Any Communists here?

[Azamat]

I'm looking for some comrades to join my group. ;)

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/group.php?groupid=535

http://gaslamppost.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/women-in-soviet-propaganda-06.jpg

[Neanderthal]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/hummerandsuckle.jpg

[Szegedist]

There are some here

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ro71H2j61k4/UmfRONSCJ4I/AAAAAAAAbdI/Ghd7t9Q4PT4/s1600/1956lessing23.jpg

and here
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-z35gO5kwnK0/UmfQ9ItOCaI/AAAAAAAAbcg/-YXXOQIi5pY/s1600/1956lessing13.jpg

[armenianbodyhair]

Communism is a bad idea.

[Azamat]

Communism is a bad idea.Most people who know a thing or two about economics(real, scientific econometrics at that, not politicized ideological dogma taught in universities) would find reason to criticize your statement.

[Rudel]

not politicized ideological dogma taught in universities
Well, politicized ideological dogma taught in universities is usually communism.

[Virtuous]

My honest sentiments about communism and communists.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX6INEs2WmE

[Azamat]

Well, politicized ideological dogma taught in universities is usually communism.Is that why economics students learn about market principles and Austrian School theory rather than matrix algebra and plan-balancing algorithms?

Note here that the former and latter correspond to political-economic theory under capitalism and scientific econometrics used under communism respectively, and that whatever "gender" or "queer studies" that might have crossed your mind in leaving that dumb reply are irrelevant to the subject at hand and to communism.

[Pontios]

Nope, the Fascists drove the Communists away. :lol:

[Herr Abubu]

Most people who know a thing or two about economics(real, scientific econometrics at that, not politicized ideological dogma taught in universities) would find reason to criticize your statement.

I assume you know a thing or two about economics and economic method, then.

[Azamat]

I assume you know a thing or two about economics and economic method, then.That is correct. I can provide you with some useful literature if you're interested, but seeing your thumbing habits in this thread I'm assuming that you'd rather not have your delusions about communism shattered.

[Herr Abubu]

Is that why economics students learn about market principles and Austrian School theory rather than matrix algebra and plan-balancing algorithms?

Note here that the former and latter correspond to political-economic theory under capitalism and scientific econometrics used under communism respectively, and that whatever "gender" or "queer studies" that might have crossed your mind in leaving that dumb reply are irrelevant to the subject at hand and to communism.

Haha. No. The Austrian School is of marginal importance in modern mainstream economics. Mainstream economics is basically neoclassical and Keynesian.

[Rudel]

Is that why economics students learn about market principles and Austrian School theory rather than matrix algebra and plan-balancing algorithms?

Note here that the former and latter correspond to political-economic theory under capitalism and scientific econometrics used under communism respectively, and that whatever "gender" or "queer" studies that might have passed your mind in leaving that dumb reply are irrelevant to the subject at hand.
In my remembrance, the Austrian School is not particularly keen on Marxian economics. And nobody gives a fuck about the Austrian School anyway.


and that whatever "gender" or "queer" studies that might have passed your mind in leaving that dumb reply are irrelevant to the subject at hand.
There are no such "studies" in France, as we haven't gone full retard yet. And I've got a background in Law, History and... Comp. Sci. for what it's worth.

You should also note that arguing of economists doing this or that doesn't prove to a be a potent authoritative argument, as economics tend to be most of the time a mix of black magic and charlatanism.

[Azamat]

Haha. No. The Austrian School is of marginal importance in modern mainstream economics. Mainstream economics is basically neoclassical and Keynesian.Austrian School theory still enjoys academic sponsorship, and the fundamental differences between these different schools are superficial. They are all based on a religious conviction in economic scarcity and commodity valuation.

[Herr Abubu]

That is correct. I can provide you with some useful literature if you're interested, but seeing your thumbing habits in this thread I'm assuming that you'd rather not have your delusions about communism shattered.

I can play the "read thousands of pages of literature and your worldview will be destroyed" game, too. What I want is you to show your understanding of economic theory, with arguments for and against, and your understanding of economic methodology, with arguments for and against.

[Herr Abubu]

Austrian School theory still enjoys academic sponsorship, and the fundamental differences between these different schools are superficial. They are all based on a religious conviction in economic scarcity and commodity valuation.

That's vague, Marxian/Communist schools of thoughts "stills academic sponsorship", yet you think only the latter is marginalized. No, the differences aren't superficial. The irony. That sounds awfully dogmatic to me. I don't even know what you mean by it, are you disputing that economic scarcity exists and is important and what what about commodity valuation?

[Ianus]

Weren't you technocrat?

Yes Neokeysianism is the most influent economical current today.

[Cleitus]

Some statements from Moses Hess the Mentor of Karl Marx.

"You may don a thousand masks, change your name and your religion and your mode of life, creep through the world incognito so that nobody notices that you are a Jew yet every insult to the Jewish name will wound you more than a man of honour who remains loyal to his family and defends his good name."
"Even an act of conversion cannot relieve the Jew of the enormous pressure of German anti-Semitism. The Germans hate the religion of the Jews less than they hate their race - they hate the peculiar faith of the Jews, less than their peculiar noses."
"The race struggle is the primal one, and the class struggle secondary. The last dominating race is the German."
"Yet it seems that a final race struggle is unavoidable"
"The Messianic era is the present age, which began to germinate with the teachings of Spinoza, and finally came into historical existence with the great French Revolution."
"To this coming cult, Judaism alone holds the key. This "religion of the future" of which the eighteenth century philosophers, as well as their recent followers, dreamed [...] Each nation will have to create its own historical cult; each people must become like the Jewish people, a people of God."

[Gorštak]

I would never accept to live in commie state, but I would love to be a dictator of commie state

[Loki]

Yes, here I am. Joined your group :)

[Cleitus]

Hess originally advocated Jewish integration into the universalist socialist movement, and was a friend and collaborator of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Hess converted Engels to Communism, and introduced Marx to social and economic problems. He played an important role in transforming Hegelian dialectical idealism theory of history to the dialectical materialism of Marxism, by conceiving of man as the initiator of history through his active consciousness.
Hess was probably responsible for several "Marxian" slogans and ideas, including religion as the "opiate of the people." Hess became reluctant to base all history on economic causes and class struggle, and he came to see the struggle of races, or nationalities, as the prime factor of history.
After the failure of the revolutionary war in summer 1849 in Palatinate and Baden and the fall of Rastatt, the last refuge of the revolutionaries, the artillery commander Fritz Anneke (whose adjunct officer was Carl Schurz) and his wife Mathilde Franziska Anneke, who were old friends from Hess' Cologne days, close to Hess' friend Andreas Gottschalk and leading personalities of the Communist Club in Cologne, found temporary refuge in his home in Strasbourg before moving on to the United States.

[Gorštak]

Yes, here I am. Joined your group :)


Tito to Joseph Stalin: "Stop sending people to kill me! We've already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle... If you don't stop sending killers, I'll send a very fast working one to Moscow and I certainly won't have to send another.":laugh:

[alb0zfinest]

Down with communism! Capitalists unite! :D

Seriously though. Communism is a failed ideology.

[Herr Abubu]

Weren't you technocrat?

Yes Neokeysianism is the most influent economical current today.

