed!

Well...

Why else work hard?

I'm a student, so not in employment at the moment, but I worked most summers. Including some internships. Now you could argue that I did internships to enhance employability etc. So not for money. But there's still a profit motive - improve employability is just another way of securing further profits in the future.

At a base level, we work to survive, we work to provide ourselves with the necessities of life. Food shelter etc. Because we're not communists however, we can also work for things we want.

Communism suggests people will work together to give everyone what they need, but true communism (which is impossible, because no country's small enough) requires leaders which creates classes which means it's not communism. Also, what people don;t realise is how dull, grey and tedious communism would be. There's no motivation to work hard, there's just enough to get by, (in true communism) and so there's no choice, no joie de vivre, no nothing. Just dull cohesion. It sounds like hell on earth.

If you really want to be a communist, move to a small village, raise animals, farm crops and do so with a few others. Grow just enough. That's it. That's the only way for communism in a 'pure' form to work. It cannot and will not ever run a country because it's corrupt, violent and squalid. The last thing we want is some shower of fúcktards deciding to make things fairer and take everyone's stuff away to do so. It does not work because people are not perfect. People are greedy, and self-centred. Those are animalstic survival traits built into us. You cannot change that. Nothing can. That's what makes us people.

asdasd

I'd have to disagree with the idea that the only reasons for people to work hard are (a) profit and (b) threats of being shot or jailed!

The evidence is for profit alone. During the Chinese Great Leap forward, of which there were two phases, the peasants were made produce in communes. if they didnt produce enough they were shot. They didnt produce enough. 20 million died.

Mao lost some control, and reform was introduced by Liu Shaoqi who decided to end many Leap policies, such as rural communes, and to restore the economic policies used before the Great Leap Forward.

So the profit motive was introduced. Famine ended.

Back came Mao and reintroduced the policies. Famine ensued again.

We are talking millions of deaths here. More than Naziism.

By the way Mao was trying here to move on to the last part of communism that the OP mentioned on page one.

In 1957, after China’s first Five-Year Plan, Mao Zedong called for an increase in the speed of the growth of “actual socialism” in China (as opposed to “dictatorial socialism”), as the first step in making the country into a self-sufficient Communist society.

From wikipedia.

lmtduffy

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I agree with a Socialist health and education policies. The regualted free market does work. I have a mate in the People Before Profit alliance, thinks everything should be nationalised. I always use this argument with him. If the state was to provide everything as it did in Soviet Russia, lack of competition would mean they would (and indeed they did) produce crap. Would you prefer a Lada over a Mercedes or a BMW.

Id call you a Social democrat if you needed a name!

lmtduffy

SeanW wrote: »

Precisely.

One thing about Communism, is that it's defenders like the OP all complain that it wasn't a perfect implementation. But that is irrelevant since any implementation of any ideology that was perfect would indeed have no problems regardless of what the ideology was, be it communism, fascism, corporatism, authoritarianism, liberalism, libertarianism etc.

Much like the way our state tries to do Social Democracy - we have a highly funded education system, but I think 1 in 4 of our people are barely literate, a well funded health system where most of the money goes on administration and management, while people die on trolleys.

The problem lies in the mongrel mix of low tax and big public services, its stems from a silly populist Government. The fact is life is better in social democratic states than more free market states.

The only question therefore is, assuming given imperfections in approach, what kind of government do you want? The logical answer IMO is a constitutionally limited small government, with few powers other than the defence of the State and the creation of sound currency. Has the advantage of having less to screw up, for a start.

Less to screw up but very little to gain, people in society need the state to survive, roles once upon fulfilled by the family and religious bodies need to be fulfilled by the state as the world is getting to big and to smart to have this done by families and religious bodies.

lmtduffy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

that is assuming perfect information and equality of opportunity based on merits, none if which is possible.

What we have, actually, is a grossly expanded socialist sector living parasitically off an ever-decreasing private sector.

Its not expanded as much as it is stretched, beef it up and believe it or not you will see the private sector grow.

Consider Sweden's history with socialist policies. The country had a thriving free-market economy during the latter half of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth. Its highly productive economy yielded the highest per-capita income growth in the world between 1870 and 1950. It spawned countless entrepreneurs, inventors, and innovators (including Alfred Nobel, who created the Nobel Prize), and spawned successful corporations such as Volvo, Saab, Ericsson, and so on.

