Written by Slayer666 on 16.03.2009 at 21:45

I don't know... the idea of communism just doesn't seem just to me. According to the idea, everyone should get the same amount of... well, everything, no matter how much they do. So, a person can be a doctor for example, busting his ass off, trying to save lives, and yet he would be just as much valued as a secretary who just sits on her workplace all day, and practicly does nothing at all. Yeah, I may sound like a shit-eater, but that's just my way of thinking.
Besides, communism brought some pretty shity effects to the world. Now, I know that the communism that was imagined was far from the one that is real, but human mind isn't ready for that, and I hardly think it ever will.

That's a very common misinterpretation or believe about the communism. Marx said it, treating everyone as equals, it's the greatest inequality that can be done, that's why he wrote "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", this in simple word means that if the secretary needed more than the doctor, cuz she have 4 children and the doctor is single, the secretary, would have more.

I know that this probably seems as the stupidest idea in the world, but that's why we can't be communist, we are driven by individualism and stupid needs, but the "new" mankind is going to be driven by collectivity and a revolutionary moral (This doesn't mean a prefect mankind, mankind would always have flaws, but not the same flaws as today).

I think communism can teach western societies a lot. While in the past the words of Marx and Engels have been interpreted to suit the desires of the leaders of particular countries. That is Why their is a multitude different styles of communism some closer to dictatorships others boarder on absolute democracy.
Stalinist governments are the likes of North Korea, the former Soviet Union ect, is more like a dictatorship with all property and assets owned by the government. With the leader elected by the countries own government.
Leninist governments tend to follow a more marxist system, which while it is not as much a dictatorship as a stalinist government, it dose follow some similar principals.
Socialism is slightl;y different to communism and in many ways closer to a democracy. While no governments have succeeded in setting up a successful socialist government, it would be the perfect form of government in an ideal world. But alas man is greedy, thus it would never work. Under socialism the land is owned by the people as a whole not an individual, and not by an absolutist government like in say a Stalinist government.

To answer the questions asked by the founder of this thread,
1- Communism has never and will never exist on a national level unless under an absolute selfless dictatorship. Given than humans are greedy selfish individuals than that is nothing but a dream.

2- a Stateless society of humans will never exist until human have encountered a hostile alien race causing the necessity of a united human society in order to overcome a potential threat, and i don't see that happening any time soon.

3- I agree, only through war can a truly socialist state ever exist; however, that can be impractical and civil war may be worse than attempting a slow gradual change through political maneuvering. Revolution means in most countries in the world at least certain death, or a lifetime in prison for high treason.

4- I also agree Anarchism is Communism in it purest form. However as I said previously, people are the problem not the ideal. Re creating human society from scratch is exactly what pol pot tried to do in Cambodia. But that failed and all he achieved was a country flooded with landmines and thousands of dead.

So in saying that pure communism would never work. Only through a selfless dictatorship could communism stand a chance and only after 4 or so generations could you relax a hard line government. It is possible but it is also a long slow process, one which can only be achieved by war and a complete rebuild of a government structure.

Written by Fhuesc on 17.03.2009 at 03:59

That's a very common misinterpretation or believe about the communism. Marx said it, treating everyone as equals, it's the greatest inequality that can be done, that's why he wrote "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", this in simple word means that if the secretary needed more than the doctor, cuz she have 4 children and the doctor is single, the secretary, would have more.

And do you think that's fair? I sure don't. So, that secretary who might be a lazy bum, will get even MORE than the doctor, despite the fact that she is, as I've already said, just one lazy good-for-nothing only because she wanted to have an easy life and give birth to a few kids. What about the doctor? Don't you think he wanted a family? He can't have one, because he has to actually WORK for what he gets.

Quote:

I know that this probably seems as the stupidest idea in the world, but that's why we can't be communist, we are driven by individualism and stupid needs, but the "new" mankind is going to be driven by collectivity and a revolutionary moral (This doesn't mean a prefect mankind, mankind would always have flaws, but not the same flaws as today).