It's not even that controversial or disputable. One would have to doubt the background in economics of anyone who claims otherwise. He even goes so far to claim that the economics taught in academia today is "Austrian" because it gets sponsored. :bowlol:

[Gorštak]

Down with communism! Capitalists unite! :D

Seriously though. Communism is a failed ideology.

Every ideology suck.
Only that where I rule and all others had to listen me is good.

[Loki]

I disagree that Communism is a failed ideology.

[lI]

As an old Lithuanian saying goes:

Geriau lavonas, negu raudonas


I believe, the anglophones have a roughly equivalent phrase (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_dead_than_red) too :D

Hm... maybe I should make that my new sig

[Cleitus]

I disagree that Communism is a failed ideology.
:picard1:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Communist_Holocaust_01_650px.jpg
The Red Holocaust is a term used to describe the collective crimes carried out by the ideologues and functionaries of international Marxian communism. The campaigns of Red Terror and genocide against the nations of the world, consist of numerous different Holocausts, in different locations, with specific characteristics. Some of the best know large scale manifestations of this are the Holodomor of Lazar Kaganovich, the Great Chinese Famincide of Mao and the Killing Fields of Pol Pot. According to a work by Harvard University, there had been at least 94 million victims by the turn of the century, though direct atrocities continue up to this day in parts of the world.
Cause and responsibility for the crimes has been attributed to the ideologues who made them possible and defined their praxis; particulary Karl Marx (author of the Communist Manifesto), Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky. Communism was created mostly by Jews, after the Marxists usurped the socialist movement in the late 19th century. Most of the victims, have been Europeans and East Asians, through all gentile races suffered. The system has also included extreme persecution of religious, notably Christians, Buddhists and Mohammedans. Common methods to execute this has included artifical famine, forced enlistment in communist wars, direct killings through shooting, lyncing and various sadistic methods by commissars and their functionaries. Under Lenin the communists led the way in initiating the Abortion Holocaust against the people as part of demographic genocide, though others reversed it because they needed cannon fodder.
Industrial scale murder is as an essential part of communist theory and praxis. It claims to carry out killings in the name of "class struggle" against the bourgeoisie; though usually the commissars are themselves from the middle-classes and the most numerous victims have tended to be the working-classes. An important target is also the nation's natural leadership; patriotic politicians, aristocrats, military men, religious, patriotic businessmen, intellectuals and artisans who reject Judeo-Bolshevism. Others are killed under the banner of being counter-revolutionaries; a pejorative with a scope so wide when applied within a Marxian context, that it includes any non-communist and sometimes even communists themselves who have simply fallen out with the ruling clique.
Communism arrived in China through agents of the Bolshevik occupied Kremlin. First of all Grigori Voitinsky✡☭ (real name Zarkhin), a communist Jew was sent to subvert the May Fourth Movement. This movement had been comparable to the liberal nationalist risings in Europe during the 19th century. In any case, Zarkhin was sent in 1920 and a year later the Communist Party of China was founded by May Fourth Movement leaders Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao. Soon after Comintern agents Mikhail Borodin✡☭ (real name Mikhail Gruzenberg), a Jew from Belarus and Adolph Joffe,✡☭ a Jew from the Crimea, were sent into Canton to try and redirect the freemasonic revolutionary Sun Yat-sen towards Bolshevism. Gruzenberg failed to persuade, but managed to secure the entry of communists into the Kuomintang government. The Sun-Joffe Manifesto was drawn up in 1923 to ensure China's collaboration with the Soviet Union. After the death of Sun in 1925, Chiang Kai-shek began to rise as Commander-in-Chief of the NRA. Following a kidnap plot, the nationalists raided the Soviet Embassy of Peking in 1927, unmasking the Judeo-Bolshevik fifth column. The communists were purged and Comintern Jews such as Gruzenberg arrested.
http://en.metapedia.org/m/images/c/c9/Red_Holocaust_in_Cambodia.png http://en.metapedia.org/m/images/d/d9/Red_Terror_in_Communist_China.png

[Permafrost]

What seems to be the case is that the biggest supporters of Communism in this board never actually lived under such a regime (Russian sovoks are a special case, however).

Anyway, it's something of a taboo where I come from, as it is associated with this -

http://www.punto-informatico.it/punto/20040212/foibe.jpg

[SobieskisavedEurope]

Communism rivals slavery, feudalism & prison systems.

Where the masses all can't leave, can't own land, are provided rations of food, housing ect

Communism has to be with an iron fist of rule in order to enforce an artificial equal class system of the egalitarian.

[lI]

Where the masses all can't leave, can't own land, are provided rations of food, housing ect

Communism has to be with an iron fist of rule in order to enforce an artificial equal class system of the egalitarian.

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal"

[Loki]

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal"

Why? It only makes sense if you believe things like: "rich people are better than poor people, and deserve to be rich". I don't.

[Herr Abubu]

Why? It only makes sense if you believe things like: "rich people are better than poor people, and deserve to be rich". I don't.

Her point is basically that equality of outcome can only be achieved through differential treatment, unequal treatment. In other words, egalitarians are only for equality of outcome, not equal treatment, which means they're only egalitarian in one sense but not others, and that egalitarianism contradicts itself. Most rich people are better at making money than most poor people.

[Loki]

Her point is basically that equality of outcome can only be achieved through differential treatment, unequal treatment. In other words, egalitarians are only for equality of outcome, not equal treatment. Most rich people are better at making money than most poor people.

This reasoning is fundamentally flawed, and I disagree with it. People who inherit money get a golden spoon at birth.

[Herr Abubu]

This reasoning is fundamentally flawed, and I disagree with it. People who inherit money get a golden spoon at birth.

If my reasoning is fundamentally flawed, then you can show how it is flawed. And sure, people who inherit money are lucky - that's why I said most; people who inherit money are not necessarily good at making it. Still, that they inherit it means that their ancestors were good at making money. I would say it's pretty unfair to not let your children have your money, despite the fact that they have not earned it themselves and that they may have never made that sum of money on their own. Also, these people are a minority. And, as a matter of fact, they do not remain rich forever; the richer social stratas fluctate a lot, so do the poorer stratas; i.e., there's a lot of income mobility.

[Loki]

If my reasoning is fundamentally flawed, then you can show how it is flawed. And sure, people who inherit money are lucky - that's why I said most; people who inherit money are not necessarily good at making it. Still, that they inherit it means that their ancestors were good at making money. I would say it's pretty unfair to not let your children have your money, despite the fact that they have not earned it themselves and that they may have never made that sum of money on their own. Also, these people are a minority. And, as a matter of fact, they do not remain rich forever; the richer social stratas fluctate a lot, so do the poorer stratas; i.e., there's a lot of income mobility.

It is very obvious. The only difference is that you have a different ideology than me. You believe it's cool and right that children of rich people should have better opportunities than children of poor people. I fundamentally, and strongly, disagree with that. You don't believe in social mobility, but I do. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[lI]

Why? It only makes sense if you believe things like: "rich people are better than poor people, and deserve to be rich".I wouldn't say so. It's more like "intelligent/diligent people are better than dumb/lazy people, and deserve to be rich".


People who inherit money get a golden spoon at birth.Much as it may be unpleasant to see people being well off solely due to having been born in the right family rather than individual merit, what communism offers is even worse.

A tractor operator or a cashier should not be earning the same wage as a surgeon or other highly skilled specialist.

