well once more to be a stickler for accuracy, finland is not socialist either. Socialism is where you are working towards communism, the Finns, like all other european countries, are comitted capitalists.

Written by [user id=16314] on 20.09.2006 at 03:21

Written by [user id=16496] on 19.09.2006 at 14:35

Good post, you explain communism well...

Frost Bitten, Sweden is not socialist. they just have a good social security system like Denmark where i live in.

Sweden is a nice place, but it's true that Finland is the best example of successful socialism in the world today. This is because of a few qualifications.

1. The society has a high standard of honor. It's not wise, but in many parts of Finland you could leave a wallet hanging around out of your sight, and it's likely not to be touched. Of course this is a bit of stretch, but it's something quite a few Suomealaiset believe is true.

2. The country has a smaller population and surface area. Finland is the best example of a modern country minimizing it's needs. People can be much more easily provided for in Finland than say France. This isn't realistic for many countries, but if a country has fewer needs, it's easier to meet those needs.

3. The education is phoenomenal. One of the key components to successful socialism/communism is education. Finland does a great job of this from primary education to university eduction.

Just because they have a nice country in compared to other countries and the poeple are nice dosent it mean it is socialistic .
A country is socialistic if the workers owns the means of production. And in finlands case the workers dont. Ergo not socialistic.
Finland has a liberal economy but still they take care of the weakest in their counrty.

HelplessHysteria try look at these links
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#_note-0

People who say communism doesnt work, does capitalism work? We have lived in capitalism for as long as we've had civilisationa nd there is still disease, poverty, crime, injustice, corruption etc! So clearly capitalism is not the answer tot he world's problems either.

Aside, anracho-capialism is probably worse than facism IMO.

I did not want to post my new topic on Anatoliy Golitsyn and "The truth behind Perestroika" on this forum, because the "former" soviet regime and China are not true Communist countries. They use(d) communism to gain and maintain global domination. PLEASE, if you are interested in this topic, read what it is about and post your opinion on the matter. It's a fun topic to research as well, if you know nothing about it. Have fun.

uh, ok. I don't know how you figure the soviets used communism to gain world domination, seeing as communism basically means not having domination over anything... They used a very flawed workers state model to defend themselves from american agression. But this is not the place to debate that.


And revenant: Anarcho-capitalism is fascism really. Mussolini, the original fascist leader, described fascism as the point where the lines between corporate and state power cease to exist. Where government is for sale to the highest bidders, the rich are able to buy court cases and nobody is accountable. It sounds pretty damned familiar to me, it's the system we live in now. Admittedly there is the occasional big furore over some politician being villified for bribery or a billionaire going to prison, but that's just the tip of the corrupt and rotting ice-cube. For every offence against the proletariat accused and prosecuted, a thousand worse ones are comitted.

The dictatorship of the former Soviet Union used the excuse of communism, in order to brainwash the proletariat and achieve domination. This is still the ongoing plan. I wasn't trying to say they WERE communists...but that's what they refer to themselves as.

after an interesting PM conversation, Konrad and i sorted this point out. Any other questions, comments, clarifications, challenges to the leftist position?

Written by Konrad on 29.09.2006 at 19:07

The dictatorship of the former Soviet Union used the excuse of communism, in order to brainwash the proletariat and achieve domination. This is still the ongoing plan. I wasn't trying to say they WERE communists...but that's what they refer to themselves as.

i agree... but what do you mean by it is still the ongoing plan?

put simply he believes that the collapse of the soviet union was a big hoax, and that the old Party still rules the current figures from behind the scenes. All of the former Warsaw Pact countries and China are also apparently involved, and will soon use their position of trust to take over somehow.

Before blasting it as a conspiracy theory from a crazy-man, as it first appears to be, talk to him about it, or i could forward you our PM conversation on the topic. It's a pretty well-thought-out and substantiated theory, even if it is a bit too far out for me to believe.

That just about sums it up...thank you for not making me sound completely insane

Another quick question for Comrade Frosty or anyone else who wants to answer. Why does China need so much military. I checked the CIA factbook and it said they had almost 300,000,000 soldiers. That's fucking insane for a country who isn't planning to do anything!

It would be better to use the name Marxism instead of Communism, Communism sounds negative and is often combined with Sovjet. Capitalism is also a bad term liberalism or neoliberlism are better descriptions of the westeuropean economical state. Socialliberalism is more widespread than communism and is the "socialism" seen in the West. I think communism is a nonworking system, because a stateless, community wouldn't work, the way of shared economics will make the economy collapse. The state wouldnät "slowly disapear" the greed of man makes the leaders keep their power.