I don't think there will ever be a "new" mankind. No, we will destroy each others long before we get the chance to "evolve". With what, I don't know, but the choice is damn wide. Nuclear bombs or/and polution seem like the most likely way.

Written by Slayer666 on 17.03.2009 at 10:03

Written by Fhuesc on 17.03.2009 at 03:59

That's a very common misinterpretation or believe about the communism. Marx said it, treating everyone as equals, it's the greatest inequality that can be done, that's why he wrote "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", this in simple word means that if the secretary needed more than the doctor, cuz she have 4 children and the doctor is single, the secretary, would have more.

And do you think that's fair? I sure don't. So, that secretary who might be a lazy bum, will get even MORE than the doctor, despite the fact that she is, as I've already said, just one lazy good-for-nothing only because she wanted to have an easy life and give birth to a few kids. What about the doctor? Don't you think he wanted a family? He can't have one, because he has to actually WORK for what he gets.

Quote:

I know that this probably seems as the stupidest idea in the world, but that's why we can't be communist, we are driven by individualism and stupid needs, but the "new" mankind is going to be driven by collectivity and a revolutionary moral (This doesn't mean a prefect mankind, mankind would always have flaws, but not the same flaws as today).

I don't think there will ever be a "new" mankind. No, we will destroy each others long before we get the chance to "evolve". With what, I don't know, but the choice is damn wide. Nuclear bombs or/and polution seem like the most likely way.

First, the secretary won't be a lazy bum, cuz she will understand that her work is necessary for everyone else, therefore her work driven by a community moral, not like today that she only works for survival. The fact that you think that a doctor is far superior than a secretary, first, it's a wrong conclusion, that comes from our way of see everything as a merchandise; second, believe it or not, secretaries are human beings, just as doctors, therefore a secretary shouldn't earn less than a doctor, she has the same basic needs, animal needs (eat, sleep, etc.) + human needs (culture, skills, etc).

Human doesn't only evolve in a physical way, we also evolve in a cultural way. This "new" mankind hasn't evolved physically, is a cultural evolved mankind.

Quote:

First, the secretary won't be a lazy bum, cuz she will understand that her work is necessary for everyone else, therefore her work driven by a community moral, not like today that she only works for survival.

Would she? We're talking about the idea of communism itself, not about what kind of people would it take to make it work. I think you will agree that it is really damn hard to find a person who works out of moral, rather than personal gain.

Quote:

The fact that you think that a doctor is far superior than a secretary, first, it's a wrong conclusion, that comes from our way of see everything as a merchandise; second, believe it or not, secretaries are human beings, just as doctors, therefore a secretary shouldn't earn less than a doctor, she has the same basic needs, animal needs (eat, sleep, etc.) + human needs (culture, skills, etc).

Now you made me sound like some asshole. Not that it was hard, though... OK, yeah, they're both human and should be treated equaly. But you simply can't deny that the doctor's job is more important. Seeing everything as merchandise? I didn't get that one. Point is, without the doctor, people would die and I think you must agree that is a bit more serious than the effects of a non-existant secretary.

Quote:

Human doesn't only evolve in a physical way, we also evolve in a cultural way. This "new" mankind hasn't evolved physically, is a cultural evolved mankind.

Well, duh, that's what I meant. Still, mankind would sooner grow wings or something than be able to fully realize the idea of communism.

Written by Slayer666 on 17.03.2009 at 20:42

Quote:

First, the secretary won't be a lazy bum, cuz she will understand that her work is necessary for everyone else, therefore her work driven by a community moral, not like today that she only works for survival.

Would she? We're talking about the idea of communism itself, not about what kind of people would it take to make it work. I think you will agree that it is really damn hard to find a person who works out of moral, rather than personal gain.