By 1970, Sweden was the world's third-richest nation. But social democracy really took off in the 1970s, with top income tax rates of 87 percent imposed by the late 1970s. Payroll taxes today total almost 40 percent of income. VAT rates are 25 percent, the maximum allowed by the EU. Although Sweden has a lavish welfare state, it has slipped to the 18th richest nation in the world. Swedes now have less per capita disposable income than the average Western European, and less than half of what Americans take home. Government spending consumes 55 percent of GDP. The true unemployment rate is estimated to be between 20 and 25 percent.

How can you define these policies as having "worked well"?

Yeh we had a great GDP here too, but many people still suffered.

And another poster as already questioned your data, but assuming its true I think youll also find that the quality of life there is much higher and the people are happier and safer.

You see many people value quality of life over economic efficiency,
economics show us how things work not how they should work.

You may very well prefer that we maximise efficiency alone, but have you forgotten why we aim to maximise efficiency?, it is to profit and that profit is greatest and longer lasting in a society that grows together.

It is efficient to invest in society why, because you live in it, it makes you capable of making profit.

lmtduffy

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Well...

Why else work hard?

I'm a student, so not in employment at the moment, but I worked most summers. Including some internships. Now you could argue that I did internships to enhance employability etc. So not for money. But there's still a profit motive - improve employability is just another way of securing further profits in the future.

At a base level, we work to survive, we work to provide ourselves with the necessities of life. Food shelter etc. Because we're not communists however, we can also work for things we want.

yes and what do you do with profits?

And at a higher level than working for things we want, we want things beyond profit, have you heard of maslows hierarchy of needs? its quiet interesting.

Communism suggests people will work together to give everyone what they need, but true communism (which is impossible, because no country's small enough) requires leaders which creates classes which means it's not communism. Also, what people don;t realise is how dull, grey and tedious communism would be. There's no motivation to work hard, there's just enough to get by, (in true communism) and so there's no choice, no joie de vivre, no nothing. Just dull cohesion. It sounds like hell on earth.

I dont support communism but oyu are being unfair here, people live for more than profits, its what they need the profits to do that matters, so as you say in true communism(which is impossible) everyone will have equal access to the resources to do what they like.

If you really want to be a communist, move to a small village, raise animals, farm crops and do so with a few others. Grow just enough. That's it. That's the only way for communism in a 'pure' form to work. It cannot and will not ever run a country because it's corrupt, violent and squalid. The last thing we want is some shower of fúcktards deciding to make things fairer and take everyone's stuff away to do so. It does not work because people are not perfect. People are greedy, and self-centred. Those are animalstic survival traits built into us. You cannot change that. Nothing can. That's what makes us people.

The small village scenario is called anarchism not very far away from the free marketeering your defending.

Yes people are all those things but we are also surrounded by each other and have to deal with each other as such, so things aren't so simple and there a hell of a lot we can do look around you at what we have done and look at history and you will see the development of how we deal with each other and you will see things are getting better.

Lady Luck

Serenity Now! wrote: »

In what way are you a communist then? Socialist even?

Any Polish, Baltic or East German posters here who would care to shed light as to how Communism 'wasn't given a fair go'?

Ricky Gervais was right.

I am a Marxist in that I agree with all his teachings. Simple as. I do NOT agree with Stalin however. I know that the introduction of Communism into western society now is merely a pipe dream, and for that I settle for supporting the Socialist party, as they follow certain communist ideas.

O'Coonassa

asdasd wrote: »

oh no he wasnt. we are talking about a worldwide revolution where the dictatorship of the proletariat takes over the means of production. Jesus said nothing about that.

<sigh>

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."

Book of Acts 2:24

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Karl Marx.

turgon

asdasd wrote: »

Modern capitalism needs government regulation, and society needs government. In fact we can achieve "from each according to his needs" within the capitalist social democratic framework - whether libertarians like it or not.

Because it has worked so well for Ireland at the moment??

The way this country is run is shìte. Loads of tax thrown at crap services and making sure those who dont feel like working can stay in the pub all weekend. People are always giving out about the disgrace FF are. Well whos to say Labour/FG/anyone else is going to be any better?? Chances are they wont be because they will continue on with your "social democracy" nonsense and continue to prop up those who dont care about their lives.