It's all semantics...

can we refer to russo-chino-cuban state socialism as "Sovietism" from now on? It makes it all so much more accurate. And why do china need such a huge force? To defend themselves from american agression, as well as to enforce their interests, policies and wishes on the world in general. Besides, it is a wonderful mechanism for employing such vast quantities of people, who can then be used to do tasks such as aiding crop harvests, logistical support, etc. In the current world order, a powerful or at the very least proven military is a vital component of diplomatic power. To use the old adage "diplomacy is an iron fist in a velvet glove", to gain the respect needed to be a leading world power as befits the chinese; they need to let everyone know that the fist in their glove is not only big, but made out of triple-forged ultra-high-carbon steel.

Destryphior, care to elaborate why you don't think a non-state system can exist?

I think the state would fade away, because the idea of a workers' collective "state" as espoused in the socialist period of marxism would be very different indeed from a modern nation state in the traditional form. It would be much more along the lines of a participative democracy, with the decisions of the accountable delegative body enforced voluntarily by the population in general. This model of "governance" could and would fade away very effectively. People would take initiative for their actions, and the decision-making body would be relegated to solving disputes, and facilitating cooperation. Not very many leftists believe that there would be absolutely no coordination, but no power would be centralized.

Well, people are diffrent, this affects their behaviour in such a way that some people get a more leading, position, some people like others doing the leading, this little community of leaders will get it's own leader, and we're back with the same ol' state. Pepole with ideas wouldn't be able to fulfill their inventions, the community wouldn't evolve. The education rate would fall and society would therefore decivilize. Sovietism isn't a good description either, socialism is the most matching.

I don't see how you think socialism fits the soviet regimes? These were repressive regimes in which democracy featured only as a farce to be played every now and then. Socialism in the contemporary (ie: wrong, but commonly used) sense means a form of state capitalism in which the state is controlled by the population. This was very far from the soviet system, because the in that system democracy was not really free.

And i don't see how some people being natural leaders would put them in charge. Sure, people may follow their decisions, but 1) there would be no structure with which to extend their control over the proletariat as a whole, 2) they would have NO official power, their position as a leader would be strictly based around their ideas and those of their comrades. 3) any emerging powers would be quickly neutralised by the population in general, who would have learned the dangers of statism.

I can't see any logical reason why education would be stifled? People would feel no need to leave school at 16 and get a job, people would feel no need to learn a profession in university that didn't interest them but they wanted the status/wealth associated with it, and all education would be free and equal. Do you have any reasons for that claim?

Why would people with ideas not be able to fulfil their inventions?

Alot of people in my family are communist so, i cant say i have anything against them.

But i do have something against people that have something against communism, then i mean like the Italian police, they hit my grandmother several times so she lost her baby. That is just unexseptable, if some people choose to have this kind of life style then they may. Without the police being any part of it.

I hope this comment didnt offend anyone.

no darky, it's the truth. Communists are persecuted all over the world, depending on how much the local bourgeiosie can get away with. Make no mistake that if they could possibly escape a vicious public reaction, they would wipe out every last commie. As the anarchists are so fond of saying, F*ck The Police! (and all other forms of authority).

Well socialism is not actually a form of capitalism or what you propably ment liberalism, that's socialliberalism that is widly spread in Western Europe.
Education, all the jobs would have the same wages, no point in educating, there'll be alot of low educated people= no development. Well we've all seen the good thing with the ideas of our comrades, we don't share 'em. Basicly it could work, but if there's 6 billion people in the world there would be 6 billion opinions of what would be the best. Everyone working for their own good. The noncommunist what would be done with them? Would they be executed or just mystically disapear? The danger of statism will be forgotten, people attend to group up with equally thinkers and form parties. A leader will be sought, war started and it would end with nations seperating from the mass. And whola! we're back to where we started.

Governments is still a relatively fresh idea. If people lived without them for such a long time, then why is it so certain that they would recreate them after their abolishment?

indeed skald. Destryphior; i don't see where socialism came into what i assume you referred to: sovietism. How can you call sovietism socialism? They may have called themselves socialist, but they were just plain wrong.