I admit that today only a few are driven by moral and not individualism, but that's why i have been insisting with the "new mankind". This new mankind can't be us or children and even our greatchildren, this new mankind it's the result of years of education.

Quote:

But you simply can't deny that the doctor's job is more important. Seeing everything as merchandise? I didn't get that one. Point is, without the doctor, people would die and I think you must agree that is a bit more serious than the effects of a non-existant secretary.

Doctor's job it's a part of society, just as the secretary, the factory worker or the cleaning lady, all are needed for an efficient society. Think that the doctor is more important, is like saying that the heart it's more important than the brain or the liver. The merchandise thing is really simple, why the doctor in this society has more VALUE (something that only merchandise have) than a secretary, cuz he/she invested more time and work to become a Doctor than a secretary, in capitalism, the time and work needed, is what determines the value of a merchandise.

Communism (or the perfect society) will become possible only with development of science and technology ,when need for birocraty become completely abandoned ......

Then will we could give by our posibilites and took by our needs....

I don't get the point that mankind is greedy by nature, this argument is nonsense, the society and culture is a result of the mankind capacity to think rational, and the culture in capitalism focus in to the self development and self thinking, and not in a collective development and thinking, leading to this greed. And this is a result of capitalism and not a result of the human nature.

Why?? fhuesc explains it very good:

"doctor in this society has more VALUE (something that only merchandise have) than a secretary, cuz he/she invested more time and work to become a Doctor than a secretary, in capitalism, the time and work needed, is what determines the value of a merchandise."

How can you put together anarchism and communism? Communism means dictatorship, and that I think it can't be put together with anarchism, can it?
Then, how can you be a communist and when you should know how many people were killed by communists? Some months ago they said on the news that there are still some kind of concentration camps in China, ruled by the communists! Doesn't it makes you think?

Written by [user id=40767] on 25.04.2009 at 13:12

How can you put together anarchism and communism? Communism means dictatorship, and that I think it can't be put together with anarchism, can it?
Then, how can you be a communist and when you should know how many people were killed by communists? Some months ago they said on the news that there are still some kind of concentration camps in China, ruled by the communists! Doesn't it makes you think?

A communist country will have no State, therefore a dictatorship isn't possible. If you are talking about the way to acchive communism, yes there will be a dictatorship, the proletariat dictatorship, which will ensure that bourgeoisie can't take the power again (or do u think that they will leave the power without a fight?). I don't know how many people has "killed" communism but i assure u that is way less than those who capitalism has killed and will kill. Last u should believe all that the news say.

Ok, so if capitalism has killed, communism is allowed to do the same? Dont' think so!
Sorry but I dont get it: a communist country will be an anarchy??

Written by [user id=40767] on 25.04.2009 at 13:12

How can you put together anarchism and communism? Communism means dictatorship, and that I think it can't be put together with anarchism, can it?
Then, how can you be a communist and when you should know how many people were killed by communists? Some months ago they said on the news that there are still some kind of concentration camps in China, ruled by the communists! Doesn't it makes you think?

Buwwshite... concentration camps are in N-Korea, source of headache for a long time and that's a Kim family business run mafia state which has nothing to do with communism....

And if ye search for communism in China, we've got to disappoint you a bit since China is capitalist with authoritarian government....and well, that doesn't matter at all that we cannot, let's say, elect president....you can't elect your president in lots of parliamentary democracies, and even if you should vote every time for the ones you would like to see do something for the country, the same effing faces will remain in power....have a look at Italy with their Berlusconi...there's no way you move him from the place....
Therefore here people don't make a fuss bout the authoritarian government until they can run the country satisfactory and at the moment China's doing well : )

Communism, btw, seems a nice thing but I think it is impossible...the only satisfactory option is a strong state which can take care of its people, a fact is that lots of ultra-capitalist countries fail to handle the poverty of masses, especially those who wish to exercise the Milton Friedman style and attempt to sell everything that's possible and leave the poor people on their own..., the US, Russia...and yes, also China (as I already said, there's capitalism here....)...