And yet that's how it was in SU. Communism makes an assumption that only the ones who do not have enough predisposed mental abilities to become well-educated will not become educated. In reality, it works like: if I can earn the same money while doing a job that doesn't require much effort to get - why bother spending years studying?

[Baluarte]

OP is a Kurd, 18 years old and lived all his life in pampered Dutchland.
Also a severe case of self-centered and pompous language.

Quite normal to support Communism ^.^

[Mortimer]

Im quiete close to being a communist, i will join your group:) Im anti-imperialist and staunch anti-fascist, socialist but more deomcratic and i tolerate ownership of means of production but only limited

[Herr Abubu]

It is very obvious. The only difference is that you have a different ideology than me. You believe it's cool and right that children of rich people should have better opportunities than children of poor people. I fundamentally, and strongly, disagree with that. You don't believe in social mobility, but I do. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Lol, straw-man.

[armenianbodyhair]

Most people who know a thing or two about economics(real, scientific econometrics at that, not politicized ideological dogma taught in universities) would find reason to criticize your statement.
Politcal science major, Econ minor. A more accurate statement would be "a lot of intelligent educated people have reasons to disagree on this subject". As for me, I am very much against it.

[Loki]

Im quiete close to being a communist, i will join your group:) Im anti-imperialist and staunch anti-fascist, socialist but more deomcratic and i tolerate ownership of means of production but only limited

You and I have very much the same views on this. I think you are an intelligent and fair person. I'd vote for you if you were a politician, no jokes.

[Twistedmind]

Most people who know a thing or two about economics(real, scientific econometrics at that, not politicized ideological dogma taught in universities) would find reason to criticize your statement.

Well economic side of Comunism was disaster. Any qualified Communist could told you that. Politicized ideological dogma, actualy gained some popularity due the fact its only complete critique of Capitalist sytem. Haug. There is one marxist on forum tough. He is clasical caucasoid of long nose, black skinn and has partialy choped dick.

[Herr Abubu]

OP is a Kurd, 18 years old and lived all his life in pampered Dutchland.
Also a severe case of self-centered and pompous language.

Quite normal to support Communism ^.^

Couple that with what seems to be little knowledge on what he espouses and what he attacks and you get a disaster when he makes opinionated and high-minded comments.

[Loki]

Much as it may be unpleasant to see people being well off solely due to having been born in the right family rather than individual merit, what communism offers is even worse.


It is unpleasant, I'm glad we agree on this. However, I think the problem here is that you see communism = Soviet Union. That is perfectly understandable considering that you are a Balt. I have sympathy with that. But please understand that the Soviet Union model is not the only form of Communism, nor is it the ideal.



A tractor operator or a cashier should not be earning the same wage as a surgeon or other highly skilled specialist.


Agreed.

[Loki]

Lol, straw-man.

No, it's the truth. And your response shows that you cannot argue with that :)

[Loki]

Couple that with what seems to be little knowledge on what he espouses and what he attacks and you get a disaster when he makes opinionated and high-minded comments.

Azamat is obviously intelligent and I highly value his opinions on this. Respect.

[Herr Abubu]

No, it's the truth. And your response shows that you cannot argue with that :)

Whether it's the truth or not doesn't matter, it's still a straw-man. You grotesquely mispresent, not what I said, but what I am for, then basically say that you disagree. Other than pointing out the flaw in this, I see no reason to argue with that - if I argued against it, I would implicitly accept your fallacious argument.

[Cern]

Jesus...:picard1:

It will be economically non-viable! Communism does not work, this is demonstrated by the history. It is an inhuman, unnatural ideology. They killed 100 million people. Worse than the Nazis.

[lI]

It is unpleasant, I'm glad we agree on this. However, I think the problem here is that you see communism = Soviet Union. That is perfectly understandable considering that you are a Balt. I have sympathy with that. But please understand that the Soviet Union model is not the only form of Communism, nor is it the ideal.If I had been equating communism solely with the SU, I would have first of all mentioned the widespread corruption - the richest people in SU were neither the tractor operators, nor surgeons but people who worked in the distribution of wealth (politicians, stockmen, storekeepers, inspectors, etc.). While the corruption was not a direct consequence of communism as it did not stem from the ideology - knowing the selfish human nature, I don't think it could have been avoided in communism.

But I didn't talk about that in my previous post.

I talked about what's the main principle of communism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". A tractor operator or a cashier earning the same wage as a surgeon or other highly skilled specialist is not only how it was in SU, it's how it's supposed to be, according to Marx's ideology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need



Just for the record, I am not advocating uncontrolled capitalism either.

[Szegedist]

What seems to be the case is that the biggest supporters of Communism in this board never actually lived under such a regime (Russian sovoks are a special case, however).


The same can be said about most regimes other than "liberal demokracy".

[Szegedist]

Anyway, my country was totally screwed over by communism.

And I am not talking about the material losses (which there are a lot of), but the biggest problem is the spiritual ,religious damage, the atheism, the materialism, the anti-family values (birthrate decreased by a big amount under communism).


To repair the spiritual damage done by communism will require whole generations to be replaced.

[Stefan]

The total abolition of private property is such a bad idea just about all socialists have abandoned it. The political ideology of communism is formulated on this premise, including one's ownership over oneself. The only communists that seem to have any relevance today also happen to be anarchists and oppose Marx's transitional dictatorial state-socialism stage. Overall I think they're as equally deluded to truly believe that equality might exist in nature, when equality has an identity component that no human can control and will be ever present regardless of one's socio-economic, cultural, religious, etc conformity. This has to do with individual differences inherent in human beings, per their biology.

[Cern]

Anyway, my country was totally screwed over by communism.

And I am not talking about the material losses (which there are a lot of), but the biggest problem is the spiritual ,religious damage, the atheism, the materialism, the anti-family values (birthrate decreased by a big amount under communism).


To repair the spiritual damage done by communism will require whole generations to be replaced.

I agree! The greatest damage was caused in people's minds.

[SobieskisavedEurope]

The total abolition of private property is such a bad idea just about all socialists have abandoned it. The political ideology of communism is formulated on this premise, including one's ownership over oneself. The only communists that seem to have any relevance today also happen to be anarchists and oppose Marx's transitional dictatorial state-socialism stage. Overall I think they're as equally deluded to truly believe that equality might exist in nature, when equality has an identity component that no human can control and will be ever present regardless of one's socio-economic, cultural, religious, etc conformity. This has to do with individual differences inherent in human beings, per their biology.

Private property is an essential right to be able to survive with liberty vigor!

Government that abolishes private property has turned people into their property!

[Szegedist]

38978
38979
38980
38981
38982
38983
38984
38985
38986
38987
38988
38989
38990
38991

[Minesweeper]

I decided not to criticize communism here, too mainstream. :icon_smile:

[Szegedist]

I agree! The greatest damage was caused in people's minds.

The only enemies who could spiritually get close to damaging Hungarians!

[alb0zfinest]

Jesus...:picard1:

It will be economically non-viable! Communism does not work, this is demonstrated by the history. It is an inhuman, unnatural ideology. They killed 100 million people. Worse than the Nazis.

Not just that, but how is it that people like being told what to do, when to do it, how to do it,. Freedom of any kind is suppressed.

[Szegedist]

I decided not to criticize communism here, too mainstream. :icon_smile:

Not surprising given you have a Milosevic quote in your signature ;)

[Permafrost]

Anyway, my country was totally screwed over by communism.