And your impression that education would suffer is borne out of looking at the concept whilst retaining your capitalist prejudices. Right now someone goes to school because they want a good job later on in life. They go to university so that they can earn more than their fellows. But what if we didn't have to? I would study german after school, instead of including law as i intend to. So many people would be so much happier, learning what interests them. The syllabi would not be limited to such narrow subjects as we have today, because learning would have an utterly different purpose. OK, i will admit that less people will be able to do quadratic equations, and maybe fewer will spend hours in hot stuffy classrooms reading Shakespeare, Goethe or Leino; but they will have the opportunity to enjoy watching them performed and recited, unlike today. The emphasis of education will be on creating a person with a sense of social responsibility and productivity, as opposed to creating a willing wage-slave as it is today.

Your argument agaisnt innovation is senseless. Do you think that just because people are not spending ten hours per day operating monotonous machines that they will suddenly get stupider? That their ideas will get less innovative? The reverse is true.

The opinions of six billion will not be relevant, as societies will, in all probability, be organized on smaller levels.

The dangers of statism would not be forgotten, just as the dangers of feudalism are not forgotten today. Just because people will be more liberated, they will not suddenly stop studying history. Also, the wealth of records, data and information produced and preserved in modern times is utterly unprecedented. It would be almost impossible for people not to come across it, and thus they would not forget it.

The non-commies. There's the tough question and there are different answers depending on what you judge to be a non-commie, when you are judging them, and who you are asking. Personally i hold to the orthodox marxist idea that the revolution will be the mass workers movement of a self-emancipated proletariat. Most of the bourgeiosie will see the inevitability of the revolution and submit to the new world order, but those who do not cannot be tolerated. Counter-revolutionary activity at the start of the revolution must and will be stamped out by workers militias. But those who fight the revolution will be the tiniest minority: Less than half of the already-miniscule bourgeoisie.

The quick answer to your question is that by the time the revolution comes there won't be such a thing as "communists and non-communists", it will be "proletarians, docile capitalists (as in the owners of capital, not those who follow the economic theory) and active capitalists". To be perfectly honest, if all the capitalists were to die tomorow (a man can dream, can't he?) i doubt too many people would notice, except for the fact that we would be leaderless (yay), and all the revenue from our exploitation wouldn't be wasted on the fruits of others' exploitation.

Skald: Governments are not a "relatively fresh" idea. It dates back to times ancient, and is the automatic consequence of societies growing into full-fledged nations and empires. Which is why you can't just abolish them. You'd have to completely undo the last two millennia or so of globalization. No way this would ever work.

Frosty, I wonder whether Marx's notions of a united proletariat are feasible anymore. Back in the 19th century, when industrialization had just started to kick in, there were just factory owners (capitalists / "bourgeois") and their poor, often exploited employees (proletarians). Today I think the situation is vastly different. Take an engineer or scientist with a university degree that works for some company. By definition, he would be a proletarian (because he does not own the means of production, but sells his workforce to those who do). However, he'd most likely disagree with being called one, and you could hardly liken his situation to those of the "working poor" of Marx's time - or of today, for that matter. Though technically not a bourgeois, his education and income set him apart from the "real" proletariat. And I don't see many of them support, or submit to, a proletarian revolution.

Written by [user id=4184] on 08.10.2006 at 12:46

Skald: Governments are not a "relatively fresh" idea. It dates back to times ancient, and is the automatic consequence of societies growing into full-fledged nations and empires. Which is why you can't just abolish them. You'd have to completely undo the last two millennia or so of globalization. No way this would ever work.

Wrong. Take a look at Africa - the place where the history of humanity started. Over 200 thousand years ago. That's 200-250 thousand of years living within anarchistic communities all the way until Europeans started showing up in there.
Governments were established in ancient times, that's true. But humanity goes far into prehistoric times, so it's still a relatively fresh idea.

How do you know the old African societies were anarchistic? I'm pretty positive they had some sort of tribes led by chieftains.

Written by [user id=4184] on 08.10.2006 at 19:12

How do you know the old African societies were anarchistic? I'm pretty positive they had some sort of tribes led by chieftains.

They were (and in many places still are) formed in tribes (communities), on top of which stood elders, who however didn't "lead" them as we know it. Elders were more of spiritual guides, who kept the communities together and provided advices on many aspects of community's life. They didn't however have any power over anyone else. The only reason why they were looked up to was their wisdom.

Check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_anarchism (along with external links)

Even so, that was then, and today is now. Our living conditions have changed fundamentally. So this worked for African tribes in the early days of humanity. Okay, but that certainly does not imply it would work today. Don't think you can just rewind history by a few thousand years. Back then, living was simple, and every tribe could support itself with everything it needed. Today, that would be impossible - unless maybe everyone agrees to go back to the Stone Age, which is so not going to happen.