Written by Fhuesc on 25.04.2009 at 20:37

Written by [user id=40767] on 25.04.2009 at 13:12

How can you put together anarchism and communism? Communism means dictatorship, and that I think it can't be put together with anarchism, can it?
Then, how can you be a communist and when you should know how many people were killed by communists? Some months ago they said on the news that there are still some kind of concentration camps in China, ruled by the communists! Doesn't it makes you think?

A communist country will have no State, therefore a dictatorship isn't possible. If you are talking about the way to acchive communism, yes there will be a dictatorship, the proletariat dictatorship, which will ensure that bourgeoisie can't take the power again (or do u think that they will leave the power without a fight?). I don't know how many people has "killed" communism but i assure u that is way less than those who capitalism has killed and will kill. Last u should believe all that the news say.

yea the common perception is that "communism = dictatorship" when in fact the notion of communism is simply that everyone is equal, which means that communism = anarchism... pretty simple to me

Probably I didn't study history correctly at school... Stalin seems to me a dictator... and a communist! Or am I wrong?
And what's the point in forming a communist country where even communists can't rule?

That's one of the incorrect things in communism - everyone is not equal, those on the top of the country's government are always better, so, in the end a communistic country surely will have a leader (dictator) though it's said that everyone is equal.
Oh, and communism can't be anarchism as well. In anarchy you don't need government and laws, so, that means you can't even have a communistic country with anarchy in it because there still will be government which would control you strictly.

Written by Ragana on 26.04.2009 at 20:14

That's one of the incorrect things in communism - everyone is not equal, those on the top of the country's government are always better, so, in the end a communistic country surely will have a leader (dictator) though it's said that everyone is equal.
Oh, and communism can't be anarchism as well. In anarchy you don't need government and laws, so, that means you can't even have a communistic country with anarchy in it because there still will be government which would control you strictly.

All right, that's what I wanted to say! I totally agree with you.

Written by Ragana on 26.04.2009 at 20:14

That's one of the incorrect things in communism - everyone is not equal, those on the top of the country's government are always better, so, in the end a communistic country surely will have a leader (dictator) though it's said that everyone is equal.
Oh, and communism can't be anarchism as well. In anarchy you don't need government and laws, so, that means you can't even have a communistic country with anarchy in it because there still will be government which would control you strictly.

Communism is not about creating a society where everyone is equal, is about creating a society where everyone has the same opportunities, rights and obligations, in simple words a more just society (also not the perfect society), where none will exploit others. Like a already said, a communist country is a STATELESS society, therefore there can't be dictators.

Now a question for u, in which way the our government leaders are superior to the rest? in the way the have more money? they're better looking persons? they could studied more? are owners of fields, mines, factories? in which way?

You are right about communism being diferent than anarchism. Anarchism is a step above communism. But remember that a communist country is a STATELESS society (just like anarchism) but there are still some rules and other stuff (principally on the ways of production).

I replaced that long text of yours with one word - "equal", just so you know.

They can actually rule over people, isn't that the best thing you can ever do? And that automatically makes you better than others - you have the power, the money (though in communistic country money is not the problem, I think) and in fact you can do whatever you want. I must say that also I don't think people in a communistic country want to live different, they are used to this system and they probably are satisfied with it, but overlooking that horror in the 20th century... there are many high and low points about communism itself.

And how about the censorship? Is that a good protection from happenings outside the country just to keep the thought that everything is all right in people's minds? Then again, if there wasn't a government, the censorship wouldn't exist.

Written by Ragana on 27.04.2009 at 01:56

I replaced that long text of yours with one word - "equal", just so you know.

If u cant understand the difference the between equal and just... : , then there's not much we can discuss.