And I am not talking about the material losses (which there are a lot of), but the biggest problem is the spiritual ,religious damage, the atheism, the materialism, the anti-family values (birthrate decreased by a big amount under communism).


To repair the spiritual damage done by communism will require whole generations to be replaced.

True that. Take for example farm collectivization (kolkhoz), it totally degenerated rural life in eastern Europe as before that alcoholism was not nearly as rampant.

Post-communism (with abrupt privatization and import of ultra-liberalism) probably dealt the coup de grâce to the countries of the eastern block and ex-Yugoslavia.

[Damião de Góis]

Not especially, but i like their music:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-KdKuxZDL8

In any case the two major parties here, which aren't communist and that are in rotating power since 1974 are a bunch of incompetents. I wonder how communists would do? I know we would exit European Union immediately with them.

[Szegedist]

.

Post-communism (with abrupt privatization and import of ultra-liberalism) probably dealt the coup de grâce to the countries of the eastern block and ex-Yugoslavia.

In Hungary there was very little lustration. Hardline communists overnight turned into demokrats, liberals, etc, and continued ruining the country. They sold everything the country had for little money to "investors" from abroad.

I would say lustration only really began in 2010....

[Herr Abubu]

The total abolition of private property is such a bad idea just about all socialists have abandoned it. The political ideology of communism is formulated on this premise, including one's ownership over oneself. The only communists that seem to have any relevance today also happen to be anarchists and oppose Marx's transitional dictatorial state-socialism stage. Overall I think they're as equally deluded to truly believe that equality might exist in nature, when equality has an identity component that no human can control and will be ever present regardless of one's socio-economic, cultural, religious, etc conformity. This has to do with individual differences inherent in human beings, per their biology.

People tend to concede that socialism is a bad idea, but that it has morality on its side, but when taken apart it's hardly moral, either. "Socialism doesn't work but is a good idea".

I wonder, do socialists believe in self-ownership (private property)? It would be inconsistent and contradictory if they did. I'll impatiently wait to explain the hilarious consequences this would have to any communist that is consistent.

[Szegedist]

I agree! The greatest damage was caused in people's minds.

I would say Kádár era (liberal goulash communism) was especially bad at this, because this is when the real materialism began to poison people. Under the brutal Rákosi regime, people had more solidarity with each other and resisted the regime more.

[Cern]

True that. Take for example farm collectivization (kolkhoz), it totally degenerated rural life in eastern Europe as before that alcoholism was not nearly as rampant.

Post-communism (with abrupt privatization and import of ultra-liberalism) probably dealt the coup de grâce to the countries of the eastern block and ex-Yugoslavia.

True. Communism ruined it the country and people.

[Minesweeper]

Not surprising given you have a Milosevic quote in your signature ;)

That quote doesn't have much with ideology.. but that's not important here.

[Cern]

I would say Kádár era (liberal goulash communism) was especially bad at this, because this is when the real materialism began to poison people. Under the brutal Rákosi regime, people had more solidarity with each other and resisted the regime more.

Kadar was afraid that a new 56. Therefore, the soft dictatorship and relative wealth. This is much more insidious method. People have lost the ability to self-care and self-reliance and . Expect the uncle state to help and emotionally identify with the socialist attitude. This type of person can be called communist.

[Szegedist]

. This type of person can be called communist.

should be


. This type of person can be called victim of communism.

[Lena]

Not especially, but i like their music:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-KdKuxZDL8



This one is great too


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tItSl_RKc

[mr. logan]

Communism is dead. It failed. Globalization can never function correctly through a suffocating ideology as that. Too many people to apply that unnatural way.
Technocracy is here to stay. It has some elements that resemble that old crap for russian envious peasants.

[Herr Abubu]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?99196-Question-for-socialists-communists&p=2028581#post2028581

[Stefan]

People tend to concede that socialism is a bad idea, but that it has morality on its side, but when taken apart it's hardly moral, either. "Socialism doesn't work but is a good idea".

I wonder, do socialists believe in self-ownership (private property)? It would be inconsistent and contradictory if they did. I'll impatiently wait to explain the hilarious consequences this would have to any communist that is consistent.

I'm not a socialist and don't agree with their concept of morality, so I can't say.

[Loki]

Whether it's the truth or not doesn't matter, it's still a straw-man. You grotesquely mispresent, not what I said, but what I am for, then basically say that you disagree. Other than pointing out the flaw in this, I see no reason to argue with that - if I argued against it, I would implicitly accept your fallacious argument.

My argument is not fallacious at all. I rest my case.

[Loki]

Anyway, my country was totally screwed over by communism.

And I am not talking about the material losses (which there are a lot of), but the biggest problem is the spiritual ,religious damage, the atheism, the materialism, the anti-family values (birthrate decreased by a big amount under communism).


To repair the spiritual damage done by communism will require whole generations to be replaced.

Well, then I would of course disagree with you. Your country benefited a lot (and so did Albania) by religion being thrown out the door. You can thank communism for your country's atheism, and it is something very special. Religion dumbs down a population.

[Herr Abubu]

My argument is not fallacious at all. I rest my case.

It is. You give me opinions I do not have, you do not argue against the argument I made and argue against that. That's a straw man. Simply saying that it isn't won't make a difference.

Btw, please answer: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?99196-Question-for-socialists-communists&p=2028581#post2028581

[Loki]

I'm not a socialist and don't agree with their concept of morality, so I can't say.

You have no morality from what I have read. An extreme capitalist.

[Pjeter Pan]

Azamat have you ever lived in a communist country? The stories my father, uncles and grandparents told me are sad and depressing.

[Loki]

It is. You give me opinions I do not have, you do not argue against the argument I made and argue against that. That's a straw man. Simply saying that it isn't won't make a difference.

Btw, please answer: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?99196-Question-for-socialists-communists&p=2028581#post2028581

You conveniently sidestep my exposing of the implications of your viewpoints. So we can't progress any further if you refuse to accept them.

[Stefan]

You have no morality from what I have read. An extreme capitalist.

My ethic system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

[Loki]

My ethic system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

It is an inherently immoral, but sugarcoated (so it would sound acceptable) principle. I guarantee you all the world's billionaires would agree with it.

[Kiyant]

I have some bad experience with communism (Destroyed my nation/Decreased our family ethic/Spread us into many different countries) so i would say no im not a communist.

[Stefan]

It is an inherently immoral, but sugarcoated (so it would sound acceptable) principle. I guarantee you all the world's billionaires would agree with it.

Morality is not objective, but subjective. So "inherently immoral" means nothing. Also, how many billionaires are socialists? Quite many.

[Loki]

Morality is not objective, but subjective. So "inherently immoral" means nothing. Also, how many billionaires are socialists? Quite many.

It's subjective, of course. Chimps don't see any morality.

[Sblast]

My ethic system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

It doesn't determine who's the aggressor and what are the rights being violated. It's maybe the most empty/trivial "principle" ever posited as an "ethic system" (what does it have to do with ethics proper? where are the meta-ethics? was it skipped?) in human history.

[Óttar]

Do you Commies on here hold that private property is illegitimate?

[Herr Abubu]

You conveniently sidestep my exposing of the implications of your viewpoints. So we can't progress any further if you refuse to accept them.

Not really. You claim to know my opinions and now you think you know the implications of them, too. Straw men are convenient sidesteps, though, so you're guilty of the very thing you accuse me of. Debates have objective rules, if you want to be able to straw man your opponent or come with nonsensical rhetoric, then debate with yourself.