Written by [user id=4184] on 08.10.2006 at 12:46

Skald: Governments are not a "relatively fresh" idea. It dates back to times ancient, and is the automatic consequence of societies growing into full-fledged nations and empires. Which is why you can't just abolish them. You'd have to completely undo the last two millennia or so of globalization. No way this would ever work.

As much as Goverments as we know them to day is a automatic consequence of humans is the abolishment of them. Marxes theori is that Just as Fedualism was abolished and followed by Capitalism will capitalism (goverments) be followed by communism(no goverments) as an natuaral reaction

Written by [user id=4184] on 08.10.2006 at 21:51

Even so, that was then, and today is now. Our living conditions have changed fundamentally. So this worked for African tribes in the early days of humanity. Okay, but that certainly does not imply it would work today. Don't think you can just rewind history by a few thousand years. Back then, living was simple, and every tribe could support itself with everything it needed. Today, that would be impossible - unless maybe everyone agrees to go back to the Stone Age, which is so not going to happen.

I only gave African example to show that human mentality doesn't always lead to forming of governments and it isn't really all that natural for us.
Anyway, apparently you didn't read all those resources. African tribes didn't have everything they needed. But they specialised in certain fields and as communities traded their surplus of goods for something they didn't have. This could be applied today too.

Now what I find really silly is that you believe a race, which has the ability to clone various animals, fly into outter space and deals with quantum physics would find no smarter solution to create communist world order than to go back to the stone age.
If we wanted, we would come up with a much better solution. If you think otherwise, then you're already putting us in the stone age. Human mentality is the only barier that stops us from creating a communistic world order. Whether it will change in the future - that we don't know.

Dragonheart raises a very valid point: The Middle Class Professional Illusion.

Dragonheart, you are right when you say that there was a much clearer division in marxian times between worker and exploiter. But then in marxian times there was also a clear division between bourgeois exploiter and aristocratic ruler.

Today the bourgeiosie have shrunk to tiny proportions, and in their place have grown the professional classes. That may suggest that the cycle will go on with the professionals going on to rule, but it doesnt take into account that professionals are getting poorer and poorer. That isn't to say that their salary is going down, or even that the gap between them and the workers is closing, but the gap between the professional class and the bourgeiosie is widening much faster.

The artificial boosting of the income levels of the proletariat in developed capitalist countries from about 1850 onwards was due mainly to the imperialist practices abroad. The corporations paid their british workers very well, to keep them happy at home, while they could treat their colonial workers as slaves and use the army to keep them in order. That is a very useful temporary solution, but it cannot last for more than a few centuries at the most. When imperialism is replaced by the dominance of globalized multinationals, the distinction between proletariats will become pointless. Then the developed countries' proletarians will lose their advantage over those in undeveloped nations.

That, too will be a good temporary solution, but what then? The professional classes will be the next to suffer. A corporation will not pay huge sums for a job that is in much greater supply with the rise of higher education. About 40% of 18-year-olds in developed countries (europe, at least) go to university. About half of them will become professionals, and the supply will exceed demand. So, the corporations will not need to overinflate their wage, and the professional classes will disappear.


What then? At that point, we have a pretty clearly defined proletariat (albeit with a range of incomes, the definition comes by virtue of the gulf between it and the bourgeiosie), and a tiny, nepotistic (to an extent) bourgeiosie. The bourgeiosie will, as they have since marx's time; as he predicted, continue to grow fewer and more powerful, until the system reaches a point where the proletariat can no longer be distracted from the unfairness. What happens then is unknown.

While the scenario you describe seems somewhat possible for me, I want to point out that the bourgeois are not stupid. They are not going to risk a situation where everyone else is ready to clobber them. The masses are, by nature, not revolutionary minded. As long as they are not dying from hunger (as in the case of the French Revolution), they're not going to take violent action against the very system they live in. The ancient Roman administrators knew this already; they used "bread and circuses" to keep their citizens satisfied. It's that simple.

@Skald: The ones that have "the ability to clone various animals, fly into outer space and deal with quantum physics" are in general not the same persons that seek a proletarian revolution, and would probably end up being eliminated for being non-communist, according to Frosty. I can't picture farmers and factory workers running the world - and I can't picture those who could run the world siding with them.