Quote:

They can actually rule over people, isn't that the best thing you can ever do? And that automatically makes you better than others - you have the power, the money (though in communistic country money is not the problem, I think) and in fact you can do whatever you want

wow just wow, never in the time i've been here, i read a more reactionary argument. It's true leadership is a great quality, but in any way possible that makes you a better person, even in communism there will be leaders and followers, but teh realeshioship between these two will be completely different than from today. For the record, being a leader doesn't gives u the right to do whatever u want.

Quote:

I must say that also I don't think people in a communistic country want to live different, they are used to this system and they probably are satisfied with it

Communism will be only achievable when all the traces from this system are gone, that's why socialism comes first. Satisfied with what? work for more than 8 hours in one job and later go to another work, only to be able to survive, mean while the owner does absolutely nothing and goes to Paris every summer with his equally useless family? Name me one person that is satisfied with that.

Quote:

And how about the censorship? Is that a good protection from happenings outside the country just to keep the thought that everything is all right in people's minds? Then again, if there wasn't a government, the censorship wouldn't exist.

I don't fully understand what u wrote here, but if u are talking about the "censorship" in Cuba or the URSS, again none of those countries are/were communist, and in the case of Cuba, censorship to the bourgeois is necessary, cuz they will always lie, which can cause trouble to the revolution. Other thing is that u think that capitalistic governments always tell the truth and have no censorship at all? Name me 1 politician or party that holds the power that has once said that not everything is fine.

Written by [user id=40767] on 27.04.2009 at 00:14

Written by Ragana on 26.04.2009 at 20:14

That's one of the incorrect things in communism - everyone is not equal, those on the top of the country's government are always better, so, in the end a communistic country surely will have a leader (dictator) though it's said that everyone is equal.
Oh, and communism can't be anarchism as well. In anarchy you don't need government and laws, so, that means you can't even have a communistic country with anarchy in it because there still will be government which would control you strictly.

All right, that's what I wanted to say! I totally agree with you.

We are discussing the same thing over and over again, please people, read the past posts and the initial topic, so then you can argue or support something and avoid to say the same thing that other said in the past.

Now having a leader, a revolution leader doesn't mean that he/she is a dictator, it means that he/she is a person that has the enough experience, knowledge, support, and responsibility to lead the revolution and the proletarians freedom to the victory. This doesn't make him better than anyone, in fact no mater how much you want revolution, one alone cant do anything. Is the proletarians fighting together that build and win their freedom with blood, not the leaders.

Stalin, yes he was a dictator, but Stalin isn't communism, Stalin isn't every communist leader. There are great examples of revolutionary leaders, like Lenin, Ernesto Guevara, Tupac Amaru, Simon Bolivar, Salvador Allende. And I think that Fidel Castro is another one.

Ok, but if you're a leader you can't be like the others. It's normal that a leader is necessary for leading a revolution and as he/she is the leader, then is in some ways superior, because he has to lead, to rule. And even if he's not a dictator he's not equal to the others.
Oh, and if there's a leader how could anarchism be achieved?

Stalin was not communist...there has never been communism, this was a future idea disseminated by dictators who created totalitarian/authoritarian regimes which they incorrectly labelled "socialist/national democracies"....
Even tho there were some socialist traits in some countries such as "thick state" and state control over a lot of establishments, the socialist system itself was incomplete and there could never be any progress towards communism at all (as it was to be in ideal)....

In some cases tho, leftists and socialists did useful things....

Communists saved Italian democracy, if to say so....without the socialist regions in Italy the country would have been sunk even deeper into the mafia and corruption swamp under the aegis of organised crime and DC....
I have never been to Emiglia Romagna but I heard that this was the most socialist part of Italy and was clean of organised crime, had advanced infrastructure and developed fast, also, culture and spiritual life were mostly held in honour by socialists....and mostly hindered by others....there was STAGNATION in parts of Italy where socialists had no power....

I have studied Italian history in depth and my teacher was Italian, therefore I dare to say I have reliable sources to hold to even tho I ain't Italian myself....