[Loki]

Do you Commies on here hold that private property is illegitimate?

No.

[Stefan]

It's subjective, of course. Chimps don't see any morality.

Chimps certainly have some kind of ethic system. They even have social structures.

[Stefan]

It doesn't determine who's the aggressor and what are the rights being violated.


Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will) and interfere with his right to self-determination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_(philosophy)) and the principle of self-ownership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership).

[Loki]

Chimps certainly have some kind of ethic system. They even have social structures.

Yes, but it's different from ours.

[Stefan]

Yes, but it's different from ours.

But is there a human morality? What was considered moral 2,000 years ago isn't anywhere near what is considered moral today. It's is constantly changing and subjective. Any concept of objective morality seems very much like religion to me.

[Loki]

But is there a human morality? What was considered moral 2,000 years ago isn't anywhere near what is considered moral today. It's is constantly changing and subjective. Any concept of objective morality seems very much like religion to me.

Right, so you don't believe in morality. I rest my case.

[Sblast]

Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.

That's basically a big slob of weasel words.
Violence is illegitimate use of force - NAP doesn't answer the question what's legitimate in the first place.
Property is a legitimate possession of objects - NAP doesn't answer the question what's legitimate in the first place.
The segment is the only interesting one prima facie, and again there's nothing to it. Who owns what in the first place under what justification in the principled question.
No one studies NAP for Introduction to Ethics, and for a good reason. It conveys virtually no interesting information, it doesn't answer any questions.


But is there a human morality? What was considered moral 2,000 years ago isn't anywhere near what is considered moral today. It's is constantly changing and subjective. Any concept of objective morality seems very much like religion to me.


So there's no human morality but NAP is an "ethical system"? Do you know that from a plurality of opinions it doesn't follow that there isn't a truth to discover?

[Empecinado]

Communist here only was in power for about 3 years and they managed to install a Soviet regime which killed any disident (including other Communists as well Anarchists), burnt churches, destroyed a lot of ancient patrimony and gave all the gold reserves (even coins from archeological museums) to the USSR.

Communism is a totalitarian ideology that destroys economy, society and countries, though I prefer it over progresism, which is even more destructive.

[Baluarte]

Communism is a totalitarian ideology that destroys economy, society and countries, though I prefer it over progresism, which is even more destructive.

Proudhon (an author that I know you like ;) ) actually came up with the best term to describe the contemporary political trajectory of the former Western Christendom:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Proudhon_-_La_Pornocratie,_ou_les_Femmes_dans_les_temps_mode rnes.djvu/page7-160px-Proudhon_-_La_Pornocratie,_ou_les_Femmes_dans_les_temps_mode rnes.djvu.jpg

[Stefan]

That's basically a big slob of weasel words.
Violence is illegitimate use of force - NAP doesn't answer the question what's legitimate in the first place.

Is violence not defined as force? What is an example of force that is not violence or the threat of violence? Anyway, the only use of force accepted by the NAP is that in self-defense (opposing pacifist views of no violence at all.)



Property is a legitimate possession of objects - NAP doesn't answer the question what's legitimate in the first place.
The segment is the only interesting one prima facie, and again there's nothing to it. Who owns what in the first place under what justification in the principled question.
No one studies NAP for Introduction to Ethics, and for a good reason. It conveys virtually no interesting information, it doesn't answer any questions.

There are many different derivations of private property. Murray Rothbard's vs. David Friedman's, for example, one argument is rights-based the other is economic.




So there's no human morality but NAP is an "ethical system"? Do you know that from a plurality of opinions it doesn't follow that there isn't a truth to discover?

Note, I said "a human morality." The use of the article "a" in this context does not logically preclude a number of moralities found among humans.

[Stefan]

Right, so you don't believe in morality. I rest my case.

I don't believe in an objective morality. I do believe in the concept and instrumental use of morality though.

[mint]

I think art can be just interesting, no matter the ideology it is.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THGRKvYGt1o


Even though Communists here have quite a reputation to borrow ideas and not to credit the authors. Marx and Engels were introduced into it by Moses Hess, who was not the idea originator, though he was quite innovative, they kind of declared those ideas their own.

Anyway instead of the former socialists, they tried to describe reasons behind social-economic disintegration or how to size and hold power, but were not so detailed about a desired result.

[lI]

But is there a human morality? What was considered moral 2,000 years ago isn't anywhere near what is considered moral today. It's is constantly changing and subjective. Any concept of objective morality seems very much like religion to me.Right, so you don't believe in morality. I rest my case.
So, you do not believe that morality is subjective?

I like this take on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-yLH4bXAI

[SilverKnight]

I'm looking for some comrades to join my group. ;)

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/group.php?groupid=535

http://gaslamppost.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/women-in-soviet-propaganda-06.jpg


Socio-capitalism is the ideal

[Azamat]

I can play the "read thousands of pages of literature and your worldview will be destroyed" game, too. What I want is you to show your understanding of economic theory, with arguments for and against, and your understanding of economic methodology, with arguments for and against.There is no single axiomatic theory or methodology in economics that isn't banal and obvious to toddlers so you're basically making a non-request.

But I will say this. Communists contend that of most goods and services, modern technology can now produce more than humans can consume over a given unit of time, as Marx predicted observing industrial developments in his lifetime. Since economic value is established by scarcity, money or any form of value tokens can no longer affect or be used in the distribution of goods and services under such a state of abundance. The entire use of the word "economy" to describe the production and distribution of goods and services would be inappropriate and obsolete under post-scarcity.

I rate mainstream economic methodology lowly and I believe it has little scientific merit. Fundamental to science is the use of metrics and empirical observation, not abstract monetary magnitudes and top-down theorizing, which are rampant in economics. The only scientifically valid measure of an economy is the energy it uses in converting resources into use-forms, and the physical materials involved - these units are constant and measurable, as opposed to an abstract commodity valuation made by a subjective, irrational agent not possessing of full information. The inability to measure things means that economic theory is developed using top-down logic and by implication relying on some fundamental/universalist conviction from which to deduct, such as the treatment of humans as rational agents. Coming back to my opening sentence, this is why there few agreed-upon principles in economics, why there are so many theories and why they are so politicized and useless.

[Azamat]

That's vague, Marxian/Communist schools of thoughts "stills academic sponsorship"Marxian economics ≠ Communist economics, and I wouldn't identify as a Marxist.

yet you think only the latter is marginalized.Non money- and market methods of economic calculation are marginalized. The only country that still effectively employs a planned economy where inputs and outputs are calculated using physical units is North Korea.

No, the differences aren't superficial. The irony. That sounds awfully dogmatic to me. I don't even know what you mean by it, are you disputing that economic scarcity exists and is important and what what about commodity valuation?I am indeed disputing that and I covered it in my previous post. How are the differences not superficial when all of them rely on monetary calculation and regard scarcity to be an immutable constant?

[Herr Abubu]

Seriously, if you're going to make assertions, argue for them. I won't waste my time on demagoguery and buzzword rhetoric from someone who knows apparently nothing about the topic he comments on; if you had known anything about economics, you would have made specific criticisms.

[Azamat]

Seriously, if you're going to make assertions, argue for them. I won't waste my time on demagoguery and buzzword rhetoric from someone who knows apparently nothing about the topic he comments on; if you had known anything about economics, you would have made specific criticisms.The irony of the matter is that this happens to make an excellent description of the cop-out message above me here.