And while seeing who would actually do something for the development of people and country, left-side policies tend to be more friendly....the Milton Friedman style of governing and economy most probably eventually leads to collapse.... there are completely real welfare states in Scandinavia where there is a strong socialist touch, the same socialist touch that China has now gradually started to add to the authoritarian capitalism in order to make the country more and more prosperous...

Written by Fhuesc on 27.04.2009 at 07:53

Written by Ragana on 27.04.2009 at 01:56

I replaced that long text of yours with one word - "equal", just so you know.

If u cant understand the difference the between equal and just... : , then there's not much we can discuss.

...and if you can't read, it is not my problem as well, right?

Quote:

Quote:

I must say that also I don't think people in a communistic country want to live different, they are used to this system and they probably are satisfied with it

Communism will be only achievable when all the traces from this system are gone, that's why socialism comes first. Satisfied with what? work for more than 8 hours in one job and later go to another work, only to be able to survive, mean while the owner does absolutely nothing and goes to Paris every summer with his equally useless family? Name me one person that is satisfied with that.

Pardon me, I thought we weren't talking about capitalistic country but communism... or socialism, if you like it better. Well then, say, when in Russia there was a time when it WASN'T a communistic country? People really don't know how is to live in other system unless they're rich enough to travel around.
And actually in the beginning the times were better - some people worked for 12 hours a day and some didn't work at all, but they get the same 'payment'. Work as much as you can and get as much as you need.

Quote:

Quote:

And how about the censorship? Is that a good protection from happenings outside the country just to keep the thought that everything is all right in people's minds? Then again, if there wasn't a government, the censorship wouldn't exist.

I don't fully understand what u wrote here, but if u are talking about the "censorship" in Cuba or the URSS, again none of those countries are/were communist, and in the case of Cuba, censorship to the bourgeois is necessary, cuz they will always lie, which can cause trouble to the revolution. Other thing is that u think that capitalistic governments always tell the truth and have no censorship at all? Name me 1 politician or party that holds the power that has once said that not everything is fine.

Nope, I didn't say I think all governments tell the truth - don't reverse my words, - but I do think that there is a lot more truth to be told in a country which is not communistic. Shit, if it is called a COMMUNISTIC country, then where did you get the argument that there is no communism? Maybe less, maybe more but there are ideas of communism and it exists.

Written by [user id=40767] on 27.04.2009 at 11:12

Ok, but if you're a leader you can't be like the others. It's normal that a leader is necessary for leading a revolution and as he/she is the leader, then is in some ways superior, because he has to lead, to rule. And even if he's not a dictator he's not equal to the others.
Oh, and if there's a leader how could anarchism be achieved?

Being a leader doesn't make you superior!!! why?? because when you are a leader isn't beacuse your super powers?? or how can you be superior??? being a leader only means a higher responsibility as a proletarian and as a human, its a responsibility with history. And this makes you no better than another, cuz everyone as a proletarian has the same responsibility. What is the difference?? well, proletarians are a collective, leader is a normal person, just he/she has enough experience, in theory and in praxis. And he has the support of the proletarian class to lead the revolution.

Now, this is a leader for the revolution, when socialism is achieved, he/she doesnt have the total command of the country, in socialism, later communism, the ones that rule over the country are the proletarians, the collective. How?? well it depends of the structure, in a leninist structure people that lives in a same geographic zone or works in the same place,etc. gather to discuss their problems, and ways to work, and how to solve them, then they seIect a Representant (seIected by democracy, real one). And the state is made of this representants. Later in Communism this state tends to disappear.

How this will lead to Anarchy, well when the people has so high class conscience, that there is no need to be a state, because everyone works and lives the way they want and the way they need, and for the needs of the society.

Written by Ragana on 27.04.2009 at 19:30

...and if you can't read, it is not my problem as well, right?

Didn't u said that "same opportunities, rights and obligations" is the same as being "equal"? if not, please tell what u really meant.

Quote:

People really don't know how is to live in other system unless they're rich enough to travel around.

Do u really think the system is different from Latvia to France or Mexico?

Quote:

And actually in the beginning the times were better - some people worked for 12 hours a day and some didn't work at all, but they get the same 'payment'. Work as much as you can and get as much as you need.

Again the argument that in communism only 1 persons is gonna work and the rest will be a bunch of lazy bastards, for your information this isn't communism, even further, this is exactly what capitalism is.

Quote:

Nope, I didn't say I think all governments tell the truth - don't reverse my words, - but I do think that there is a lot more truth to be told in a country which is not communistic.

I think some examples here are needed to prove my point about censorship being worse in capitalism. Do u know who killed kennedy? do u know how much money is spent every year in the Latvian army? do u know how many political prisoners were killed in south America during the USA dictatorships?, i could go on and on, censorship in capitalism is huge. Returnig to communism, in communism there will be no need of state censorship, first cuz there will no state, second conscience will be so develop that it wont be necessary.

Quote:

Shit, if it is called a COMMUNISTIC country, then where did you get the argument that there is no communism? Maybe less, maybe more but there are ideas of communism and it exists.

oh really!? according to who, cuba/urss/vietnam/laos are/were communist?. Lady with all the respect, u need to read more and trust less in bullshit. In most cases the ruling party on those countries is/was a communist party, but that doesn't automatically makes the country communist.

BTW communism isn't the same as socialism.

Written by Fhuesc on 27.04.2009 at 23:15

Didn't u said that "same opportunities, rights and obligations" is the same as being "equal"? if not, please tell what u really meant.

Mhh... I just replaced these things with one word. Being equal surely includes a lot more things, but those three could be few of them.

Written by Fhuesc on 27.04.2009 at 23:15

Do u really think the system is different from Latvia to France or Mexico?

Yeah, it could be so although to be honest I don't really care how it is in France of Mexico.

Written by Fhuesc on 27.04.2009 at 23:15

Again the argument that in communism only 1 persons is gonna work and the rest will be a bunch of lazy bastards, for your information this isn't communism, even further, this is exactly what capitalism is.

Have you ever heard about Karl Marx? The idea of Marxism was great although in the end it turned into communism, but people always know how to get through the 'laws' without any harm. And I'm not even saying that one person is working and the rest - isn't, but the possibility that a lot of people really are lazy bums is pretty big. Well, and then it's not fair to those who are working hard.

Written by Fhuesc on 27.04.2009 at 23:15
do u know how much money is spent every year in the Latvian army?

It would be interesting to know. I was talking about that kind of censorship which is about the information OUTSIDE of the country, not inside. The government can easily provoke the citizens against some other country by saying that this country is saying/doing bad things although maybe it's not true. (since my English knowledge is pretty poor, I can't show you more serious example but only this)

Written by Fhuesc on 27.04.2009 at 23:15

BTW communism isn't the same as socialism.

Yeah, communism is a lot worse than that.

Quote:

Written by Ragana on 28.04.2009 at 01:25

Have you ever heard about Karl Marx? The idea of Marxism was great although in the end it turned into communism, but people always know how to get through the 'laws' without any harm. And I'm not even saying that one person is working and the rest - isn't, but the possibility that a lot of people really are lazy bums is pretty big. Well, and then it's not fair to those who are working hard.

ROFLMAO!!! How can you say that the idea of Marxism was great, and then it turned into communism..... Have you ever READ Karl Marx???

Cuz i dont know but i think that he wrote the communist manifesto Marxism is the theory that builds a communist system. So Marxism didnt ended in communism, Marxism always has being the fundamental communist theory.

Written by Ragana on 28.04.2009 at 01:25

Mhh... I just replaced these things with one word. Being equal surely includes a lot more things, but those three could be few of them.