[Mortimer]

Azamat from your Posts on anthroscape i didnt thought you are a communist i thought you are a fascistoid kurd Nationalist. are you racial-communist like national-socialist or true anti-Fascist communist?

[Loki]

So, you do not believe that morality is subjective?


I did not say it wasn't subjective. Believing that murder is wrong is also subjective.

[Azamat]

Azamat from your Posts on anthroscape i didnt thought you are a communist i thought you are a fascistoid kurd Nationalist. are you racial-communist like national-socialist or true anti-Fascist communist?Supporting Kurdish independence is as far as my "nationalism" goes. That some people from neighboring countries may find that concept unbearable and do everything to make it look like some extremist horror doesn't negate anything from the fact that an independent state for my people is entirely reasonable and within the parameters of communism.

[Mortimer]

Supporting Kurdish independence is as far as my "nationalism" goes. That some people from neighboring countries may find that concept unbearable and do everything to make it look like some extremist horror doesn't negate anything from the fact that it's entirely reasonable and within the parameters of communism.

ok thats quiete respectable (even if i dont want to make enemies with turks or so) but i remember you wrote about races etc. and such stuff as if you are racist and "aryan"

[Azamat]

ok thats quiete respectable (even if i dont want to make enemies with turks or so) but i remember you wrote about races etc. and such stuff as if you are racist and "aryan"No. I was probably joking.

[Óttar]

Communist here only was in power for about 3 years and they managed to install a Soviet regime which killed any disident (including other Communists as well Anarchists),
What was the first thing that Trotsky and the Red Army did when they came to power? Brutally kill off the Anarchists. They are just a bunch of power-hungry idiots with no class. I think most people only like Communism for the Socialist-Realism posters. Trendy wankers.

[Herr Abubu]

The irony of the matter is that this happens to make an excellent description of the cop-out message above me here.

I will start taking you seriously when you come up with concrete Marxist economic theory, instead of simply saying, "Marx predicted this", "There is abundance," There's no longer any need for capitalism".

The problem is that you're so vague that you don't really saying anything; you often beg the question, i.e., you assume the things you need to prove; and you argue against straw men. Until then, you're the equivalent of some ignorant creationist brat throwing off creationist buzzwords - who, when not taken seriously, shouts, "Ha! Cop-out! Bawk-bawk-bawk! You lose, I win! God rules! "

What you mention isn't ironic. That you accuse me of weaseling out of the argument, while you argue in intangible double-talk, itself a weaseling technique, is ironic.

[Cleitus]

The only Goal of Marxism is to Destroy the White Race, just ask him http://www.kunstkopie.de/kunst/_germanphotographer/moses_hess.jpg

[Breedingvariety]

Socio-capitalism is the ideal
Whoa?

There is no single axiomatic theory or methodology in economics that isn't banal and obvious to toddlers so you're basically making a non-request.
If something is so obvious even to toddlers, how come most economists don't see it?

So you are saying you are right on economics even when you have no theory of it.

But I will say this. Communists contend that of most goods and services, modern technology can now produce more than humans can consume over a given unit of time, as Marx predicted observing industrial developments in his lifetime. Since economic value is established by scarcity, money or any form of value tokens can no longer affect or be used in the distribution of goods and services under such a state of abundance. The entire use of the word "economy" to describe the production and distribution of goods and services would be inappropriate and obsolete under post-scarcity.
So the assumption is human wants are limited and they can be 100% satisfied. Even toddlers want the toy they don't have.

One thing you are right about. Present day economic policies are there to create scarcity. But scarcity is being created through socialist policies. Real capitalism would create abundance. Abundance would make people independent. And that is not what controllers want.

I rate mainstream economic methodology lowly and I believe it has little scientific merit. Fundamental to science is the use of metrics and empirical observation, not abstract monetary magnitudes and top-down theorizing, which are rampant in economics. The only scientifically valid measure of an economy is the energy it uses in converting resources into use-forms, and the physical materials involved - these units are constant and measurable, as opposed to an abstract commodity valuation made by a subjective, irrational agent not possessing of full information. The inability to measure things means that economic theory is developed using top-down logic and by implication relying on some fundamental/universalist conviction from which to deduct, such as the treatment of humans as rational agents. Coming back to my opening sentence, this is why there few agreed-upon principles in economics, why there are so many theories and why they are so politicized and useless.
I too view mainstream methodology negatively. By use of made up statistics they espouse mind boggling nonsense.

You have no theory, then how will you interpret your empirical data? And how will your data avoid using monetary values?

What is "top- down theorizing"?

Communism plans from the top. Capitalism works by satisfying real needs of the market.

That "irrational agent" at least knows what it wants. Your energy calculating technocrat would serve the needs of overlords with his arbitrary gibberish.

If you treat humans as irrational agents, you have to accept that even they who would wanna control economy from the top, would be irrational too. And we could dismiss their calculations.

Yes there are many theories, but you have chosen the most useless one.

[Óttar]

My question is, how can anyone here be a Communist when you have clear historical examples of Communist barbarism in Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao? And, as I mentioned before, the Red Army purged the Anarchists. And Communism doesn't believe in private property. FACT.

[Rojava]

http://th06.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2012/359/8/1/european_communism___propaganda_by_tomasz96-d5p3xn7.jpg

[Rojava]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-agiAnRYrrU

[Rojava]

My question is, how can anyone here be a Communist when you have clear historical examples of Communist barbarism in Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao? And, as I mentioned before, the Red Army purged the Anarchists.

I don't judge Christianity for what the Crusades did, I don't judge Islam for what Islamists do.


And Communism doesn't believe in private property. FACT.

So? Private property only leads to greedy landlords and landladys.

[Baluarte]

If you think the PCF is somehow anti-NATO anti-EU you're clearly not aware of the direction that French Communism has taken for the last 20-25 years.

[Hess]

..

[Óttar]

I don't judge Christianity for what the Crusades did, I don't judge Islam for what Islamists do.
Why should anyone have reason to believe that the same thing wouldn't happen all over again? Notice how these Communist revolutions always go after the intellectuals.


So? Private property only leads to greedy landlords and landladys.
But these people here saying they're Communist wouldn't be so quick to surrender their private property. Shit, most don't even know that Communism means that private property is illegitimate.

[Peikko]

The best kind of commie, is the dead kind of commie.

[Skerdilaid]

http://www.shitsenders.com/images/site/elephant-splash.jpg

[McCauley]

I'm looking for some comrades to join my group. ;)

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/group.php?groupid=535

http://gaslamppost.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/women-in-soviet-propaganda-06.jpg

I would like to inform you that you are now being monitored by the US government.

[Rojava]

I would like to inform you that you are now being monitored by the US government.

Not really a problem for a Kurd


Why should anyone have reason to believe that the same thing wouldn't happen all over again? Notice how these Communist revolutions always go after the intellectuals.

Because Stalin was a madman that influenced Lenin to commit bad actions. When Lenin died, Stalin killed fellow Communists if they disagreed with his policies, which many did. Why do you think that Stalinism is so low in numbers? Because it was and is stupid.


But these people here saying they're Communist wouldn't be so quick to surrender their private property. Shit, most don't even know that Communism means that private property is illegitimate.

You don't understand, your house would still be your house except that the landlord or lady would be the Government. This is to prevent individuals from being greedy.

[Proctor]

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.es/d/de/Iamacommunizm.png

[Aunt Hilda]

nope, proud keynesian Capitalist


I would like to inform you that you are now being monitored by the US government.
aren't we all?

[Twistedmind]

But these people here saying they're Communist wouldn't be so quick to surrender their private property. Shit, most don't even know that Communism means that private property is illegitimate.

It was not ilegitmate. It was limited. For example there was limit how big land parcell you could own, etc, but people in Communism still could own houses, land, apartments, woods etc.

[Kiyant]

Communism and Communists already destroyed several countries and are responsible for the deaths of millions of people why would anyone follow this?
Also "True" communism is a dream and will never ever happen because of the human nature.

[Rojava]

Communism and Communists already destroyed several countries and are responsible for the deaths of millions of people why would anyone follow this?
Also "True" communism is a dream and will never ever happen because of the human nature.

Coming from you, a Muslim and a Turk. :picard1:

[Kiyant]

Coming from you, a Muslim and a Turk. :picard1:

And?

[Rojava]

And?

:picard1:

[Kiyant]

:picard1:

Dont try to play this game every empire/ethnicy destroyed other state/ethnicies but communism which calls itself perfect killed far more people then any single ethnicy could ever do.

[Methusalem]

Yes here bro. Although I am also found of anarcho-communism and ideas from anarcho-primitism spectrum.

[Methusalem]

Communism and Communists already destroyed several countries and are responsible for the deaths of millions of people why would anyone follow this?
Also "True" communism is a dream and will never ever happen because of the human nature.

Consumption orientated, pseudo individualistic, degenerative Capitalism is currently destroying the whole world.

[Žołnir]

Don't know bout other countries but communism was IMO wrong for Slovenia. Its legacy is still deeply rooted among Slovenes, our politics, etc. The whole state still has lots of communistic elements and practices. Its like cca 28% of this country's economy is directly state owned and indirectly up to 50% of economy is under state influence. Thanks to the fact our biggest bank the NLB is actually state owned (am not talking about central bank here).

The whole thing is wrong. Its holding Slovenia away from preforming up to its potentials that are big. Problem Slovene voter believes in this state ownership crap and its mostly the parties that keep this current situation that are getting most of the votes. Firms are sold cheaply only when state officials totally exaust them.

What this country needs is extreme economic liberalism. Low taxes, small public sector, less state inteferances, etc. In reality it is all other way around we have quite socialist economy.Thats why Slovenia will stay in stone age for a while more. :rolleyes:

Funny part is some ppl say oh its not so bad look in America there you are or your own, bla, bla, bla. LOL actually thats the gist of capitalism. So we basically give state lots of money for shyt. If the whole money would be really used only for neccesary things like police, schools, etc. We would be among most developed countries by now. Cuz i believe many Slovenes are infact quite crafty and have that industrious spirit. Its just whole insane birocracy and huge taxes (among most if not the most taxed nation in Europe) really holds them down. This nation is taxed like hell.

Its so bad there are actually tons of cases when Slovene who establishes firm, factory, wathever the case, he builds it just over the border in Austria or Italy where officials give such projects tax brakes and other benefits.

Similar goes for Croatia and Hungary. These three nations are most taxed in the world with Slovenia in the lead;


NAJVEĆU stopu poreznih davanja na svijetu ima Slovenija sa 54,9 posto, slijedi je Hrvatska sa 53,5 posto, a treća je Mađarska sa 48,1 posto, pokazalo je istraživanje revizorske kuće KPMG International. No, to istraživanje nije uzelo u obzir nedavno uvedeni HDZ-ov harač, zahvaljujući kojem je Hrvatska postala zemlja s najvećom stopom poreza na svijetu!

Now you know the truth. Socialist practices don't work. Slovenia is living proof. :p

[Rojava]

Dont try to play this game every empire/ethnicy destroyed other state/ethnicies but communism which calls itself perfect killed far more people then any single ethnicy could ever do.

Give me an example. And don't include Stalin and like I said he was a madman that tried to create his own ideology called "Stalinism". Those that are against the perfect ideology should die since they are an obstacle in the way of a Utopian society. If you are against us, you are either evil or do not understand us.

[Kiyant]

Give me an example. And don't include Stalin and like I said he was a madman that tried to create his own ideology called "Stalinism". Those that are against the perfect ideology should die since they are an obstacle in the way of a Utopian society.

Which practically means you would kill millions of people.......

[Breedingvariety]

Freedom to choose any currency as means of exchange and removal of income tax would be two huge steps to creating prosperity in any country.

[Rojava]

Which practically means you would kill millions of people.......

Correction: Millions of rich-ass greedy people

[Kiyant]

Correction: Millions of rich-ass greedy people

Those rich-ass greedy guys did something to get that money why should an educated person be the same as a dumb one why should someone who had an idea and became rich be the same as an idiot with no ideas and education?

[Rojava]

Those rich-ass greedy guys did something to get that money why should an educated person be the same as a dumb one why should someone who had an idea and became rich be the same as an idiot with no ideas and education?

They did something to get that money? They inherited it from their 'noble' ancestors. Why do you think certain people can't get education? Because Capitalist pigs ensure that they don't get an education in anyway. Stealing from the poor and giving it to the rich.

[Kiyant]

They did something to get that money? They inherited it from their 'noble' ancestors. Why do you think certain people can't get education? Because Capitalist pigs ensure that they don't get an education in anyway. Stealing from the poor and giving it to the rich.

First their ancestors did something and second they still have that money because they can handle the money well also you only speak about nobles and so on but people like bill gates would never happen in a true communist world because why need new inventions if you dont get anything in return?

[Rojava]

First their ancestors did something
They did? So that means their descendants get rewarded for doing a shit?



and second they still have that money because they can handle the money well
Yeah, as if today's royalties do that.



also you only speak about nobles and so on but people like bill gates would never happen in a true communist world because why need new inventions if you dont get anything in return?

Typical Capitalist response, you only care about yourself and no one else.

[Kiyant]

They did? So that means their descendants get rewarded for doing a shit?


Yeah, as if today's royalties do that.



Typical Capitalist response, you only care about yourself and no one else.

Why should i care about someone who is not smart/as fortunate as myself?

[Rojava]

Why should i care about someone who is not smart/fortunate as myself?

Because you only care about yourself, you have a black heart and you're dead inside.

[Kiyant]

Because you only care about yourself, you have a black heart and you're dead inside.

Im not dead inside nor do i have a black heart im a realist
My Grandfather worked hard my family was in the lowest position people in exile without money or a name but he still became a great man and because of that i have money which me and my father use to become even more fortunate than my grandad.

[Rojava]

Im not dead inside nor do i have a black heart im a realist
My Grandfather worked hard my family was in the lowest position people in exile without money or a name but he still became a great man and because of that i have money which me and my father use to become even more fortunate than my grandad.

You asked me why you wouldn't help someone in need, well let me ask you something. Why wouldn't you?

[Kiyant]

You asked me why you wouldn't help someone in need, well let me ask you something. Why wouldn't you?

I would help i would give them money(if i have enough) or other help but im not going to give them half of my house because we are both humans.

[Rojava]

I would help i would give them money(if i have enough) or other help but im not going to give them half of my house because we are both humans.