Glad to know that you know there's a difference between being equal and being just, i was starting to worry.

Quote:

Yeah, it could be so although to be honest I don't really care how it is in France of Mexico.

Sorry to tell u that u are wrong, the system is the same, capitalism, i think that u have a confusion between systems and customs. Obviously customs are different, between regions, but the system dont.

Quote:

Have you ever heard about Karl Marx? The idea of Marxism was great although in the end it turned into communism, but people always know how to get through the 'laws' without any harm. And I'm not even saying that one person is working and the rest - isn't, but the possibility that a lot of people really are lazy bums is pretty big.

Uller already said this but Marxism = Communism since its beginnings. And i been trying to explain u that in communism there will be no lazy bums, not cuz a fairy came and turn everyone into a responsible person, no this is the way of thinking of the anarchists, it will be thanks to the hard work of the proletarians to develop consciousness in every single person on the planet (that's why i insist that communism is hundred years away from us).

Quote:

Well, and then it's not fair to those who are working hard.

Let's return to the owner/worker (bourgeois/proletariat), the worker will work for the owner, and for his labor force spent teh owner will pay him/her some money (salary, wage), but this money is only the amount needed so the worker can return to work tomorrow, nothing more!, and teh rest of the work (merchandise) will be property of the owner to sell it, from which he/she will earn several times more the amount of money that he/she gave to his/her workers. A practical example, a car builder can pay his wage in only 1 minute of work, the rest of the time, the worker will work for free, if he/she works for 8 hours, the owner will be stealing 7:59 hours for the worker.

Quote:

I was talking about that kind of censorship which is about the information OUTSIDE of the country, not inside. The government can easily provoke the citizens against some other country by saying that this country is saying/doing bad things although maybe it's not true. (since my English knowledge is pretty poor, I can't show you more serious example but only this)

What those this have to do with communism?

Quote:

Yeah, communism is a lot worse than that.

Worse in which way?

Written by Uller on 27.04.2009 at 22:39

Written by [user id=40767] on 27.04.2009 at 11:12

Ok, but if you're a leader you can't be like the others. It's normal that a leader is necessary for leading a revolution and as he/she is the leader, then is in some ways superior, because he has to lead, to rule. And even if he's not a dictator he's not equal to the others.
Oh, and if there's a leader how could anarchism be achieved?

Being a leader doesn't make you superior!!! why?? because when you are a leader isn't beacuse your super powers?? or how can you be superior??? being a leader only means a higher responsibility as a proletarian and as a human, its a responsibility with history. And this makes you no better than another, cuz everyone as a proletarian has the same responsibility. What is the difference?? well, proletarians are a collective, leader is a normal person, just he/she has enough experience, in theory and in praxis. And he has the support of the proletarian class to lead the revolution.

Now, this is a leader for the revolution, when socialism is achieved, he/she doesnt have the total command of the country, in socialism, later communism, the ones that rule over the country are the proletarians, the collective. How?? well it depends of the structure, in a leninist structure people that lives in a same geographic zone or works in the same place,etc. gather to discuss their problems, and ways to work, and how to solve them, then they seIect a Representant (seIected by democracy, real one). And the state is made of this representants. Later in Communism this state tends to disappear.

How this will lead to Anarchy, well when the people has so high class conscience, that there is no need to be a state, because everyone works and lives the way they want and the way they need, and for the needs of the society.

Yes, and they lived happy ever after...
Anyway, there must be a leader, someone who takes decision. A group of millions of people can't always agree on all subjects of the world, can they??
Without someone who rules, people will start to do whatever they want, they will start to disregard the rules of this utopistic society and there will be nobody to punish them, and the society will ruin itself!

Written by Ragana on 28.04.2009 at 01:25

Yeah, communism is a lot worse than that.

How can you say that if you haven't lived in a communist society? To be honest, nobody ever has....there has NEVER ever been such thing as communism...this should not be that easy to miss of a fact....