I never implied that you should give them half your house. A Capitalist would not do something like this. Why are you arguing in the first place? This is exactly what a Communist would do and it is his/her duty to do so.

[Stefan]

A Capitalist would not do something like this.

I'm a capitalist and I do plenty of charity work and give to others, despite being poor myself. In fact,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/world-giving-index-us-ran_n_1159562.html

https://www.cafonline.org/pdf/World_Giving_Index_2011_191211.pdf

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=SOCX_AGG

[Krampus]

commies=vaginas my grandfather killed

[Cern]

10 Reasons Why Communism Sucks

10 It Doesn’t Value Creativity

The average person, as George Carlin once observed, is not particularly good at anything. The perfect job for such a person is on the assembly line. But regardless of the governments under which we live, we all have different aspirations. Some people are perfectly happy sweeping floors, but most of us—justly—want more out of life. Not only money, but fame, glory, and a sense of accomplishment. All of these require at least some creative thought.You may want to be a poet or a painter, but these jobs certainly don’t pay the bills—and Communism views them as unnecessary and ridiculous. All that matters is building a super-powerful nation—and one of the first obstacles that must be removed is what Jefferson called “the pursuit of happiness.”




9 Forced Collectivization

The most notorious example of forced collectivization is the land reform carried out by Soviets between 1928 and 1933. It was thought that collectivization would maximize the use and potential of the countryside for urban and industrial needs. Russian industry was just taking off, and enormous quantities of food would be required for the workers.

Masses of resisting landowners—many of them small-scale farmers who worked their own land—died at the hands of executioners. The state’s requisition of crops, livestock, and farmland was paid for by the farmers and by the lower class in general, some ten million of whom starved to death in five years.

Exactly the same atrocity took place in Communist China, between 1958 and 1961. During this time, private farming was outlawed as it had been in Stalin’s Russia, and about 33 million people starved to death in possibly the single most destructive famine in human history.




8 You Have No Rights


Several of these entries are related, and the absence of citizens’ rights is at the heart of more than one. In keeping with the last entry, Marx advocated ten rules in his Communist Manifesto for the forced redistribution of all land and property for the good of the national community.

This is theft, from the citizens’ point of view. They are forced to join the new Communist government—whether they like it or not. This, of course, must be done with a “might is right” frame of mind: lots of men with guns show up and take everything you have “for the glory of the motherland,” as the Soviets might have said.




7 Reduced Incentives to Work Hard

Incentives—such as higher pay for doctors—are necessary to give people the energy they need to work hard in a difficult job.

When there are no extra incentives available—such as in a Communist state, where all reap an equal share in what some have worked harder to sow—the people in difficult jobs quickly lose their motivation. For example, workers would stop caring about how thoroughly they inspect the cars on the assembly lines, since it makes no difference to them either way. They are also likely to grow bitter at the government for failing to give them recognition when they do a good job. Revolts become a distinct liability; many a Communist state has fallen because of this problem of reduced incentives.




6 Militant Opposition to Imperialism


It doesn’t take much to bring the fury of a Communist state upon you; in fact, it takes nothing more than simply existing in a capitalist state. The Communist Manifesto advocates the replacement of all governments by Communist governments. This has almost always been put into effect internally: the Russian monarchy was overthrown, as were the Republic of China and the Cuban democracy.

But the threat is not merely internal. The US need not fear a Cuban invasion, but China is indeed a force to be reckoned with. It controls the second-largest portion of American debt, and though that only amounts to about eight percent, the number is rising. Should they ever call in America’s entire debt to them at once, America’s already depressed economy would be greatly harmed.



5 Indifference Towards the Environment

A Communist state will make up for its inefficient economy by doing whatever is necessary to produce crops and water. In the 1960s, the Soviet Communist regime diverted two important rivers for irrigation. The Aral Sea, which those rivers fed, has now shrunk to as little as ten percent of its original size. It used to be the fourth largest lake in the world.The lesson: rather than letting the efficiency of capitalism into its economic model, the Soviet government chose to extract everything it could from the environment—without caring one bit about the health of that environment.




4 The Economic Calculation Problem

The relative success of the free market economy is a real-world refutation of Marxist economics. The latter never has sufficient information on the market prices of commodities, and therefore cannot properly ration the distribution of a nation’s resources. The only reasonable criticism of the free market economy is the presence of monopolies, which can raise the prices of their products with little fear of reprisal. But monopolies are just like the central control a Communist government exercises on its whole economy; a true free market ensures that there be checks and balances on the price of goods and services.





3 The Class Struggle’s Going Nowhere

Marx founded Communist philosophy on the principle that class struggles have been, by far, the primary cause of all strife, wars, economic woes, and regime collapses. There are popularly thought to be three major classes of people: the upper, the middle, and the lower. The upper class has most of the wealth; the lower class the least; and the middle class plays the peacemaker between them, maintaining the hope and sanity of the lower class. Without the middle class, heads are chopped.

Communism itself does not erase the class struggle, as it proclaims, but keeps it going. It does this because it is a government: there must be a group of people in charge, and it’s likely that this group enjoys its power. By maintaining their power, the leaders of a Communist state separate the population into at least two classes: themselves as the upper class, and preferably everyone else in the lower class.Communist states have generally not featured a middle class—and its absence allowed for the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917; the Chinese of 1949, the Cuban of 1953-59, and a host of others. All of these revolutions ended with the rise of a Communist state—and all of them were the ruin of their respective nations, because the Communists themselves became the very same brand of elitist upper class they had deposed.





2 Mass Murders

Communist rule may be directly blamed for the deaths of at least eighty-five million people in the twentieth century. Stalin alone murdered about twenty million, although other estimates range from fifty-three million to eighty million. In 1975, the Khmer Rouge seized power in Cambodia, and set out to establish a Communist utopia. They immediately committed genocide on their own people. At least two million were executed by brutally primitive methods in keeping with the Khmer Rouge’s anti-technology stance; many of the victims were murdered merely for wearing glasses. Intelligence was deemed a direct and serious threat to the Khmer Rouge.

And let’s not forget Chairman Mao. He may not have been as evil as Stalin, but he was the very definition of indifference towards humanity. His “Great Leap Forward” caused the deaths by starvation of forty-five million Chinese civilians.




1 Karl Marx Was Wrong to Begin With

Marx’s doctrine is fraught with faulty logic, loopholes, and unsolved problems. His idea of economics is based on the labor theory of value, which asserts that a car, for example, should cost more than a TV, because more labor is needed to produce it. But this is an oversimplification of the market.Sam’s Choice Cola tastes almost identical to Coca-Cola, but costs half as much. The labor is the same, but people are happy to pay twice as much for the only difference: the brand name. The same holds true with medicine.

In the same way, tennis shoes can cost over $200 in the US, despite being made in China or Taiwan for only about $3–10. Why do they cost so much? Because the industries that own them sell them based on how highly they are in demand by the public. That’s why they have athletes endorse their products: to make them more desirable to the athletes’ fans.This is expressly why Marxist Communism has caused the utter collapse of so many national economies: it thinks in broad strokes, and fails to tell one subtlety from another. This, first and foremost, is because Communism is not grounded in reality.



http://listverse.com/2013/01/17/10-reasons-why-communism-sucks/


Communist countries: Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba....

Communist leaders: Stalin, Mao Ce Tung, Pol Pot...


Enviable standard of living and legal systems...